[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 166 (Friday, August 26, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 59046-59119]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-20352]
[[Page 59045]]
Vol. 81
Friday,
No. 166
August 26, 2016
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 Sierra Nevada Yellow-Legged Frog, the Northern DPS of
the Mountain Yellow-Legged Frog, and the Yosemite Toad; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 81 , No. 166 / Friday, August 26, 2016 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 59046]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2012-0074; 4500030113]
RIN 1018-AY07
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of
Critical Habitat for the Sierra Nevada Yellow-Legged Frog, the Northern
DPS of the Mountain Yellow-Legged Frog, and the Yosemite Toad
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), designate
critical habitat for the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog (Rana
sierrae), the northern distinct population segment (DPS) of the
mountain yellow-legged frog (Rana muscosa), and the Yosemite toad
(Anaxyrus canorus) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended
(Act). There is significant overlap in the critical habitat
designations for these three species. The designated area, taking into
account overlap in the critical habitat designations for these three
species, is in total approximately 733,357 hectares (ha) (1,812,164
acres (ac)) in Alpine, Amador, Calaveras, El Dorado, Fresno, Inyo,
Lassen, Madera, Mariposa, Mono, Nevada, Placer, Plumas, Sierra, Tulare,
and Tuolumne Counties, California. All critical habitat units and
subunits are occupied by the respective species. The effect of this
rule is to designate critical habitat under the Act for the
conservation of the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog, the northern DPS
of the mountain yellow-legged frog, and the Yosemite toad.
DATES: This rule is effective September 26, 2016.
ADDRESSES: This final rule is available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov and http://www.fws.gov/sacramento. Comments and
materials we received, as well as supporting documentation we used in
preparing this final rule, are available for public inspection at
http://www.regulations.gov. All of the comments, materials, and
documentation that we considered in this rulemaking are available by
appointment, during normal business hours, at: U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, 2800 Cottage Way, W-2605,
Sacramento CA 95825; telephone 916-414-6600; facsimile 916-414-6612.
The coordinates or plot points or both from which the maps are
generated are included in the administrative record for this critical
habitat designation and are available at http://www.regulations.gov at
Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2012-0074, and at the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife
Office (http://www.fws.gov/sacramento; see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT, below). Any additional tools or supporting information that we
developed for this critical habitat designation will also be available
at the Fish and Wildlife Service Web site and Field Office set out
above, and may also be included in the preamble of this rule and at
http://www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Norris, Field Supervisor,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office,
2800 Cottage Way, W-2605, Sacramento CA 95825; telephone 916-414-6700;
facsimile 916-414-6612. If you use a telecommunications device for the
deaf (TDD), call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-
877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
Why we need to publish a rule. This is a final rule to designate
critical habitat for the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog, the northern
DPS of the mountain yellow-legged frog, and the Yosemite toad. Under
the Endangered Species Act, any species that is determined to be an
endangered or threatened species requires critical habitat to be
designated, to the maximum extent prudent and determinable.
Designations and revisions of critical habitat can only be completed by
issuing a rule.
We listed the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog and the northern DPS
of the mountain yellow-legged frog as endangered species, and the
Yosemite toad as a threatened species, on April 29, 2014 (79 FR 24256).
On April 25, 2013, we published in the Federal Register a proposed
critical habitat designation for the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog,
the northern DPS of the mountain yellow-legged frog, and the Yosemite
toad (78 FR 24516). Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the
Secretary shall designate critical habitat on the basis of the best
available scientific data after taking into consideration the economic
impact, national security impact, and any other relevant impact of
specifying any particular area as critical habitat.
The critical habitat areas we are designating in this rule
constitute our current best assessment of the areas that meet the
definition of critical habitat for the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged
frog, the northern DPS of the mountain yellow-legged frog, and the
Yosemite toad. Here we are designating:
Approximately 437,929 ha (1,082,147 ac) for the Sierra
Nevada yellow-legged frog in Plumas, Lassen, Sierra, Nevada, Placer, El
Dorado, Amador, Calaveras, Alpine, Mariposa, Mono, Madera, Tuolumne,
Fresno, and Inyo Counties, California;
Approximately 89,637 hectares (221,498 acres) for the
northern DPS of the mountain yellow-legged frog in Fresno, Inyo and
Tulare Counties, California; and
Approximately 303,889 hectares (750,926 acres) for the
Yosemite toad in Alpine, Tuolumne, Mono, Mariposa, Madera, Fresno, and
Inyo Counties, California.
This rule is a final rule designating critical habitat for the
Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog, the northern DPS of the mountain
yellow-legged frog, and the Yosemite toad. This rule designates
critical habitat necessary for the conservation of these listed
species.
We have prepared an economic analysis of the designation of
critical habitat. In order to consider economic impacts, we have
prepared an analysis of the economic impacts of the critical habitat
designations and related factors. We announced the availability of the
draft economic analysis (DEA) in the Federal Register on January 10,
2014 (79 FR 1805), allowing the public to provide comments on our DEA.
We have incorporated the comments and have completed the final economic
analysis (FEA) concurrently with this final determination.
Peer review and public comment. We formally sought comments from
five independent specialists to ensure that our designations are based
on scientifically sound data and analyses. We obtained opinions from
three knowledgeable individuals with scientific expertise to review our
technical assumptions and analysis, and whether or not we had used the
best available information. These peer reviewers generally concurred
with our methods and conclusions, and provided additional information,
clarifications, and suggestions to improve this final rule. Information
we received from peer review is incorporated in these final
designations. We also considered all comments and information we
received from the public during the comment periods.
[[Page 59047]]
Previous Federal Actions
Please refer to the proposed listing rule for the Sierra Nevada
yellow-legged frog, the northern DPS of the mountain yellow-legged
frog, and the Yosemite toad (78 FR 24472, April 25, 2013) for a
detailed description of previous Federal actions concerning these
species.
Summary of Comments and Recommendations
We requested written comments from the public on the proposed
designation of critical habitat for the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged
frog, the northern DPS of the mountain yellow-legged frog, and the
Yosemite toad during three comment periods. The first comment period
associated with the publication of the proposed designation (78 FR
24516) opened on April 25, 2013, and closed on June 24, 2013. A second
comment period opened on July 19, 2013, and closed on November 18, 2013
(78 FR 43122). We also requested comments on the proposed critical
habitat designation and associated draft economic analysis (DEA) during
a third comment period that opened on January 10, 2014, and closed on
March 11, 2014 (79 FR 1805). We received requests for public hearings,
and two were held in Sacramento, California, on January 30, 2014. We
also held two public informational meetings, one in Bridgeport,
California, on January 8, 2014, and the other in Fresno, California, on
January 13, 2014. We also participated in several public forums, one
sponsored by Congressman McClintock and two sponsored by Congressman
LaMalfa. We also contacted appropriate Federal, State, and local
agencies; scientific organizations; and other interested parties and
invited them to comment on the proposed rule and DEA during these
comment periods.
During the first comment period, we received six comment letters
directly addressing the proposed critical habitat designation. During
the second comment period, we received 545 comment letters addressing
the proposed critical habitat designation or DEA. During the third
comment period, we received 221 comment letters addressing the proposed
critical habitat designation or DEA. During the January 30, 2014,
public hearings, 21 individuals or organizations made comments on the
designation of critical habitat for the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged
frog, the northern DPS of the mountain yellow-legged frog, and the
Yosemite toad.
All substantive information provided during the comment periods has
either been incorporated directly into this final determination or is
addressed below. Comments we received are either directly answered, or
are sometimes grouped into general issues specifically relating to the
proposed critical habitat designation for the Sierra Nevada yellow-
legged frog, the northern DPS of the mountain yellow-legged frog, and
the Yosemite toad, and are addressed in the following summary and
incorporated into the final rule as appropriate.
Comments From Federal Agencies
We received comments from three Federal agencies regarding the
proposed critical habitat designations for the Sierra Nevada yellow-
legged frog, the northern DPS of the mountain yellow-legged frog, and
the Yosemite toad. Comments we received are addressed below.
(1) Comment: The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) suggested removal of
certain areas from the proposed critical habitat in the Inyo National
Forest for Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog due to local extirpation,
and the removal of Echo Lakes from subunit 2E due to high recreational
use and conflicts with Lahontan cutthroat trout introductions.
Our Response: We do not agree that populations are extirpated in
these areas of Inyo National Forest, and we are therefore not removing
these areas from critical habitat. Our records indicate that the
populations in these areas remain extant, based on the criteria we used
to determine occupancy. These criteria require three consecutive zero-
count visual-encounter surveys of the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog
to confirm extirpation using post-1995 frog survey records. With regard
to critical habitat exclusions, we have evaluated the requests from
USFS and many others (see Comments from States and Public Comments,
below), and have reconsidered the inclusion of a limited number of
developed reservoirs from our final critical habitat designation. As a
result of this reconsideration, Echo Lakes (Upper and Lower) are not
included in this final critical habitat designation. A list of other
reservoirs affected by our reconsideration, and our associated
rationale and criteria used to derive this list, are explained below
(see Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat, below).
(2) Comment: USFS requested a mix of critical habitat additions for
the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog and Yosemite toad in certain
areas, and they commented that we did not propose critical habitat to
provide connectivity between occupied habitat subunits. Specific areas
recommended for expansion of Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog critical
habitat included: Hellhole Meadow in the Lake Tahoe Basin Management
Unit; Bourland Meadow, Moore Creek, and Skull Creek in the Stanislaus
National Forest; Middle Creek in the El Dorado National Forest;
additions to areas in the Plumas National Forest, including subunit 1D,
subunit 1B, and areas to merge subunit 1B and 1C across extant
localities and to increase connectivity and protect newly discovered
localities in subunit 2A; and the Witcher Meadow/Birch Creek area to
provide a source for frog translocations into Rock Creek drainage and
Eastern Brook Lakes in the Inyo National Forest. USFS also asked about
the potential for future critical habitat additions.
Our Response: We concur that our proposed designation of critical
habitat did not include broad-scale connectivity across subunits.
However, in many areas of high-quality habitat, we are designating
large areas that do allow connectivity between likely metapopulations
as well as some areas for dispersal of individuals to recolonize
historical habitat should management result in positive population
trends. We acknowledge that for genetic clades with greater numbers of
extant populations, we did not include every Sierra Nevada yellow-
legged frog locality. However, designation as critical habitat is not a
prerequisite for future conservation actions (such as those through a
conservation strategy and recovery plan) implemented by the agencies
with appropriate jurisdiction. Currently, we are working with USFS and
the National Park Service (NPS) on the development of a conservation
strategy that can help guide conservation actions until the completion
of a recovery plan for Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog and Yosemite
toad. We agree that these areas are important habitat to consider
during development of these plans and will be factored into the
conservation of Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog and Yosemite toad. We
are optimistic that our positive collaborative partnership with USFS
and NPS will continue in the future. Additional critical habitat would
only be designated under a revision of the current critical habitat
rule, which we do not currently envision.
(3) Comment: USFS and others commented that our database was
lacking records for all occurrences or that, in some cases, populations
that we considered extant were actually extirpated.
[[Page 59048]]
Our Response: As discussed in the occurrence criteria, we used
available location data from multiple sources for frog localities seen
in surveys since 1995 (that have not been confirmed to be extirpated
through subsequent surveys) and for Yosemite toad localities documented
since 2000. It appears that some highlighted data discrepancies are a
function of multiple data sources, as not all agencies are aware of the
same records. In some areas, we missed localities, either because we
did not receive the data during our initial data request period, or the
populations were actually discovered after drafting the proposed
critical habitat designation. We often must institute a cutoff date for
receipt of new information in order to complete our critical habitat
designations in time for internal review and subsequent publication.
However, we did have the vast majority of information available during
the drafting of proposed rule to designate critical habitat.
We have re-evaluated all the available occupancy data, and other
than a portion of subunit 1A for the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog,
we have not changed our designation as a result of the occupancy
information for any subunits for Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog, the
northern DPS of the mountain yellow-legged frog, or Yosemite toad. The
limited areas that do have extant populations, unknown to us at the
time of drafting, are not currently essential for the overall
conservation of the species because of their limited extent. However,
through the development of a final conservation strategy and recovery
plan, the potential for these areas to contribute to species recovery
will be considered.
(4) Comment: USFS commented that there is overlap in critical
habitat designations for the Yosemite toad and Lahontan cutthroat trout
(Oncorhynchus clarkii henshawi) in the El Dorado, Inyo, Stanislaus, and
Sierra National Forests; for the Yosemite toad and Paiute cutthroat
trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii seleniris) in the Sierra National Forest;
for the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog and Paiute cutthroat trout in
the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest; for the Sierra Nevada yellow-
legged frog and Lahontan cutthroat trout in the El Dorado, Inyo, Tahoe,
and Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forests, and the Lake Tahoe Basin
Management Unit; and between the northern DPS of the mountain yellow-
legged frog and Little Kern golden trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss whitei,
listed as Oncorhynchus aguabonita whitei) in the Sequoia National
Forest. They suggested considering this overlap and the possibly
conflicting restoration objectives as a reason to exclude critical
habitat for the frogs and toad in these areas.
Our Response: We concur that these critical habitat designations do
overlap as outlined by USFS. Such overlap is to be expected when
methodology for habitat designation is based on physical or biological
features. We do not intend for the designation of critical habitat for
the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog and the northern DPS of the
mountain yellow-legged frog to necessarily preclude restoration
opportunities for listed fish species in these areas. We intend to
factor in the consideration of conflicting species restoration goals
during the respective conservation planning efforts that will be
coordinated amongst the Federal and State resource agencies, rather
than at the stage of the critical habitat designation process.
(5) Comment: The United States Marine Corps (USMC) requested that
the Marine Corps Mountain Warfare Training Center near Bridgeport be
exempted under section 4(a)(3) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) due
to a draft integrated natural resources management plan (INRMP) that is
in preparation, and they also requested an exclusion under section
4(b)(2) of the Act because of impacts to national security. The Marine
Corps Mountain Warfare Training Center itself includes a base camp and
residence quarters, but training activities take place across a wide
area of the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest.
Our Response: We appreciate the unique nature and value of this
training center for the USMC and other Armed Services to meet their
high-altitude training needs. However, we find that the section 4(a)(3)
exemption does not apply in this case because the INRMP remains in
draft form, and thereby does not fully meet the section 4(a)(3)
exemption standard. In addition, based on the draft INRMP map, the base
camp itself is not located within the critical habitat designation. We
appreciate the USMC's efforts to address natural resources at their
training facility, and we will continue to work with them to finalize
their INRMP.
The USMC also requested exclusion of the Marine Corps Mountain
Warfare Training under section 4(b)(2) of the Act because of impacts to
national security. Critical habitat designation and subsequent
consultation under the Act focuses upon potential effects to the
primary constituent elements (PCEs). Based on the information contained
within the draft INRMP and information from the Humboldt-Toiyabe
National Forest (USFS) regarding training conducted in subunit 2H, we
do not anticipate significant impact on USMC training activities and
thus national security in this area. Therefore, the Secretary is not
exercising her discretion to exclude the Marine Corps Mountain Warfare
Training under section 4(b)(2) of the Act for purposes of national
security within subunit 2H. We look forward to working with the USMC
and USFS to coordinate future activities within critical habitat.
(6) Comment: NPS commented that including upland habitat in the
critical habitat designation for the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog
and the northern DPS of the mountain yellow-legged frog is not required
because frogs are not expected to be in these areas unless they are
within aquatic habitat complexes. NPS proposed an alternate buffer of
300 meters (m) (980 feet (ft)) to buffer the frogs' primary habitat.
Our Response: While we concur that the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged
frog and the northern DPS of the mountain yellow legged frog spend a
predominant amount of their lives in wetland habitats, they are known
to travel across mesic terrestrial habitat, and such dispersal and
migration is required to recolonize habitat areas from which they have
been extirpated. Therefore, this is an essential component of the
species' life-history requirements, and inclusion of corridors in mesic
habitat connecting wetland habitats is an element of our criteria
defining habitat that is essential to the species' conservation. We do
not interpret NPS's comment to suggest that we exclude these mesic
upland areas.
We do concur that frogs are very unlikely to be found in xeric
upslope habitats (catchments up to ridgelines where NPS does request
exclusions), some of which were included in the designation. The Sierra
Nevada yellow-legged frog and northern DPS of the mountain yellow-
legged frog, being amphibians, are quite likely sensitive to a wide
range of aquatic contaminants, and the PCE of water quality is
potentially influenced by upgradient activities. Further, in light of
future threats associated with climate change, the PCE of water
quantity to provide for the critical wetland areas is relevant.
We understand NPS's contention that NPS-managed catchments do not
include many of the threat factors extant within other federally
managed lands, and as such, recreational land uses predominant in the
National Parks are unlikely to impact natural hydrology. However, the
PCEs were written to take into consideration physical or biological
features of habitat, regardless of jurisdiction or magnitude of
operative
[[Page 59049]]
threats. It is appropriate to apply the same criteria across
jurisdictional boundaries based on habitat attributes as outlined in
the discussion of physical or biological features section of this
document.
In these instances where PCEs are not affected by the action (i.e.,
no threats to habitat are introduced through Federal activities), a
`not likely to adversely affect' determination may be reached. During
informal consultation, factors such as project area proximity to known
frog localities and the specific nature of the project are factored in
to the determination.
Comments From States
Section 4(i) of the Act states, ``the Secretary shall submit to the
State agency a written justification for his failure to adopt
regulations consistent with the agency's comments or petition.'' We did
not receive comments from the State of California pertaining to the
Yosemite toad proposed critical habitat designation. Comments received
from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) regarding
the proposal to designate critical habitat for the Sierra Nevada
yellow-legged frog and the northern DPS of the mountain yellow-legged
frog are addressed below.
(7) Comment: CDFW recommended various Sierra Nevada yellow-legged
frog critical habitat subunit removals based on differences in our data
records (CDFW's current records do not indicate frogs in certain
subunits because their current records do not include all USFS data),
and because some of these areas experience heavy recreational use and
have very low restoration potential.
Our Response: Based on the comments from CDFW that provided
additional survey results, we have updated our records for the Sierra
Nevada yellow-legged frog. We evaluated these updated data, in addition
to the data we were provided by USFS, and we currently have a
comprehensive occurrence database for the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged
frog based on the best scientific data available. We recently reviewed
all records based on the criteria followed by CDFW for their status
evaluation conducted by the State to determine whether the species
warrants listing under the California Endangered Species Act (CDFW
(formerly CDFG) 2011, pp. 12-16) (i.e., extant since 1995, unless three
consecutive zero count surveys indicate extirpation). Our current
records indicate that all proposed critical habitat units and subunits
are occupied by extant populations. With this rule, we are designating
these units and subunits as critical habitat for the Sierra Nevada
yellow-legged frog.
We concur with the CDFW that certain reservoirs with higher degrees
of development (managed reservoirs that have high water-level
fluctuations and are surrounded by developed infrastructure such as
significant number of cabins and/or a marina) and high public-use
pressure (paved road-accessible reservoirs) have lower restoration
potential. We have evaluated such reservoirs for removal from critical
habitat in light of our existing criteria. This is discussed in full
detail below (see Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat, below).
(8) Comment: CDFW recommended additions to Sierra Nevada yellow-
legged frog critical habitat and the northern DPS of the mountain
yellow-legged frog critical habitat to increase connectivity between
certain subunits and to take advantage of good habitat areas for
restoration opportunities in areas where we did not propose critical
habitat.
Our Response: Based on their distance from existing known frog
populations, we did not propose these additional areas for critical
habitat designation. Please refer also to our response to Comment (2),
above. We do agree that the areas recommended by CDFW represent
potential areas for translocation of frogs once methods have been
proven successful, and will consider including such areas in the final
conservation strategy currently being developed in coordination with
CDFW, USFS, and NPS, and in a future recovery plan.
Public Comments
(9) Comment: We received several comments that we should not
designate private lands as critical habitat.
Our Response: According to section 4(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the
Secretary of the Interior shall, to the maximum extent prudent and
determinable, concurrently with making a determination that a species
is an endangered species or a threatened species, designate critical
habitat for that species. As directed by the Act, we proposed as
critical habitat those areas occupied by the species at the time of
listing and that contain the physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species and which may require special
management considerations or protection. The Act does not provide for
any distinction between landownerships in those areas that meet the
definition of critical habitat.
(10) Comment: We received numerous comments expressing general and
specific concerns about restrictions that commenters believe will be
imposed on private lands as a result of critical habitat designation.
We received several comments expressing concerns regarding the taking
of private property through designation of critical habitat.
Our Response: When prudent and determinable, the Service is
required to designate critical habitat under the Act. The Act does not
authorize the Service to regulate private actions on private lands or
confiscate private property as a result of critical habitat
designation. Designation of critical habitat does not affect land
ownership or establish any closures or place any restrictions on use of
or access to the designated areas. Critical habitat designation also
does not establish specific land management standards or prescriptions.
Such designation does not allow the government or public to access
private lands. Such designation does not require implementation of
restoration, recovery, or enhancement measures by non-Federal
landowners.
Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act
through the requirement that Federal agencies ensure, in consultation
with the Service, that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is
not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat. Where a landowner requests Federal agency funding or
is required to obtain Federal agency authorization for an action that
may affect a listed species or critical habitat, the consultation
requirements of section 7(a)(2) of the Act apply, but even in the event
of a destruction or adverse modification finding, the obligation of the
Federal action agency and the landowner is not to restore or recover
the species, but to implement reasonable and prudent alternatives to
avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
(11) Comment: We received several comments expressing concern that
roads, buildings, ski resorts, hydroelectric facilities and
infrastructure, etc., have been included in proposed critical habitat.
Our Response: When determining critical habitat boundaries within
the proposed rule, we followed a habitat/species distribution (MaxEnt)
model (see ``(3) Habitat Unit Delineation,'' below) for determining
critical habitat areas in the case of the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged
frog and the northern DPS of the mountain yellow-legged frog. This
model did not incorporate extant stressors, such as level of
development or fish presence, for example. To do so may have biased
against the assurance that the appropriate areas requiring special
management considerations be
[[Page 59050]]
identified. In the case of the Yosemite toad, a similar model was
utilized, but not relied upon, because of its implicit consideration of
stressors in the model inputs.
For all three species, we made an effort to avoid including
developed areas such as lands covered by buildings, pavement, and other
structures because such lands lack the physical or biological features.
The maps we prepared may not reflect the non-inclusion of such
developed lands. Any such lands left inside critical habitat boundaries
shown on the maps of this final rule have been excluded by text in the
rule and are not designated as critical habitat.
Areas that have been partially developed, or undeveloped areas
proximate to developed structures, may and often do have physical or
biological features that can sustain the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged
frog, the northern DPS of the mountain yellow-legged frog, or the
Yosemite toad during at least part of their life cycle, or may serve as
habitat corridors to connect more suitable areas and allow dispersal,
migration, and recolonization of historical habitat. These areas with
the essential physical or biological features, or that may act as
corridors, remain in the final critical habitat designation.
(12) Comment: We received numerous comments expressing concerns
regarding access to public lands (road closures, off-highway vehicle
(OHV) restrictions, grazing, fishing, etc.). We received numerous
comments requesting specific exclusions for recreational reasons,
primarily fishing within the range of the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged
frog.
Our Response: Critical habitat receives protection under section 7
of the Act through the requirement that Federal agencies ensure, in
consultation with the Service, that any action they authorize, fund, or
carry out is not likely to result in the destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat. However, the designation of critical
habitat does not prevent access to any land, whether private, tribal,
State, or Federal. Designation of critical habitat does not affect land
ownership. Critical habitat designation also does not establish
specific land management standards or prescriptions. Critical habitat
also does not preclude access to fishing in any specific lakes.
We considered a section 4(b)(2) exclusion for other relevant
impacts (including recreational fishing) at a number of sites within
the proposed critical habitat. However, in responding to public,
agency, and peer review comments, and upon re-examination, we
determined that these areas have very low restoration potential because
of high public use, their developed state, and their distance from
known frog occurrences. Using our revised criteria for identifying
critical habitat, we found that many of these areas do not meet the
criteria for inclusion in the designation, and, therefore, we have not
included them in this final designation.
(13) Comment: Several commenters expressed concern about the use of
the incremental approach to quantify the cost of the proposed
rulemaking. One commenter states that the DEA should instead rely on a
coextensive or full impact approach. The commenter asserts that the
incremental approach withholds information about the true economic
impacts of designating certain areas as critical habitat. In
particular, the commenter asserts the incremental approach fails to
adequately address secondary and indirect effects of the designation or
account for the cumulative and synergistic effects of multiple laws
restricting the use of land and water resources within proposed
critical habitat.
Our Response: Because the purpose of the economic analysis is to
facilitate the mandatory consideration of the economic impact of the
designation of critical habitat, to inform the discretionary section
4(b)(2) exclusion analysis, and to determine compliance with relevant
statutes and Executive Orders, focusing the economic analysis of the
designation of critical habitat for the three Sierra amphibians on the
incremental impact of the designation is appropriate. We acknowledge
that significant debate has occurred regarding the incremental
approach, with several courts issuing divergent opinions. Most
recently, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that the
incremental approach is appropriate, and the U.S. Supreme Court
declined to hear the case (Home Builders Association of Northern
California v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 616 F.3d 983
(9th Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 179 L. Ed. 2d 301, 2011 U.S. Lexis 1392,
79 U.S.L.W. 3475 (2011); Arizona Cattle Growers v. Salazar, 606 F.3d
1160 (9th Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 179 L. Ed. 2d 300, 2011 U.S. Lexis
1362, 79 U.S. L.W. 3475 (2011)). Subsequently, on August 28, 2013, we
revised our approach to conducting impact analyses for designations of
critical habitat, specifying that the incremental approach should be
used (78 FR 53058, p. 53062).
(14) Comment: Several commenters assert that the baseline of the
analysis is flawed. They assert that because critical habitat must be
designated concurrently with a listing decision, there would be no
listing without a critical habitat designation. Therefore, the baseline
for the economic analysis should be the existing state of regulation
prior to the listing of the species under the Act.
Our Response: Critical habitat cannot be designated for a species
that is not listed under section 4 of the Act. However, it is possible
to list a species without simultaneously designating critical habitat.
A listing decision always precedes a critical habitat designation, even
if they are promulgated concurrently. The U.S. Office of Management and
Budget's (OMB) guidelines for best practices concerning the conduct of
economic analysis of Federal regulations (Circular A-4) direct agencies
to measure the costs of a regulatory action against a baseline, which
it defines as the ``best assessment of the way the world would look
absent the proposed action.'' OMB's direction is reflected in our
regulations specifying the approach we use to conduct impact analyses
for designations of critical habitat (78 FR 53058; August 28, 2013).
(15) Comment: Several commenters assert that the Service can no
longer segregate and disregard probable economic impacts on the basis
that they are not quantifiable. The commenters state that prior court
decisions within the Ninth Circuit allowed the Service to meet its
obligation to consider probable economic impacts by analyzing only
those impacts that the Service, in its discretion, deemed to be certain
and quantifiable (historically, the costs of section 7 consultation).
They assert that the DEA, however, is misleading if the economic impact
of critical habitat designation is limited only to the costs incurred
by Federal agencies during section 7 consultation. One commenter
suggests that probable economic impacts include impacts to non-Federal
activities that would be affected by the section 7 constraints on the
Federal activities. The commenter also indicates that the DEA should
consider economics related to non-Federal activities. Another commenter
also cites 50 CFR 424.19, effective October 30, 2013, which explicitly
recognizes that impacts which may only be (or may be better) analyzed
qualitatively are properly addressed in an economic analysis.
Our Response: Economic impacts to non-Federal entities are
considered in quantitative terms, where data allow, and qualitatively
throughout the DEA. First, Exhibit 2-1 of the DEA presents the unit
incremental administrative costs of section 7 consultation used in
[[Page 59051]]
the economic analysis. The total unit cost presented in that exhibit
includes costs to the Service, other Federal agencies, and third
parties. Third parties include such non-Federal entities as project
proponents (e.g., hydroelectric and timber harvest activities) and
State agencies (e.g., CDFW) that may also participate in the
consultation process. Thus, the economic analysis is not limited only
to costs incurred by Federal agencies. Incremental costs incurred by
third parties during the consultation process range from $260 to $1,400
per consultation.
Other potential impacts, where data limitations prevent
quantification, are described qualitatively in the DEA. For example, in
assessing the potential incremental cost of the proposed rule on
hydroelectric facilities, section 4.2.2 of the DEA considers the
potential for additional time delays that may occur because of the need
to complete the section 7 consultation process. Similarly for timber
harvest activities on privately owned lands, section 4.2.5 of the DEA
considers the potential for the designation of critical habitat to
cause unintended changes in the behavior of individual landowners,
other Federal agencies, State, or local permitting or regulatory
agencies. Specifically, this section of the DEA recognizes potential
costs that may arise from changes in the public's perception of the
burden placed on privately owned land from the designation of critical
habitat.
In accordance with 50 CFR 424.19(b), which states, ``Impacts may be
qualitatively or quantitatively described,'' the Service considers both
the qualitative and quantitative effects listed in the economic
analysis when developing the critical habitat for these species.
(16) Comment: One commenter states that the DEA effectively ignores
impacts related to different conservation efforts since the DEA is
unable to predict the types of projects that may require different
conservation efforts. The commenter cites a passage from the DEA on
page ES-6, which states: ``At this time, however, the Service is unable
to predict the types of projects that may require different
conservation efforts. Thus, impacts occurring under such circumstances
are not quantified in this analysis. We focus on quantifying
incremental impacts associated with the additional administrative
effort required when addressing potential adverse modification of
critical habitat in section 7 consultation.'' The commenter states that
the lack of consideration of economic impacts related to conservation
efforts makes the DEA useless and fraudulent, and suggests withdrawing
the proposed critical habitat designation until a properly conducted
economic analysis is available.
Our Response: Section 2.3 of the DEA describes the reasons why we
do not anticipate these critical habitat designations will result in
additional conservation requirements. Additionally, Appendix C of the
DEA includes a memorandum, titled ``Comments on How the DEA Should
Estimate Incremental Costs for Sierra Nevada Yellow-legged Frog,
Northern DPS of the Mountain Yellow-legged Frog, and Yosemite Toad
Proposed Critical Habitat Designation,'' describing our reasoning on
this issue. In general, where critical habitat is occupied by the
listed species, conservation measures implemented in response to the
species' listing status under the Act are expected to sufficiently
avoid potential destruction or adverse modification of critical
habitat. Thus, generally such projects are already avoiding adverse
modification under the regulatory baseline, and no additional
conservation measures or project modifications are expected following
the critical habitat designation. In such instances, the DEA assumes
that the incremental costs of the designations are limited to the
portion of administrative effort required to address adverse
modification during section 7 consultation. These assumptions are
highlighted in the DEA as the chief source of uncertainty in the
analysis. As discussed in section 2.3 of the DEA, we do acknowledge
that there may be ``limited instances'' in which an action proposed by
a Federal agency could result in adverse modification but not jeopardy
of the species. However, information that would allow the
identification of such instances is not available.
(17) Comment: Two commenters state that the DEA fails to adequately
account for the costs to energy activities. One commenter asserts that
the Service failed to prepare and submit a ``Statement of Energy
Effects,'' which is required for all ``significant energy actions.''
The commenter further states that the Service should seek public input
and review of the Statement of Energy Effects before submitting it, to
assure it is done honestly and accurately.
Our Response: Executive Order 13211 (Actions Concerning Regulations
That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use) requires
agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking
certain actions. OMB has provided guidance for implementing this
Executive Order that outlines nine outcomes that may constitute ``a
significant adverse effect'' when compared to not taking the regulatory
action under consideration. These outcomes include, for example,
reductions in electricity production in excess of 1 billion kilowatt-
hours per year or in excess of 500 megawatts of installed capacity, or
increases in the cost of energy production or distribution in excess of
one percent.
As presented in chapter 4 of the DEA, impacts to the energy
industry from the designation of critical habitat for the three Sierra
amphibians is expected to be limited to additional administrative
costs, and is not anticipated to result in any impacts to the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. As shown in Exhibit 2-1 of the DEA,
incremental costs incurred by third parties during the consultation
process are approximately $875 per consultation. Based on the revenues
of the energy companies reported in section A.1.2, the designation is
unlikely to affect the cost of energy production or distribution.
(18) Comment: Several commenters assert that the assumption in the
DEA that the entire designation is considered occupied is flawed. One
commenter notes that the critical habitat units are generally large,
and while at least one population may exist in each unit, the vast
majority of acreage, water bodies, and meadows in any given subunit are
likely to be unoccupied. Thus, assigning an ``occupied'' status to the
entire unit misrepresents the extent of the species' distribution and
is indefensible.
Our Response: As stated in section 4.1 of the DEA, in determining
whether a specific critical habitat unit is considered occupied by the
respective species, the DEA relies on information regarding species
occupancy from the proposed rule. Specifically, the Service states:
``All units and subunits proposed for designation as critical habitat
are currently occupied by the Sierra Nevada mountain yellow-legged
frogs, the northern DPS of the mountain yellow-legged frogs, or
Yosemite toads . . . We are proposing to designate only geographic
areas occupied by the species because the present geographic range is
of similar extent to the historical range and therefore sufficient for
the conservation of the species'' (78 FR 24516, April 25, 2014, pp.
24522, 24523). In other words, the best available information suggests
that all areas proposed as critical habitat be treated as occupied
during consultation. See also the response to Comment (7), above.
In addition, we also considered the possibility that due to the
large size of some critical habitat units, species occupancy may be
uncertain for a
[[Page 59052]]
specific project location within an occupied unit. In these instances,
the Federal action agency may not be aware of the need to consult under
the jeopardy standard, and the designation of critical habitat may
therefore result in an increase in the number of consultations. In such
instances, the full costs of section 7 consultation and resulting
project modifications would be considered incremental. As stated in
section 4.1 of the DEA, discussions with USFS, NPS, and CDFW, the three
agencies most likely to consult with the Service in the study area,
indicate that the designation is unlikely to have such an effect. All
three agencies typically consult with the Service on a programmatic
level across much of the State, and thus would be aware of the
potential presence of the species throughout its range. Furthermore,
all three agencies already have in place programs that protect the
amphibians and their habitat. As a result, impacts to the amphibians
and their habitat are already considered across the array of economic
activities identified as threats to species conservation and recovery.
Consequently, we assume that the designation is unlikely to change the
section 7 consultation process or incur associated project
modifications due solely to the designation of critical habitat.
(19) Comment: A commenter states that if the Service provided
Industrial Economics Incorporated (IEc) with likely conservation
efforts to be imposed, these efforts should be shared with the public.
The commenter also cites paragraph 90 of the DEA, which provides
categories of conservation efforts, including ``non-native fish
eradication, installation of fish barriers, modifications of fish
stocking activities, changes in grazing activities, minimizing
disturbance of streamside and riparian vegetation, minimizing soil and
compaction and minimizing impacts on local hydrology.'' The commenter
asks whether there are specific examples of when and where these
conservation efforts would be considered and what the conservation
measures associated with each effort are. The commenter goes on to
state that conferencing is required during the listing decision-making
period. Through conferencing, the Service should have a general idea of
what conservation measures are being requested and what conservation
measures might be imposed by the Service. The commenter asks about what
measures are being requested and recommended during conferencing.
Our Response: The information presented in the DEA regarding
possible conservation measures to protect the three Sierra amphibians
was obtained from the proposed listing rule. The Service did not
provide any additional information regarding possible conservation
measures. More importantly, however, we reiterate that because all
areas are considered occupied, the economic analysis concluded that the
designation is unlikely to result in the requirement of additional
conservation measures above and beyond those required to avoid jeopardy
(i.e., in response to the listing of the species). In other words, the
designation of conservation measures required to avoid jeopardy is
expected to sufficiently avoid potential destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat.
As to the availability of additional information on conservation
measures from conferencing, due to the timing of the proposed rules to
list and designate critical habitat for these three species,
information on project modifications from conferencing was unavailable
at the time the DEA was developed. Since the publication of the DEA,
the Service released a programmatic biological opinion on the forest
programs associated with nine National Forests in the Sierra Nevada of
California for the amphibians. The biological opinion, released in
December 2014, provides more detailed information on general
conservation measures as well as program-specific conservation measures
for the three Sierra amphibians. The full biological opinion is
publicly available at: http://www.fws.gov/sacramento/es/Survey-Protocols-Guidelines/Documents/USFS_SNA_pbo.pdf. The conservation
measures included in this biological opinion are intended to ensure
activities at the National Forest do not jeopardize the species and
provide additional evidence of the types of baseline protection likely
to be provided by the listing of the species. We updated the FEA to
reference the new information on species conservation measures
available from the December 2014 biological opinion.
(20) Comment: One commenter states that similar economic impacts
were reviewed in the August 2006 Economic Analysis of Critical Habitat
Designation for the Mountain Yellow-Legged Frog. The critical habitat
designation for the Mountain Yellow-Legged Frog included 8,770 acres in
Los Angeles, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties. The commenter
highlighted the findings from that analysis, which estimated total
future impacts between $11.4 million to $12.9 million (undiscounted)
over 20 years, of which impacts to recreational trout fishing accounted
for 57 percent of total impacts. The commenter states that this
designation is over 200 times larger than the designation proposed in
southern California, yet the DEA found only $17,500 in impacts related
to fishing over 17 years.
Our Response: The economic analysis for the critical habitat
designation for the southern DPS of the mountain yellow-legged frog is
not comparable with the economic analysis conducted for the critical
habitat designation for the three Sierra amphibians. Specifically, the
2006 economic analysis for the critical habitat designation for the
southern DPS of the mountain yellow-legged frog relied on the
coextensive methodology of estimating economic impacts. However, the
current policy directs the Service to use the incremental approach to
economic analyses based in part on several legal precedents, including
Arizona Cattle Growers' Assoc. v. Salazar, 606 F.3d 1160 (9th Cir.
2010), cert. denied, 179 L. Ed. 2d 300, 2011 U.S. Lexis 1362, 79 U.S.
L.W. 3475 (2011) and Cape Hatteras Access Preservation Alliance v. DOI,
2010 U.S. Dist. Lexis 84515 (D.D.C. August 17, 2010). As such, the DEA
for the three Sierra amphibians relies on the incremental approach (see
also Comment (13), above).
(21) Comment: One commenter states that the Service should engage
the public for their input when writing the DEA.
Our Response: In the process of developing the DEA, we conducted
two rounds of outreach actions. First, we reached out to each of the 10
National Forests and 2 National Parks that fall within proposed
critical habitat boundaries. The majority of the proposed critical
habitat falls within areas managed by the USFS (61 percent) and the NPS
(36 percent). Through these conversations, Federal entities indicated
that they will undertake actions to protect the species regardless of
whether critical habitat is designated. These agencies are the parties
entrusted with public land management, as more than 95 percent of all
the land designated as critical habitat is under their ownership and
jurisdiction. Second, we conducted outreach with third-party entities
that may participate in section 7 consultations because they may seek
permits to conduct activities on Federal lands. For example, in
evaluating potential impacts to dams and water diversions located
within the proposed critical habitat boundaries, we reached out to
hydroelectric project owners as stated in section 4.2.2 of the DEA.
These affected parties are ideal candidates to help frame economic
impacts of critical
[[Page 59053]]
habitat designation and consultation with the Service.
(22) Comment: One commenter states that the assumed consultation
costs are extremely low and that man hours should also be shown to help
discern the level of effort assumed for consultation.
Our Response: The DEA relies on the best available information to
estimate the administrative costs of section 7 consultation. As
described in Exhibit 2-1 of the DEA, the consultation cost model is
based on a review of consultation records and interviews with staff
from three Service field offices, telephone interviews with Federal
action agencies (e.g., BLM, USFS, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers),
and telephone interviews with private consulting firms who perform work
in support of permittees. In the case of Service and Federal agency
contacts, we determined the typical level of effort required to
complete several different types of consultations (i.e., hours or days
of time), as well as the typical Government Service (GS) level of the
staff member performing this work. In the case of private consultants,
we interviewed representatives of firms in California and New England
to determine the typical cost charged to clients for these efforts
(e.g., biological survey, preparation of materials to support a
biological assessment). The model is periodically updated with new
information received in the course of data collection efforts
supporting economic analyses and public comment on more recent critical
habitat rules. In addition, the GS rates are updated annually.
(23) Comment: One commenter states that the DEA fails to include
costs associated with additional reviews required under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for lands designated as critical
habitat for the three Sierra amphibians. Whenever a public agency
authorizes, approves, funds, or carries out an activity that will
result in a physical change to the environment, CEQA requires the
entity to undertake an environmental review. The commenter asserts that
the DEA improperly excludes a discussion of the additional costs of
processing projects under CEQA due to the designation.
Our Response: The potential for incremental impacts related to the
triggering of new requirements under CEQA is relevant to non-Federal
lands included in the proposed rule, which account for less than 5
percent of the total designation. Section 2.3.2 of the DEA provides a
general discussion of the potential for critical habitat to trigger
other State and local laws. The DEA concludes that such incremental
impacts are unlikely in the case of the three Sierra amphibians due to
the widespread awareness of the species and their habitats and existing
management strategies to protect the species. For a discussion of these
management strategies, see chapter 3 of the DEA.
Importantly, the three Sierra amphibians are thought to occupy all
the areas proposed for designation. Thus, for activities occurring on
private land, such as logging activities requiring a State-approved
timber harvest plan, CEQA is likely to be triggered due to the presence
of a listed species, regardless of whether critical habitat is present.
Furthermore, the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog and the mountain
yellow-legged frog are listed species under the California Endangered
Species Act; thus, the presence of these species would already trigger
CEQA absent the designation of critical habitat.
(24) Comment: Several commenters state that the DEA does not
adequately address regional economic impacts. One commenter states that
the DEA only presents costs to managing governmental agencies rather
than regional economic impacts. Another commenter is particularly
concerned with distributional impacts related to recreation on Squaw
Ridge in Amador County.
Our Response: Given the limited nature of incremental impacts
likely to result from this designation, measurable regional impacts are
not anticipated as a result of this designation. Therefore, we did not
use a regional input-output model to estimate regional impacts. Section
2.2.2 of the DEA discusses distributional and regional economic effects
in greater depth.
(25) Comment: Several commenters identify the chytrid fungus
(Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis (Bd)) epidemic as a significant threat
to the amphibians and their habitat. The commenters state that the DEA
should include the economic cost of eradicating Bd. Without a plan to
reduce or eliminate Bd, the commenters note it is debatable whether
creating critical habitat designations would have much benefit to the
species.
Our Response: We agree that disease and pathogens, including Bd,
represent a significant threat to the amphibians. Chytridiomycosis, the
disease caused by Bd, directly affects individual members of the
species. However, it does not result in adverse modification of
critical habitat as a result of Federal activities. Further, there are
currently no known methods (and therefore no plans or restoration
efforts to associate with costs) to eliminate Bd, and reducing its
spread among areas is the only current known mitigation measure. These
mitigation measures were already in place prior to the listing of the
species. In other words, no additional conservation efforts intended to
reduce the spread of Bd would be undertaken in response to the critical
habitat designation. Therefore, we do not anticipate that this critical
habitat designation will result in incremental costs associated with Bd
mitigation efforts.
(26) Comment: Several commenters are concerned about economic
impacts related to fishing, and they state that the elimination or
reduction of fish in this area would create immense economic impacts to
affected areas and to the life and livelihood of all who live and work
in the area.
Our Response: As discussed in section 4.2.1 of the DEA, the
proposed rulemaking is not anticipated to result in the elimination or
reduction of fish within areas designated as critical habitat. In other
words, any changes in fish stocking activities would occur regardless
of the critical habitat designation, as these will occur in response to
the listing of the species. As discussed in chapter 3 of the DEA, there
are a number of programs that provide significant baseline protections
to the amphibians from fish predation, including the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) High Mountain Lakes Project, the
Restoration of Native Species in High Elevation Aquatic Ecosystems Plan
under development by the Sequoia & Kings Canyon National Park, and the
High Elevation Aquatic Ecosystem Recovery and Stewardship Plan under
development by the Yosemite National Park. With the listing of the
Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog and the northern DPS of the mountain
yellow-legged frog (the species' for which fish presence is a threat),
additional regulatory protections are now in place. The DEA assumes
that the incremental costs of the designation associated with fish
stocking programs would be limited to the administrative costs of the
additional effort to address adverse modification during consultation.
(27) Comment: Several commenters express concern that the
designation will affect fishing in affected counties and highlight the
importance of fishing to the local economies affected by the
designation. For example, recreational fishing contributes more than $2
billion annually to California's economy, and within Mono County,
investments in fish stocking and tourism are estimated
[[Page 59054]]
to total approximately $8.8 million over the next 17 years.
Our Response: As discussed in Comment (26), we do not anticipate
that the critical habitat designation will result in changes to fish-
stocking activities over and above protections that are already in
place as a consequence of the State and Federal listings of the frogs.
As a result, reductions in visitors and associated spending are not
anticipated. We added a description of the importance of recreational
fishing to the regional economy to the FEA.
(28) Comment: Several commenters are concerned about the economic
impact to livestock and packstock grazing activities. One commenter
states that the loss of use, or reduction in available use, of grazing
allotments on National Forests would significantly impact the ranchers
who currently depend on the livestock forage provided by Federal
grazing allotments. Another commenter asserts that the designation will
prevent ranchers from accessing and using existing property rights
within federally controlled lands, including water rights, easements,
rights-of-way, and grazing preferences within BLM and USFS grazing
allotments designated as critical habitat. The commenter states that
the DEA should include analysis of the economic effects of excluding
ranching.
Our Response: The act of designating critical habitat does not
summarily preclude access to any land, whether private, tribal, State
or Federal. Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the
Act through the requirement that Federal agencies ensure, in
consultation with the Service, that any action they authorize, fund, or
carry out is not likely to result in the destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat. Furthermore, designation of critical
habitat does not affect land ownership, or establish any closures or
any restrictions on use of or access to the designated areas through
the designation process, nor does it establish specific land management
standards or prescriptions, although Federal agencies are prohibited
from carrying out, funding, or authorizing actions that would destroy
or adversely modify critical habitat. Finally, as discussed in section
4.2.3 of the DEA, the rulemaking is not anticipated to result in the
loss of or reduction in grazing activities on Federal lands designated
as critical habitat. This conclusion is consistent with discussions
with USFS staff. Notably, USFS has routinely considered measures to
protect the amphibians and their habitat since the three amphibians
were designated as ``Sensitive Species'' in 1998. Consequently, we
anticipate that the incremental cost of the designation is limited to
the additional administrative effort incurred by USFS staff during
consultation.
(29) Comment: Several commenters are concerned that the DEA does
not use current and accurate data for its analysis of grazing impacts,
and these commenters state that text and exhibits in chapter 4 of the
DEA summarizing information related to grazing allotments by National
Forests do not include information for the Humboldt-Toiyabe National
Forest (HTNF). The commenters provide acreage, activity status, and
animal use month numbers for allotments in HTNF within Sierra Nevada
yellow-legged frog and Yosemite toad proposed critical habitat.
Our Response: Section 4.2.3 of the FEA has been updated to include
grazing activities in HTNF. Specifically, we identify a total of seven
grazing allotments in HTNF that overlap the designation. This new
information affects the upper bound estimate, increasing the total
incremental costs of the designation associated with grazing activities
by a total of approximately $3,000, from $152,200 to $155,100.
(30) Comment: One commenter questions whether the DEA considered
packstock operations in HTNF and in Inyo National Forest (INF). The
commenter mentions six different pack operations in the two forests and
gives service day numbers for these operations.
Our Response: Section 4.2.3 of the FEA has been updated to include
the additional six packstock operations identified by the commenter in
HTNF and INF. Specifically, this new information affects the upper
bound estimate, increasing the total incremental costs of the
designation associated with packstock grazing activities by a total
$17,300, from $45,900 to $63,200.
(31) Comment: Multiple commenters express concern about the
potential impacts of the designation on the region's tourism and
recreation economy and highlight the importance of tourism and
recreation to the region's economy.
Our Response: As discussed in chapter 4 of the DEA, the Service is
unlikely to require additional conservation measures that would reduce
or eliminate recreational activities within areas designated as
critical habitat due solely to the designation of critical habitat.
Because all areas designated as critical habitat are considered to be
currently occupied, any changes in recreational activities on Federal
lands are likely to occur even in the absence of the designation. We
added a description of the importance of recreation to the regional
economy in the FEA.
(32) Comment: One commenter states that timber harvests on private
lands are also likely to be affected by the designation and expects
that critical habitat designation will add additional costs to private
timber harvest activities through additional monitoring requirements.
Family forest landowners, of which there are 197,000 in California,
operate their forests on very thin economic margins. Additional costs
can make harvest uneconomical and lead to a huge loss in the economic
value of the property.
Our Response: In section 4.2.5 of the DEA, we qualitatively discuss
potential indirect impacts of stigma on private lands where past timber
harvest activity has occurred. Timber harvest activities on private
lands in California must comply with the California Forest Practice
Rules (CFPR). The CFPR includes measures that provide significant
baseline conservation benefits to the amphibians and their habitat
within timber harvest areas on private lands. Given the extensive
protection already required by State law and regulation, it is unlikely
any new requirements will be imposed due solely to the designation of
critical habitat.
(33) Comment: One commenter states that the fact that private
property values would decline is not a ``stigma''; it is a reality. As
the Federal Government introduces regulatory burdens (in essence de
facto ``liens'' against a property), the value goes down.
Our Response: Section 4.2.5 of the DEA discusses potential indirect
impacts of stigma. We agree that stigma effects, if they occur, may
result in real economic losses. All else equal, a property that is
designated as critical habitat may have a lower market value than an
identical property that is not within the boundaries of critical
habitat due to the public's perception of limitations or restrictions.
As the public becomes aware of the true regulatory burden imposed by
critical habitat (e.g., regulation under section 7 of the Act is
unlikely), the impact of the designation on property markets may
decrease. If stigma effects on markets were to occur, these impacts
would be considered indirect, incremental impacts of the designation.
Data limitations prevent the quantification of these effects.
(34) Comment: One commenter states that the DEA has not addressed
the economic impact of foregone opportunities to manage vegetation and
[[Page 59055]]
cites declines in timber harvest levels on National Forests between the
1980s and present day and attributes these declines to the northern
spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) and subsequent standards for
the California spotted owl (Strix occidentalis occidentalis). The
commenter estimates a total economic jobs impact of $867 million
annually in lost payroll. A 1.8-million acre critical habitat
designation for the frogs and toad will have a significant economic
impact that the economic analysis has failed to address. It is
impossible to quantify the impacts because the proposed rule does not
identify how much of the proposed designation is productive forest
land.
Our Response: As discussed in chapter 4 of the DEA, the Service is
unlikely to require additional conservation measures that would reduce
or eliminate vegetation management activities within areas designated
as critical habitat due solely to the designation of critical habitat.
Because all areas we are designating as critical habitat are considered
to be currently occupied, any changes in vegetation management
activities on Federal lands are likely to occur even in the absence of
the designation.
Moreover, the geographic overlap between amphibians (whose habitat
is largely at higher elevations than most timber harvest activities)
and managed forests is relatively minimal across the range of area we
are designating as critical habitat. Exhibit 4-15 of the DEA identifies
the critical habitat units where timber harvests are likely and, within
each unit, the number of acres suitable for timber harvests.
Specifically, these acres include: (1) Areas identified by USFS under
Land Suitability Classes 1 and 2; (2) areas included in past timber
harvest plans from 1997 to 2013; and (3) areas included in past non-
industrial timber management plans from 1991 to 2013. Based on these
criteria, the economic analysis identifies approximately 5,396 acres as
suitable for timber harvest activities in seven critical habitat units.
(35) Comment: Several commenters are concerned that the critical
habitat designation will impose limitations on fuel reduction projects.
The commenters mention the recent Rim Fire in Tuolumne County, which
burned over 257,000 acres primarily in the Stanislaus National Forest
and cost over $127 million to get under control. Another commenter
states that overgrown forests are far more likely to result in
catastrophic wildfire and adversely modify habitat if fire management
activities, such as water drafting, chemical retardant use, and
construction of fuel breaks, are limited. Such fires would have
devastating impacts to the frogs and economic impacts to communities.
Our Response: We agree with the commenter that catastrophic
wildfires represent a direct threat to the species and their habitat.
In the final listing rule, the Service discusses in more detail the
complex relationship between the amphibians, their habitats, and fire
(79 FR 24256; April 29, 2014). We updated the FEA to better recognize
the threat that catastrophic fire poses to the species and their
habitat and the positive role that fuels management can play in
reducing the adverse effects of catastrophic fire.
Since the publication of the DEA, we released a programmatic
biological opinion for forest programs in nine National Forests in the
Sierra Nevada of California for the amphibians. The biological opinion
provides information on conservation measures, including many derived
from best management practices included in the 2004 Sierra Nevada
Forest Plan Amendment. One such conservation measure suggests, ``the
use of prescribed fire or mechanical methods to achieve resource
objectives to reduce flooding and erosion perturbations. This may be
achieved by managing the frequency, intensity and extent of wildfire.''
Thus, we acknowledge the importance of managing wildfires as it relates
to species and habitat conservation. Other conservation measures
related to maintaining water quality and soil stability are also
included.
(36) Comment: Multiple commenters state that the baseline
conditions for fuel management and timber harvest as articulated in
paragraphs 160-163 of the DEA are based on treatments over the last 5
to 10 years, a period of known reductions in fuel and timber harvest
activities now recognized as a major cause of catastrophic wildfire.
The commenters state that activity levels are currently well below that
needed to sustain the forest environment, and these commenters expect
fuel management and timber harvest activities to dramatically increase
in the next few years. One commenter cites the USFS California Region's
Ecological Restoration: Leadership Intent publication, which states
that the USFS intends to perform forest health and fuels reduction
treatments on up to 9 million acres of National Forest land over the
next 15 to 20 years, which represents a three- to four-fold increase in
current intensity of activity.
Our Response: According to communications with USFS and NPS staff
(see discussion in section 4.2.4 of the DEA), fire management
activities are infrequently implemented at the high elevations in
wilderness areas where the amphibians are generally located. According
to communications with USFS, based on the infrequent nature of fuels
management activities in proposed critical habitat areas, as well as
the repetitive nature of fuels management practices, staff anticipate
pursuing a programmatic consultation for fuels management activities.
As a result, the DEA forecasted one programmatic consultation for fuels
management activities in 2014 (a consultation that has since been
completed). As no historical fuels management activities were
identified on NPS lands proposed as critical habitat, we do not
forecast section 7 consultations associated with fuels management
activities on NPS lands over the analysis period. To allocate the
administrative costs of section 7 consultation across proposed critical
habitat areas, this analysis relies on the number of acres in each
affected unit classified as ``wildland urban interface'' (WUI). In the
FEA, we add a discussion of the uncertainty associated with our
forecast of the amount of fuels management activities likely to be
undertaken in the future. Because USFS is addressing its section 7
consultation obligations through a single programmatic consultation,
even if the degree of activity increases, impacts on forecast
administrative costs are likely to be minimal.
(37) Comment: Multiple commenters state that the baseline WUI
described in paragraph 163 of the DEA is inaccurate. The DEA does not
estimate any WUI acres within the East Amador subunit (Subunit 2F),
but, according to the commenters, this subunit includes the Bear River
home track, Silver Lake home tracks, and numerous other private homes,
all surrounded by WUIs. Additionally, Amador County is in the process
of defining the WUIs in the forested areas through a community wildfire
protection plan, which will likely define much of the area as WUI. The
commenters ask whether community wildfire protection plans and USFS
district rangers were included in the informational resources for WUI
designations.
Our Response: As stated in section 4.2.4 of the DEA, our analysis
of fire management activities was based on communication with USFS
staff, who indicated that they would likely pursue a programmatic
consultation for fuels management activities given the infrequent and
repetitive nature of these activities. As stated in this section of the
DEA, our analysis estimates that approximately 131,300 acres are
[[Page 59056]]
classified as WUI within National Forest boundaries and the 15 critical
habitat units and subunits where fuels management activities are
identified as a threat. This analysis is based on WUI Geographic
Information System (GIS) data available from Region 5 of the USFS. The
commenter is correct that there are WUI acres in Subunit 2F. As a
result of a transcription error, Exhibit 4-13 of the DEA indicates that
there are no acres of WUI in Subunit 2F. The correct number of acres
classified as WUI should be 34,485 acres for Subunit 2F. This error has
been corrected in the FEA. The present value and annualized incremental
impact values reported in the table in the FEA are correct. The $2,200
estimate is reached by multiplying the incremental administrative cost
of a programmatic consultation by the ratio of WUI acres in subunit 2F
to total WUI acres within proposed critical habitat (34,485/131,312 =
0.26).
(38) Comment: One commenter states that the designation will likely
cause severe restrictions on land access and could limit or forbid
mining.
Our Response: The act of designating critical habitat does not
summarily preclude access to any land, whether private, tribal, State,
or Federal. Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the
Act through the requirement that Federal agencies ensure, in
consultation with the Service, that any action they authorize, fund, or
carry out is not likely to result in the destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat. Furthermore, designation of critical
habitat does not affect land ownership, or establish any closures or
any restrictions on use of or access to the designated areas through
the designation process, nor does it establish specific land management
standards or prescriptions, although Federal agencies are prohibited
from carrying out, funding, or authorizing actions that would destroy
or adversely modify critical habitat.
(39) Comment: One commenter states that the DEA does not analyze
the impacts of the designation on the administration of connective
waterways and adjoining lands. In particular, the commenter expresses
concern that the designation will change the manner in which the Carson
Water Subconservancy District's exercises its water rights to Lost
Lakes, including its ability to release these waters to the West Fork
of the Carson River.
Our Response: As discussed in chapter 4 of the DEA, the Service is
unlikely to require additional conservation measures that would impact
water management within areas we are designating as critical habitat
due solely to the designation of critical habitat. Because all areas we
are designating as critical habitat are considered to be currently
occupied, any changes in water management activities on Federal lands
are likely to occur even in the absence of the designation.
(40) Comment: One commenter states that Exhibit 4-3 of the DEA
incorrectly indicates that the Big Creek Dam projects are located in
Yosemite Toad Unit 4, and that these projects are not located in Mono
County but are more likely located in Unit 14. This error is then
carried through to economic impact calculations in Exhibit 4-21 of the
DEA.
Our Response: The commenter is correct. According to the California
Energy Commission's Hydroelectric Generation Facilities map, the Big
Creek facilities are located in Fresno and Madera Counties. We have
updated the FEA to reflect that consultation costs for these projects
are now attributed to Unit 14 rather than Unit 4. This change does not
affect the total incremental impacts estimated for water management
activities.
(41) Comment: Several commenters object to the DEA's interpretation
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) and state
that the Service is not excused from the consideration of economic
impacts to small entities under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. One
commenter states that the Federal agency must provide a factual basis
for ``no significant economic certification.'' According to the
commenter, in the DEA, the factual basis for the certification is
lacking. The commenter states that the Service ignored substantial
information on the record documenting the probable impacts of the
proposed designation on small businesses, small organizations, and
small government jurisdictions in order to make the requisite
certification under the RFA.
Our Response: Under the RFA, Federal agencies are only required to
evaluate the potential incremental impacts of a rulemaking on directly
regulated entities. The regulatory mechanism through which critical
habitat protections are realized is section 7 of the Act, which
requires Federal agencies, in consultation with the Service, to ensure
that any action authorized, funded, or carried by the agency is not
likely to adversely modify critical habitat. Therefore, only Federal
action agencies are directly subject to the specific regulatory
requirement (avoiding destruction and adverse modification) imposed by
critical habitat designation. Under these circumstances, it is the
Service's position that only Federal action agencies will be directly
regulated by this designation. Therefore, because Federal agencies are
not small entities, the Service may certify that the proposed critical
habitat rule, as well as this final designation, will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Because certification is possible, no initial or final regulatory
flexibility analysis is required.
(42) Comment: One commenter states that the absence of quantitative
economic benefits provides no reference point for comparative economic
analysis. The commenter does not accept that, whatever the economic
loss, compensation in biological returns will occur and states that, by
using subjective determinations, the benefits will always outweigh the
costs and the legitimate concerns of the affected parties are
undermined, essentially making the DEA irrelevant.
Our Response: Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary
shall designate critical habitat on the basis of the best available
scientific data after taking into consideration the economic impact,
national security impact, and any other relevant impact of specifying
any particular area as critical habitat. The DEA and updated FEA
provide the best available estimate of the economic costs associated
specifically with the designation. These costs may be evaluated against
qualitative values, but also must be considered in the broader context
of the mandates of the Act to conserve endangered species and designate
as critical habitat those areas with the physical or biological
features in need of special management considerations or protections
that are essential to the species' conservation. Section 4(b)(2) of the
Act states that the Secretary may exclude an area from critical habitat
if she determines that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the
benefits of specifying such area as part of the critical habitat,
unless she 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. The designation of critical habitat
must by law consider economic costs, but this is not the sole
determinant of the final decision; that decision is not solely a cost-
benefit analysis.
(43) Comment: One commenter states that the Service should better
address the economic benefits of the critical habitat designation,
including benefits to water quality, benefits to other rare
[[Page 59057]]
species, benefits to areas where people recreate, and health benefits
that may accrue from better air or water quality. The commenter states
that these benefits should be more clearly addressed qualitatively and,
where possible, the value of these critical ecosystem services should
be quantified.
Our Response: Chapter 5 of the DEA describes the economic benefits
of the critical habitat designation. It is not possible to predict at
this time what, if any, economic benefits will accrue solely as a
result of critical habitat designation. Following the incremental cost
approach, the designation of critical habitat is unlikely to result in
ancillary benefits identified by the commenter, as these will already
be in place as a consequence of listing the species. Regardless, as
stated in the response to Comment (42), above, the economic analysis is
not a traditional cost-benefit analysis necessitating full estimation
and quantitative (or qualitative) evaluation of economic benefits to
weigh against costs in order the provide the Secretary with the
information needed to use her discretion in considering areas for
section 4(b)(2) exclusion.
(44) Comment: We received several comments indicating that
protections for the frogs and toad are already in place, and that
critical habitat designation is unnecessary or will not help.
Specifically, many mentioned CDFW already has a conservation program in
place or that protections afforded by Wilderness Areas and NPS lands
are sufficient.
Our Response: The Service is not relieved of its statutory
obligation to designate critical habitat based on the contention that
it is unnecessary or will not help the species. Moreover, we do not
agree with the argument that specific areas and essential features
within critical habitat do not require special management
considerations or protection because adequate protections are already
in place. In Center for Biological Diversity v. Norton, 240 F. Supp. 2d
1090 (D. Ariz. 2003), the court held that the Act does not direct us to
designate critical habitat only in those areas where ``additional''
special management considerations or protection is needed. If any area
provides the physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the species, even if that area is already well managed
or protected, that area still qualifies as critical habitat under the
statutory definition if special management is needed.
In the case of the ongoing aquatic biodiversity management planning
(ABMP) process being conducted by CDFW, these plans remain incomplete,
and the specific criteria applied during the decision process selecting
protected native amphibian areas do not necessarily reflect the same
ultimate conservation outcome that we are tasked to accomplish (i.e.,
the conservation of the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog). We are
currently collaborating with CDFW on a conservation strategy for the
Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog and the northern DPS of the mountain
yellow-legged frog. This strategy (as well as the CDFW's ABMPs) is not
complete; therefore, conservation actions are not yet assured, and
critical habitat designation is still required.
In the case of Wilderness Areas and NPS lands, these Federal lands
remain as multiple-use resource areas, even though they offer a greater
relative degree of protection when compared to National Forests without
Wilderness status. Nonetheless, designation of critical habitat
requires that Federal agencies consult with the Service to ensure their
actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. While NPS
in particular has an exemplary record in managing these species, even
before listing, the designation of critical habitat and the
consultation process will provide additional assurance that activities
in these areas will not destroy or adversely modify the habitat of
these species.
(45) Comment: We received many comments with concerns that we
proposed designation of too much habitat, including numerous comments
specifically questioning why aquatic-dependent species needed a
critical habitat designation that is not solely comprised of wetland
areas.
Our Response: We define critical habitat to the extent it is
essential to conserve endangered or threatened species under the Act.
Such species are in decline and their habitat is in need of protection,
special management, and restoration in order to reverse population
declines and reduce extinction risk. In determining the amount of
habitat essential to conserve a species, we consider factors such as:
The need for replicate occurrences of the species across the landscape;
connectivity between habitat areas to allow movement, adaptation, and
natural recolonization to offset localized losses; and sufficient
populations safeguarded to preserve genetic and ecological diversity.
The areas we are designating as critical habitat in this final rule
contain the physical or biological features essential for the
conservation of the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog, the northern DPS
of the mountain yellow-legged frog, and the Yosemite toad in view of
the factors above and the uncertainty of future habitat conditions as a
result of climate change.
The inclusion of upland areas within critical habitat is to protect
habitat areas required for normal metapopulation dispersal, habitat
use, and recolonization of suitable habitat not currently containing
the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog, northern DPS of the mountain
yellow-legged frog, or Yosemite toad, and to protect the primary
constituent elements of water quality and quantity (see our response to
Comment (6), above). In addition, the Yosemite toad does utilize upland
habitats extensively (see Physical or Biological Features for the
Yosemite Toad, below).
(46) Comment: One commenter asked us to substantiate our critical
habitat designations with population numbers.
Our Response: Critical habitat designation is not based on absolute
abundances, and we also generally do not have nor require such data
before designating critical habitat. Although we utilized the most up-
to-date scientific information reflected in survey data from the last
few decades (historic, plus extant localities since 1995), the
protocols set up for these surveys did not include mark-recapture type
techniques, which are required to assess actual abundances. We have raw
count values from visual encounter surveys, which are helpful in
establishing relative abundance, but not definitive population counts.
Note also, at low abundances, visual encounter survey methods may miss
extant populations due to low encounter probabilities. Also, while the
survey coverage by USFS and CDFW is extensive, it is not exhaustive.
This means it is very likely there are extant localities we have
missed. Given all these considerations, we cannot provide absolute
abundance data at the scale of each critical habitat subunit.
This critical habitat designation is based on the identification of
specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at
the time of listing that contain the physical or biological features
essential for the conservation of the species. We also use a set of
criteria to identify the geographic boundaries of the designation. A
critical habitat designation does not require definitive data regarding
abundances; such data are pertinent to the overall determination of
whether a species is considered an endangered or threatened species
under the Act. Regardless, we are required to use the best scientific
data available to inform our critical
[[Page 59058]]
habitat determination, and we have done so in this final designation
for the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog, northern DPS of the mountain
yellow-legged frog, and Yosemite toad.
(47) Comment: One commenter submitted information regarding wetland
pollution by livestock grazing and suggested the results of studies did
not support large critical habitat designations for the Yosemite toad.
Our Response: We appreciate the additional information provided.
Our critical habitat designations are based on multiple criteria, and
the delineation of critical habitat for the Yosemite toad is based on
the types of areas utilized by the toad during its varied lifestages
and areas needed for dispersal and emigration in order to provide for
the conservation of the species. Critical habitat designation is based
upon the presence of physical or biological features required by the
Yosemite toad, not on the relative degree of any given threat. Threats
themselves are evaluated in the context of a listing decision.
(48) Comment: One commenter asked whether we utilized the
California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) model to derive
proposed critical habitat.
Our Response: We did not use the CWHR range map to derive critical
habitat. In the case of the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog and the
northern DPS of the mountain yellow-legged frog, a superior modeling
tool was available in the form of a MaxEnt 3.3.3 model (see ``(3)
Habitat Unit Delineation'' under Sierra Nevada Yellow-Legged Frog and
Northern DPS of the Mountain Yellow-legged Frog in Criteria Used to
Identify Critical Habitat, below), which CDFW had also utilized during
their status evaluation (CDFW (formerly CDFG) 2011, pp. A-1--A-4). We
used this base model along with other criteria as outlined below to
define critical habitat. In the case of the Yosemite toad, we initially
approached CDFW for their CWHR layer, but they informed us that it had
not yet passed their own internal quality control review for
reliability, and so we had to rely on other resources for defining the
Yosemite toad's habitat. We have since received a range map from USFS,
and we used that information as supplemental information to this final
critical habitat designation.
(49) Comment: One commenter was concerned about the designation of
Slate Creek as critical habitat and how it may affect suction dredge
mining, and this commenter expressed an opinion that fish removal would
be more effective at frog restoration than critical habitat
designation.
Our Response: Critical habitat designation is necessary to identify
areas, containing the physical or biological features that may require
protection or special management considerations, in order to conserve
an endangered or threatened species. It is true that fish removal is
one potential restoration tool amongst a suite of possible actions. It
does not follow, however, that all designated areas will involve such
restoration measures. For any potential risk factors, including suction
dredge mining, adverse modification to critical habitat will be
analyzed through consultation on projects that have a Federal nexus,
and these situations will be handled on a project-by-project basis,
unless covered in a programmatic consultation process.
(50) Comment: We received several comments stating that critical
habitat is not determinable because we cannot know where the fungal
pathogen Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis (Bd) will spread, the magnitude
of its dispersal, nor its persistence time in the environment of
contaminated habitats. The commenters asserted, therefore, that no
``safe'' habitat exists for the species and critical habitat
designation will not be helpful.
Our Response: We concur that there is scientific uncertainty
regarding the rate of spread of Bd and its persistence in affected
habitat areas. However, critical habitat designation does not target
only ``safe'' habitats where species are expected to persist. Critical
habitat designations cover the areas containing the physical or
biological features that may require special management considerations
and protection to allow for the conservation of the species. Critical
habitat designation is based on the physical or biological features
essential for the conservation of the species, not the absence of
threat factors.
(51) Comment: We received several comments indicating we came close
to violating 16 U.S.C. 1532(5)(C), which states that ``critical habitat
shall not include the entire geographical area which can be occupied by
the threatened or endangered species.''
Our Response: 16 U.S.C. 1532(5)(C) states, ``Except in those
circumstances determined by the Secretary, critical habitat shall not
include the entire geographical area which can be occupied by the
threatened or endangered species.'' We currently have the definitive
range maps for the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog, the northern DPS
of the mountain yellow-legged frog, and the Yosemite toad. Frog ranges
were derived using information received from the University of
California at Santa Barbara Sierra Nevada Aquatic Research Lab, and the
Yosemite toad's range was provided by USFS, recently updated by expert
input. The historical range of the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog is
nearly 6 million acres. The historical range of the northern DPS of the
mountain yellow-legged frog is almost 1.2 million acres. The historical
range of the Yosemite toad is greater than 2.6 million acres. In
addition, we are aware of extant locations of these species outside of
our critical habitat designations. Therefore, we did not propose, nor
are we designating now, the entire geographical areas that could be
occupied by the respective species.
(52) Comment: One commenter indicated that grazing is not a threat
factor to the Yosemite toad, and, therefore, critical habitat for this
species should be kept as small as possible around currently occupied
areas.
Our Response: When designating critical habitat, we assess whether
the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species
at the time of listing contain features that are essential to the
conservation of the species and which may require special management
considerations or protection. The criteria used to determine the extent
of this area are based on whether such area contains the essential
physical or biological features, among other factors. However, the
presence of a particular threat factor is not a criterion by which the
extent of the area is defined.
(53) Comment: We received a comment from Pacific Gas and Electric
Company that we should exclude two reservoirs in subunit 1A for the
Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog. USFS also commented that these areas
and acreage proximate to these reservoirs within the Lassen National
Forest should be excluded because they are not occupied by Sierra
Nevada yellow-legged frogs.
Our Response: Subsequent to the publication of the proposed
critical habitat designation, CDFW indicated to us that two of our
extant records of Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frogs in the watershed on
the western portion of subunit 1A for the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged
frog were erroneous. We deleted the localities from our database, and
per the criteria used to designate critical habitat, these reservoirs
and surrounding lands have been removed from subunit 1A. This change
results in a reduction of approximately 6,057 ha (15,012 ac) in subunit
1A for Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog.
(54) Comment: We received a comment from Pacific Gas and Electric
Company that we exclude the Blue Lakes Unit from the Yosemite toad
[[Page 59059]]
critical habitat designation because it is a hybridization zone with
western toad (Anaxyrus boreas).
Our Response: We are aware that the Blue Lakes Unit is within a
zone of hybridization. Given the difficulty in differentiating the
Yosemite toad from western toad (or, for that matter, either species
from hybrids), and given that the presence of hybrids indicates that
native genes are also extant within the area, removing the unit from
critical habitat designation is not warranted. Despite hybridization,
this area still meets the definition of critical habitat.
(55) Comment: We received one comment encouraging us to designate
additional critical habitat for the northern DPS of the mountain
yellow-legged frog. Specific areas identified included Breckenridge
Mountain within the Giant Sequoia National Monument, and Taylor Meadow
in the Sequoia National Forest, to effectively decrease the gap between
the critical habitat units for the northern and southern DPS by 31
miles.
Our Response: The criteria we applied in determining critical
habitat boundaries were based on the identification of specific areas
with the physical or biological features essential to the conservation
of the species, but also focused on areas with proximity to known,
extant populations. The first reason for this approach is to protect
important habitat areas (the areas containing physical or biological
features requiring special management considerations and protection).
This approach also works under the rationale that natural dispersal and
recolonization in proximate areas is preferable to translocation, or
captive propagation and reintroduction to restored historical habitat.
While captive rearing and reintroduction can and may be utilized within
an overall recovery effort for the respective species, this more
detailed level of planning is not completed to date.
With regard to increasing connectivity between the southern DPS of
the mountain yellow-legged frog and the northern DPS of the mountain
yellow-legged frog, it is unclear if restoring connectivity between the
DPSs will be an appropriate recovery target, because natural
interchange is impossible and these metapopulations are discrete and
significant, comprising different genetic clades.
Peer Review
In accordance with our peer review 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 species, the geographic region in which the species occur, and
conservation biology principles. We received responses from three of
the five peer reviewers about our proposed critical habitat
designation.
We reviewed all comments we received from the peer reviewers for
substantive issues and new information regarding critical habitat for
the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog, the northern DPS of the mountain
yellow-legged frog, and the Yosemite toad. The peer reviewers generally
concurred with our methods and conclusions and provided additional
information, clarifications, and suggestions to improve the final
critical habitat rule. Peer reviewer comments are addressed in the
following summary and incorporated into the final rule as appropriate.
Peer Reviewer Comments
(56) Comment: Two peer reviewers noted that certain populations
were not included in critical habitat. These included populations in
the southwest portion of Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog Clade 3 in
the western Sierra National Forest (Lakecamp Lake and Ershim Meadow),
and the peer reviewers suggested inclusion due to the ecological
uniqueness of the habitat (as meadow/stream populations). Other
locations not included were Upper and Lower Summit Meadows in Yosemite
National Park, Calaveras Big Trees, and Birch Creek and Dry Creek/
Crooked Meadows in the Inyo National Forest.
Our Response: We concur that these populations occur in
ecologically unique habitats. For genetic clades with more extant
metapopulations, we did not include every locality within the critical
habitat designation. If populations were geographically removed, and
opportunities for natural dispersal between occupied habitat are
limited within such genetic clades, some of these populations were not
included in the critical habitat designation (whereas other populations
that were geographically closer and had natural dispersal between
occupied habitat within such clades were included). Please refer also
to our response to Comment (2), above.
(57) Comment: One peer reviewer indicated that the loss of
populations from designated subunits would jeopardize the long-term
viability of the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog and the northern DPS
of the mountain yellow-legged frog, and, therefore, considerable
research and management efforts focused upon fish eradications, frog
translocations, reintroductions, and Bd treatments will be necessary to
ensure the persistence of frog populations in some units or subunits.
Our Response: We concur that considerable research, restoration,
and management efforts are critical to the conservation of both species
of frogs. We anticipate that all mentioned elements will be central to
the upcoming conservation strategy and future recovery plan.
(58) Comment: Two peer reviewers highlighted that the MaxEnt model
used to delineate critical habitat may be biased toward high mountain
lakes and underrepresent stream-based populations.
Our Response: We acknowledge these comments. One of the peer
reviewers (Dr. Knapp, the developer of the model) indicated this bias
is based on differences in survey intensity of lake versus stream
habitats, but presumed the bias to be relatively small and ultimately
unquantifiable. Subsequent review of our criteria as written for the
proposed critical habitat designation indicates that we inadvertently
omitted one aspect of our delineation methodology. Specifically, in
stream-based populations, because Dr. Knapp had indicated that the
MaxEnt model was potentially less reliable for streams, we utilized the
0.2 probability of occurrence in such systems, as opposed to the 0.4
threshold we utilized for lake-based delineations. This oversight has
been amended in the narrative for the criteria outlined in this final
critical habitat designation. This change in narrative is a
clarification of methodology, and did not result in a change to any
critical habitat boundaries.
(59) Comment: One peer reviewer noted two areas with relatively
high toad abundances that were not included in the proposed Yosemite
toad critical habitat: Headwaters of West Walker in the Humboldt-
Toiyabe National Forest and meadows southwest of Volcanic Knob on the
Sierra National Forest.
Our Response: We acknowledge and appreciate this comment. We did
not include every known Yosemite toad locality in our proposed critical
habitat designation, but rather we included those areas containing the
physical or biological features that are essential to the conservation
of the species. Please also refer to responses to Comments (2) and (3),
above.
(60) Comment: One peer reviewer suggested that we split Sierra
Nevada yellow-legged frog subunit 3B into three distinct units due the
likelihood that this subunit is in fact comprised of clades 2 and 3,
not simply clade 3 following Vredenburg et al. (2007).
[[Page 59060]]
Our Response: We concur that the most plausible genetic clade
designations follow the peer reviewer's comment. However, the entirety
of subunit 3B for the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog, as delineated,
encompasses watersheds with mixed genetic lineage (clades 2 and 3),
and, therefore, it was difficult to segregate one from the other
without designating multiple subunits within an entirely contiguous
area. This condition also holds for subunits 3C and 4C for the Sierra
Nevada yellow-legged frog. Given that the regulatory protections for
the actual lands are identical regardless of nomenclature, we opted for
simplicity and kept subunits 3B and 3C as single subunits and numbered
them for their predominant genetic clade per Vredenburg et al. (2007).
For subunit 4C, we assigned the number based on the range map we used,
which was developed and provided to us by the same peer reviewer. We
are hopeful that future genetic studies elucidate the genetic lineage
of each specific locale in these regions.
Summary of Changes From Proposed Rule
Based on comments we received following publication of the proposed
critical habitat designation, we revised PCEs 1 and 2 for the Sierra
Nevada yellow-legged frog and the northern DPS of the mountain yellow-
legged frog to better clarify the intent of the PCE language with
respect to the presence of introduced fish within critical habitat. It
was clear from public and agency input that readers misinterpreted what
we meant regarding PCE 1. We intended to say that PCE 1 (aquatic
breeding habitat) ideally should not have introduced fishes present,
but that introduced fishes may be present in PCE 2. Given that an area
only has to have one physical or biological feature present to meet the
definition of critical habitat, areas that have fish present are still
considered critical habitat if they meet PCE 2. Therefore, we did not
intend to imply that areas have to be ``free of fish'' to be critical
habitat. The specific changes include: Clarification regarding the
``fishless'' component within PCE 1 (aquatic breeding habitat) and a
typographical error within PCE 2 (non-breeding aquatic habitat) to
clarify that prey base was meant to sustain juvenile and adult frogs
intermittently using this habitat (not tadpoles). Other updates since
our last proposed rule include adding the known manageable threat of
fish persistence and stocking for the Northern DPS of the mountain
yellow-legged frog for critical habitat units 4A Frypan Meadows, 4B
Granite Basin, 4C Sequoia Kings, 4D Kaweah River, and 5A Blossom Lakes
to Table 6. In addition, the known threats that may affect the
essential physical or biological features identified for the critical
habitat units for the Yosemite toad have been updated since our last
proposed rule and the adjustments are included in the Threats column of
Table 7. We have also included minor corrections or clarifications
following our peer reviewer comments. We provide the full revised PCEs
below.
Additionally, based on comments received from the public, State and
Federal agencies, and the peer reviewer who developed the habitat model
used in part to identify areas with the requisite physical or
biological features, we have reevaluated our criteria for determining
critical habitat. This reevaluation has resulted in the reduction of
the number of sites included in this final critical habitat designation
for the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog because current habitat
conditions were not reflected in our original analysis (see ``(4)
Additional Criteria Applied to Final Critical Habitat Designation for
Sierra Nevada Yellow-legged Frog'' under Sierra Nevada Yellow-Legged
Frog and Northern DPS of the Mountain Yellow-legged Frog in Criteria
Used to Identify Critical Habitat, below). Therefore, we are not
finalizing designation of some sites that we proposed for critical
habitat designation the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog (see Table 2,
below). We are also not finalizing 6,057 ac (15,012 ha) in subunit 1A
because of information we received from CDFW regarding occupancy of the
proposed subunit (see Comment (53), above). In total, these changes
result in a reduction of approximately 9,412 ha (23,253 ac) in the
critical habitat designation for the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog
from what we proposed for this species (see Table 2, below). The
boundaries of critical habitat designations for the northern DPS of the
mountain yellow-legged frog and the Yosemite toad remain the same as
what we proposed. Finally, we are changing the name of Subunit 2F from
Squaw Ridge to East Amador. A full list of designated units and
subunits is provided below (see Tables 1, 3, and 4). In the incremental
effects memorandum, we indicated that we did not anticipate a
substantial number of consultations that would result in adverse
modification from the designation of critical habitat and, therefore,
we did not anticipate a substantial difference in administrative effort
to analyze projects that include critical habitat from those that would
only include the species. In reducing the area of final critical
habitat for the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog, and maintaining the
area proposed for critical habitat within the final designations for
the northern DPS of the mountain yellow-legged frog and Yosemite toad,
we believe the economic impacts to Federal agencies remain small and
insignificant.
The known manageable threat of fish persistence and stocking has
been identified for the Northern DPS of the mountain yellow-legged frog
for critical habitat units 4AFrypan Meadows, 4B Granite Basin, 4C
Sequoia Kings, 4D Kaweah River, and 5A Blossom Lakes since our last
proposed rule.
Critical Habitat
Background
Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as:
(1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the
species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which
are found those physical or biological features
(a) Essential to the conservation of the species, and
(b) Which may require special management considerations or
protection; and
(2) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the
species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas
are essential for the conservation of the species.
Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means to use
and the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring
an endangered or threatened species to the point at which the measures
provided pursuant to the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods and
procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated
with scientific resources management such as research, census, law
enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live
trapping, and transplantation, and, in the extraordinary case where
population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise
relieved, may include regulated taking.
Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act
through the requirement that Federal agencies ensure, in consultation
with the Service, that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is
not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat. The designation of critical habitat does not affect
land
[[Page 59061]]
ownership or establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or
other conservation area. Such designation does not allow the government
or public to access private lands. Such designation does not require
implementation of restoration, recovery, or enhancement measures by
non-Federal landowners. Where a landowner requests Federal agency
funding or authorization for an action that may affect a listed species
or critical habitat, the consultation requirements of section 7(a)(2)
of the Act would apply, but even in the event of a destruction or
adverse modification finding, the obligation of the Federal action
agency and the landowner is not to restore or recover the species, but
to implement reasonable and prudent alternatives to avoid destruction
or adverse modification of critical habitat.
Under the first prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat,
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time
it was listed are included in a critical habitat designation if they
contain physical or biological features (1) which are essential to the
conservation of the species and (2) which may require special
management considerations or protection. For these areas, critical
habitat designations identify, to the extent known using the best
scientific and commercial data available, those physical or biological
features that are essential to the conservation of the species (such as
space, food, cover, and protected habitat). In identifying those
physical or biological features within an area, we focus on the
principal biological or physical constituent elements (primary
constituent elements such as roost sites, nesting grounds, seasonal
wetlands, water quality, tide, soil type) that are essential to the
conservation of the species. Primary constituent elements are those
specific elements of the physical or biological features that provide
for a species' life-history processes and are essential to the
conservation of the species.
Under the second prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat,
we can designate critical habitat in areas outside the geographical
area occupied by the species at the time it is listed, upon a
determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the
species. For example, an area currently occupied by the species but
that was not occupied at the time of listing may be essential to the
conservation of the species and may be included in the critical habitat
designation. We designate critical habitat in areas outside the
geographical area occupied by a species only when a designation limited
to its range would be inadequate to ensure the conservation of the
species.
Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on
the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.
Further, our Policy on Information Standards Under the Endangered
Species Act (published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR
34271)), the Information Quality Act (section 515 of the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L.
106-554; H.R. 5658)), and our associated Information Quality Guidelines
provide criteria, establish procedures, and provide guidance to ensure
that our decisions are based on the best scientific data available.
They require our biologists, to the extent consistent with the Act and
with the use of the best scientific data available, to use primary and
original sources of information as the basis for recommendations to
designate critical habitat.
When we are determining which areas should be designated as
critical habitat, our primary source of information is generally the
information developed during the listing process for the species.
Additional information sources may include the recovery plan for the
species, articles in peer-reviewed journals, conservation plans
developed by States and counties, scientific status surveys and
studies, biological assessments, other unpublished materials, or
experts' opinions or personal knowledge.
Habitat is dynamic, and species may move from one area to another
over time. We recognize that critical habitat designated at a
particular point in time may not include all of the habitat areas that
we may later determine are necessary for the recovery of the species.
For these reasons, a critical habitat designation does not signal that
habitat outside the designated area is unimportant or may not be needed
for recovery of the species. Areas that are important to the
conservation of the species, both inside and outside the critical
habitat designation, will continue to be subject to: (1) Conservation
actions implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act, (2) regulatory
protections afforded by the requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act
for Federal agencies to insure their actions are not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened
species, and (3) section 9 of the Act's prohibitions on taking any
individual of the species, including taking caused by actions that
affect habitat. Federally funded or permitted projects affecting listed
species outside their designated critical habitat areas may still
result in jeopardy findings in some cases. These protections and
conservation tools will continue to contribute to recovery of the
species. Similarly, critical habitat designations made on the basis of
the best available information at the time of designation will not
control the direction and substance of future recovery plans, habitat
conservation plans (HCPs), or other species conservation planning
efforts if new information available at the time of these planning
efforts calls for a different outcome. On February 11, 2016, we
published a final rule in the Federal Register (81 FR 7413) to amend
our regulations concerning the procedures and criteria we use to
designate and revise critical habitat. That rule became effective on
March 14, 2016, but, as stated in that rule, the amendments it sets
forth apply to ``rules for which a proposed rule was published after
March 14, 2016.'' We published our proposed critical habitat
designation for the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog, the northern DPS
of the mountain yellow-legged frog, and the Yosemite toad on April 25,
2013 (78 FR 24516); therefore, the amendments set forth in the February
11, 2016, final rule at 81 FR 7413 do not apply to this final
designation of critical habitat for the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged
frog, the northern DPS of the mountain yellow-legged frog, and the
Yosemite toad.
Physical or Biological Features
In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) and 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act and
regulations at 50 CFR 424.12, in determining which areas within the
geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing to
designate as critical habitat, we consider the physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of the species and which may
require special management considerations or protection. These include,
but are not limited to:
(1) Space for individual and population growth and for normal
behavior;
(2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or
physiological requirements;
(3) Cover or shelter;
(4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, or rearing (or development)
of offspring; and
(5) Habitats that are protected from disturbance or are
representative of the historical, geographical, and ecological
distributions of a species.
We derive the specific physical or biological features essential
for the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog, the
[[Page 59062]]
northern DPS of the mountain yellow-legged frog, and the Yosemite toad
from studies of these species' habitat, ecology, and life history as
described in the proposed rule to designate critical habitat published
in the Federal Register on April 25, 2013 (78 FR 24516), and in the
information presented below. Additional information can be found in the
final listing rule published in the Federal Register on April 29, 2014
(79 FR 24256). Under the Act and its implementing regulations, we are
required to identify the physical or biological features essential to
the conservation of the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog, the northern
DPS of the mountain yellow-legged frog, and the Yosemite toad in areas
occupied at the time of listing, focusing on the features' primary
constituent elements. Primary constituent elements are those specific
elements of the physical or biological features that provide for a
species' life-history processes and are essential to the conservation
of the species.
Physical or Biological Features for the Sierra Nevada Yellow-Legged
Frog and the Northern DPS of the Mountain Yellow-Legged Frog
We have determined that the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog and
the northern DPS of the mountain yellow-legged frog (hereafter referred
to collectively as mountain yellow-legged frogs) require the following
physical or biological features:
Space for Individual and Population Growth and for Normal Behavior
Mountain yellow-legged frogs are highly aquatic (Stebbins 1951, p.
340; Mullally and Cunningham 1956, p. 191; Bradford et al. 1993, p.
886). Although they tend to stay closely associated with high-elevation
water bodies, they are capable of longer distance travel, whether along
stream courses or over land in between breeding, foraging, and
overwintering habitat within lake complexes. Individuals may use
different water bodies or different areas within the same water body
for breeding, foraging, and overwintering (Matthews and Pope 1999, pp.
620-623; Wengert 2008, p. 18). Within water bodies, adults and tadpoles
prefer shallower areas and shelves (Mullally and Cunningham 1956, p.
191; Jennings and Hayes 1994, p. 77) with solar exposure (features
rendering these areas warmer (Bradford 1984, p. 973), which also make
them more suitable as prey species). High-elevation habitats tend to
have lower relative productivity (suggesting populations are often
resource limited); therefore, sufficient space is also needed to avoid
competition with other frogs and tadpoles for limited food resources.
Therefore, based on the information above, we identify high-
elevation water bodies and adjacent lands within and proximate to water
bodies utilized by extant frog metapopulations (mountain lakes and
streams) to be a physical or biological feature needed by mountain
yellow-legged frogs to provide space for their individual and
population growth and for normal behavior.
Food, Water, Air, Light, Minerals, or Other Nutritional or
Physiological Requirements
Adult mountain yellow-legged frogs are thought to feed
preferentially upon terrestrial insects and adult stages of aquatic
insects while on the shore and in shallow water (Bradford 1983, p.
1171); however, feeding studies on mountain yellow-legged frogs in the
Sierra Nevada are limited. Remains found inside the stomachs of
mountain yellow-legged frogs in southern California represented a wide
variety of invertebrates, including beetles, ants, bees, wasps, flies,
true bugs, and dragonflies (Long 1970, p. 7). Larger frogs have been
observed to eat more aquatic true bugs (Order Hemiptera) (Jennings and
Hayes 1994, p. 77). Adult mountain yellow-legged frogs have also been
found to eat Yosemite toad tadpoles (Mullally 1953, p. 183; Zeiner et
al. 1988, p. 88) and Pacific treefrog tadpoles (Pope 1999b, pp. 163-
164), and they are also cannibalistic (Heller 1960, p. 127; Vredenburg
et al. 2005, p. 565).
Mountain yellow-legged frog tadpoles graze on benthic detritus,
algae, and diatoms along rocky bottoms in streams, lakes, and ponds
(Bradford 1983, p. 1171; Zeiner et al. 1988, p. 88). Tadpoles have also
been observed cannibalizing eggs (Vredenburg 2000, p. 170) and feeding
on the carcasses of dead metamorphosed frogs (Vredenburg et al. 2005,
p. 565). Other species may compete with frogs and tadpoles for limited
food resources. Introduced fishes are the primary competitors, reducing
the available prey base for mountain yellow-legged frogs (Finlay and
Vredenburg 2007, p. 2187).
The ecosystems utilized by mountain yellow-legged frogs have
inherent community dynamics that sustain the food web. Habitats,
therefore, must maintain sufficient water quality to sustain the frogs
within the tolerance range of healthy individual frogs, as well as
acceptable ranges for maintaining the underlying ecological community.
These key physical parameters include pH, temperature, nutrients, and
uncontaminated water. The high-elevation habitats that support mountain
yellow-legged frogs require sufficient sunlight to warm the water where
they congregate, and to allow subadults and adults to sun themselves.
Persistence of frog populations is dependent on a sufficient volume
of water feeding into their habitats to provide the aquatic conditions
necessary to sustain multiyear tadpoles through metamorphosis. This
makes the hydrologic basin (or catchment area) a critical source of
water for supplying downgradient habitats. The catchment area sustains
water levels in lakes and streams used by mountain yellow-legged frogs
via surface and ground water transport, which are crucially important
for maintaining frog habitat.
Therefore, based on the information above, we identify sufficient
quantity and quality of source waters that support habitat used by
mountain yellow-legged frogs (including the balance of constituents to
support a sustainable food web with a sufficient prey base), absence of
competition from introduced fishes, exposure to solar radiation, and
shallow (warmer) areas or shelves within ponds or pools to be a
physical or biological feature needed by mountain yellow-legged frogs
to provide for their nutritional and physiological requirements.
Cover or Shelter
Mountain yellow-legged frogs require conditions that allow for
overwinter survival, including lakes or pools within streams that do
not freeze to the bottom, or refugia within or adjacent to such systems
(such as underwater crevices) so that overwintering tadpoles and frogs
do not freeze or experience anoxic conditions during their winter
dormancy period (Bradford 1983, pp. 1173-1179; Matthews and Pope 1999,
pp. 622-623; Pope 1999a, pp. 42-43; Vredenburg et al. 2005, p. 565).
Cover for adults to protect themselves from terrestrial and avian
predators is also an important habitat feature, especially in cases
where aquatic habitat itself does not provide adequate protection from
terrestrial or avian predators due to insufficient water depth.
Although cover within aquatic habitat may be important in the short
term to avoid fish predation, the observation of low coexistence
between introduced trout and frog populations (Knapp 1996, pp. 1-44)
suggests that cover alone is insufficient to preclude extirpation by
fish predation.
Therefore, based on the information above, we identify refuge from
lethal overwintering conditions (freezing and anoxia), and physical
cover from
[[Page 59063]]
aquatic, avian, and terrestrial predators to be a physical or
biological feature needed by the mountain yellow-legged frog.
Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, or Rearing (or Development) of
Offspring
Mountain yellow-legged frogs are known to utilize habitats
differently depending on season (Matthews and Pope 1999, pp. 620-623;
Wengert 2008, p. 18). Reproduction and rearing require water bodies (or
adequate refugia) that are sufficiently deep that they do not dry out
in summer or freeze through in winter (except infrequently). Therefore,
the conditions within the catchment for these habitats must be
maintained such that sufficient volume and timing of snowmelt and
adequate transport of precipitation to these rearing water bodies
sustain the appropriate balance of conditions to maintain mountain
yellow-legged frog's life-history needs. Conditions that determine the
depth, siltation rates, or persistence of these water bodies (including
sufficient perennial water at depths that do not freeze overwinter) are
key determinants of habitat functionality (within tolerance ranges of
each particular system). Finally, pre-breeding adult frogs need access
to these water bodies in order to utilize resources available within
nonbreeding habitat.
Therefore, based on the information above, we find the persistence
of breeding and rearing habitats and access to and from seasonal
habitat areas (whether via aquatic or terrestrial migration) to be a
physical or biological feature needed by the mountain yellow-legged
frog to allow successful reproduction and development of offspring.
Habitats Protected From Disturbance or Representative of the
Historical, Geographic, and Ecological Distributions of the Species
In addition to migration routes (areas that provide back and forth
between habitat patches within the metapopulation) without impediments
across the landscape between proximal ponds within the ranges of
functional metapopulations, mountain yellow-legged frogs require
dispersal corridors (areas for recolonization and range expansion) to
reestablish populations in extirpated areas within its current range to
provide ecological and geographic resiliency (U.S. Forest Service et
al. 2015, p. 35). Maintenance and reestablishment of such populations
across a diversity of ecological landscapes is necessary to provide
sufficient protection against changing environmental circumstances
(such as climate change). This provides functional redundancy to
safeguard against stochastic events (such as wildfires), but this
redundancy also may be necessary as different regions or microclimates
respond to changing climate conditions.
Establishing or maintaining populations across a broad geographic
area spreads out the risk to individual populations across the range of
the species, thereby conferring species resilience. Finally, protecting
a wide range of habitats across the occupied range of the species
simultaneously maintains genetic diversity of the species, which
protects the underlying integrity of the major genetic clades
(Vredenburg et al. 2007, pp. 370-371), whose persistence is important
to the ecological fitness of these species as a whole (Allentoft and
O'Brien 2010 pp. 47-71; Johansson et al. 2007, pp. 2693-2700).
Therefore, based on the information above, we identify dispersal
routes (generally fish free), habitat connectivity, and a diversity of
high-quality habitats across multiple watersheds throughout the
geographic extent of the species' ranges and sufficiently
representative of the major genetic clades to be a physical or
biological feature needed by the mountain yellow-legged frog.
Primary Constituent Elements for Sierra Nevada Yellow-Legged Frog and
the Northern DPS of the Mountain Yellow-Legged Frog
Based on our current knowledge of the physical or biological
features and habitat characteristics required to sustain the species'
life-history processes, we determine that the primary constituent
elements specific to the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog and the
northern DPS of the mountain yellow-legged frog are:
(1) Aquatic habitat for breeding and rearing. Habitat that consists
of permanent water bodies, or those that are either hydrologically
connected with, or close to, permanent water bodies, including, but not
limited to, lakes, streams, rivers, tarns, perennial creeks (or
permanent plunge pools within intermittent creeks), pools (such as a
body of impounded water contained above a natural dam), and other forms
of aquatic habitat. This habitat must:
(a) For lakes, be of sufficient depth not to freeze solid (to the
bottom) during the winter (no less than 1.7 m (5.6 ft), but generally
greater than 2.5 m (8.2 ft), and optimally 5 m (16.4 ft) or deeper
(unless some other refuge from freezing is available)).
(b) Maintain a natural flow pattern, including periodic flooding,
and have functional community dynamics in order to provide sufficient
productivity and a prey base to support the growth and development of
rearing tadpoles and metamorphs.
(c) Be free of introduced predators.
(d) Maintain water during the entire tadpole growth phase (a
minimum of 2 years). During periods of drought, these breeding sites
may not hold water long enough for individuals to complete
metamorphosis, but they may still be considered essential breeding
habitat if they provide sufficient habitat in most years to foster
recruitment within the reproductive lifespan of individual adult frogs.
(e) Contain:
(i) Bank and pool substrates consisting of varying percentages of
soil or silt, sand, gravel, cobble, rock, and boulders (for basking and
cover);
(ii) Shallower microhabitat with solar exposure to warm lake areas
and to foster primary productivity of the food web;
(iii) Open gravel banks and rocks or other structures projecting
above or just beneath the surface of the water for adult sunning posts;
(iv) Aquatic refugia, including pools with bank overhangs, downfall
logs or branches, or rocks and vegetation to provide cover from
predators; and
(v) Sufficient food resources to provide for tadpole growth and
development.
(2) Aquatic nonbreeding habitat (including overwintering habitat).
This habitat may contain the same characteristics as aquatic breeding
and rearing habitat (often at the same locale), and may include lakes,
ponds, tarns, streams, rivers, creeks, plunge pools within intermittent
creeks, seeps, and springs that may not hold water long enough for the
species to complete its aquatic life cycle. This habitat provides for
shelter, foraging, predator avoidance, and aquatic dispersal of
juvenile and adult mountain yellow-legged frogs. Aquatic nonbreeding
habitat contains:
(a) Bank and pool substrates consisting of varying percentages of
soil or silt, sand, gravel, cobble, rock, and boulders (for basking and
cover);
(b) Open gravel banks and rocks projecting above or just beneath
the surface of the water for adult sunning posts;
(c) Aquatic refugia, including pools with bank overhangs, downfall
logs or branches, or rocks and vegetation to provide cover from
predators;
(d) Sufficient food resources to support juvenile and adult
foraging;
[[Page 59064]]
(e) Overwintering refugia, where thermal properties of the
microhabitat protect hibernating life stages from winter freezing, such
as crevices or holes within bedrock, in and near shore; and/or
(f) Streams, stream reaches, or wet meadow habitats that can
function as corridors for movement between aquatic habitats used as
breeding or foraging sites.
(3) Upland areas.
(a) Upland areas adjacent to or surrounding breeding and
nonbreeding aquatic habitat that provide area for feeding and movement
by mountain yellow-legged frogs.
(i) For stream habitats, this area extends 25 m (82 ft) from the
bank or shoreline.
(ii) In areas that contain riparian habitat and upland vegetation
(for example, mixed conifer, ponderosa pine, montane conifer, and
montane riparian woodlands), the canopy overstory should be
sufficiently thin (generally not to exceed 85 percent) to allow
sunlight to reach the aquatic habitat and thereby provide basking areas
for the species.
(iii) For areas between proximate (within 300 m (984 ft)) water
bodies (typical of some high mountain lake habitats), the upland area
extends from the bank or shoreline between such water bodies.
(iv) Within mesic habitats such as lake and meadow systems, the
entire area of physically contiguous or proximate habitat is suitable
for dispersal and foraging.
(b) Upland areas (catchments) adjacent to and surrounding both
breeding and nonbreeding aquatic habitat that provide for the natural
hydrologic regime (water quantity) of aquatic habitats. These upland
areas should also allow for the maintenance of sufficient water quality
to provide for the various life stages of the frog and its prey base.
Physical or Biological Features for the Yosemite Toad
We have determined that the Yosemite toad requires the following
physical or biological features:
Space for Individual and Population Growth and for Normal Behavior
The Yosemite toad is commonly associated with wet meadow habitats
in the Sierra Nevada of California. It occupies aquatic, riparian, and
upland habitat throughout a majority of its range. Suitable habitat for
the Yosemite toad is created and maintained by the natural hydrologic
and ecological processes that occur within the aquatic breeding
habitats and adjacent upland areas. Yosemite toads have been documented
breeding in wet meadows and slow-flowing streams (Jennings and Hayes
1994, pp. 50-53), shallow ponds, and shallow areas of lakes (Mullally
1953, pp. 182-183). Upland habitat use varies among the different sexes
and life stages of the toad (Morton and Pereyra 2010, p. 391); however,
all Yosemite toads utilize areas within 1.5 km (0.9 mi) of breeding
sites for foraging and overwintering, with juveniles predominantly
overwintering in close proximity to breeding areas (Martin 2008, p.
154; Morton and Pereyra 2010, p. 391; Liang et al. 2010, p. 6).
Yosemite toads must be able to move between aquatic breeding
habitats, upland foraging sites, and overwintering areas. Yosemite
toads have been documented to move as far as 1.26 km (0.78 mi) between
breeding and upland habitats (Liang 2010, p. ii). Based on
observational data from three previous studies, Liang et al. (2010, p.
6) estimated the maximum travel distance for the Yosemite toad to be
1.5 km (0.9 mi). Upland habitat used for foraging includes lush meadows
with herbaceous vegetation (Morton and Pereyra 2010, p. 390), alpine-
dwarf scrub, red fir, lodgepole pine, and subalpine conifer vegetation
types (Liang 2010, p. 81), and the edges of talus slopes (Morton and
Pereyra 2010, p. 391).
Therefore, based on the information above, we identify both lentic
(still) and lotic (flowing) water bodies, including meadows, and
adjacent upland habitats with sufficient refugia (for example, logs,
rocks) and overwintering habitat that provide space for normal behavior
to be a physical or biological feature needed by Yosemite toads for
their individual and population growth and for normal behavior.
Food, Water, Air, Light, Minerals, or Other Nutritional or
Physiological Requirements
Little is known about the diet of Yosemite toad tadpoles. However,
their diet presumably approximates that of related Anaxyrus species,
and likely consists of microscopic algae, bacteria, and protozoans.
Given their life history, it is logical to presume they are
opportunistic generalists. Martin (1991, pp. 22-23) reports tadpoles
foraging on detritus and plant materials (algae), but also identifies
Yosemite toad tadpoles as potential opportunistic predators, having
observed them feeding on the larvae of Pacific chorus frog and
predaceous diving beetle, which may have been dead or live. The adult
Yosemite toad diet comprises a large variety of insects, with
Hymenoptera (ants, wasps, bees, sawflies, horntails) comprising the
largest proportion of the summer prey base (Martin 1991, pp. 19-22).
The habitats utilized by the Yosemite toad have inherent community
dynamics that sustain the food web. Habitats also must maintain
sufficient water quality and moisture availability to sustain the toads
throughout their life stages, so that key physical parameters within
the tolerance range of healthy individual frogs, as well as acceptable
ranges for maintaining the underlying ecological community, are
maintained. These parameters include, but are not limited to, pH,
temperature, precipitation, slope, aspect, vegetation, and lack of
anthropogenic contaminants at harmful concentrations. Yosemite toad
locations are associated with low slopes, specific vegetation types
(wet meadow, alpine-dwarf shrub, montane chaparral, red fir, and
subalpine conifer), and certain temperature regimes (Liang and
Stohlgren 2011, p. 217).
Therefore, based on the information above, we identify sufficient
quantities and quality of source waters, adequate prey resources and
the balance of constituents to support the natural food web, low
slopes, and specific vegetation communities to be a physical or
biological feature needed by Yosemite toads to provide for their
nutritional and physiological requirements.
Cover or Shelter
When not actively foraging, Yosemite toads take refuge under
surface objects, including logs and rocks (Stebbins 1951, pp. 245-248;
Karlstrom 1962, pp. 9-10), and in rodent burrows (Liang 2010, p. 95).
Thus, areas of shelter interspersed with other moist environments, such
as seeps and springs, are necessary. Yosemite toads also utilize rodent
burrows (Jennings and Hayes 1994, pp. 50-53), as well as cover under
surface objects and below willows, for overwintering (Kagarise Sherman
1980, pers. obs., as cited in Martin 2008, p. 158).
Therefore, based on the information above, we identify surface
objects, rodent burrows, and other cover or overwintering areas to be a
physical or biological feature needed by the Yosemite toad to provide
cover and shelter.
Sites for Breeding, Reproduction or Rearing (or Development) of
Offspring
Yosemite toads are prolific breeders that lay their eggs at
snowmelt. Suitable breeding and embryonic rearing habitat generally
occurs in very shallow water of subalpine lentic and lotic habitats,
[[Page 59065]]
including wet meadows, lakes, and small ponds, as well as shallow
spring channels, side channels, and sloughs. Eggs typically hatch
within 4 to 6 days (Karlstrom 1962, p. 19), with rearing through
metamorphosis taking approximately 5 to 7 weeks after eggs are laid
(U.S. Forest Service et al. 2015, p. 250). These times can vary
depending on prey availability, temperature, and other abiotic factors.
The suitability of breeding habitat may vary from year to year due
primarily to the amount of precipitation and local temperatures. Given
the variability of habitats available for breeding, the high site-
fidelity of breeding toads, an opportunistic breeding strategy, as well
as the use of lotic systems, Yosemite toads require a variety of
aquatic habitats to successfully maintain populations.
Therefore, based on the information above, we identify both lentic
and slow-moving lotic aquatic systems that provide sufficient
temperature for hatching and that maintain sufficient water for
metamorphosis (a minimum of 5 weeks) to be a physical or biological
feature needed by the Yosemite toad to allow for successful
reproduction and development of offspring.
Habitats Protected From Disturbance or Representative of the
Historical, Geographic, and Ecological Distributions of the Species
In addition to migration routes without impediments between upland
areas and breeding locations across the landscape, Yosemite toads
require dispersal corridors to utilize a wide range of breeding
habitats in order to provide ecological and geographic resiliency in
the face of changing environmental circumstances (for example,
climate). This provides functional redundancy to safeguard against
stochastic events, such as wildfires, but also may be necessary as
different regions or microclimates respond to changing climate
conditions. Maintaining populations across a broad geographic extent
also reduces the risk of a stochastic event that extirpates multiple
populations across the range of the species, thereby conferring species
resilience. Finally, protecting a wider range of habitats across the
occupied range of the species can assist in maintaining the genetic
diversity of the species.
Therefore, based on the information above, we identify dispersal
routes, habitat connectivity, and a diversity of habitats throughout
the geographic extent of the species' range that sufficiently represent
the distribution of the species (including inherent genetic diversity)
to be a physical or biological feature needed by the Yosemite toad.
Primary Constituent Elements for the Yosemite Toad
Based on our current knowledge of the physical or biological
features and habitat characteristics required to sustain the species'
life-history processes, we determine that the primary constituent
elements specific to the Yosemite Toad are:
(1) Aquatic breeding habitat. (a) This habitat consists of bodies
of fresh water, including wet meadows, slow-moving streams, shallow
ponds, spring systems, and shallow areas of lakes, that:
(i) Are typically (or become) inundated during snowmelt;
(ii) Hold water for a minimum of 5 weeks, but more typically 7 to 8
weeks; and
(iii) Contain sufficient food for tadpole development.
(b) During periods of drought or less than average rainfall, these
breeding sites may not hold surface water long enough for individual
Yosemite toads to complete metamorphosis, but they are still considered
essential breeding habitat because they provide habitat in most years.
(2) Upland areas. (a) This habitat consists of areas adjacent to or
surrounding breeding habitat up to a distance of 1.25 km (0.78 mi) in
most cases (that is, depending on surrounding landscape and dispersal
barriers), including seeps, springheads, talus and boulders, and areas
that provide:
(i) Sufficient cover (including rodent burrows, logs, rocks, and
other surface objects) to provide summer refugia,
(ii) Foraging habitat,
(iii) Adequate prey resources,
(iv) Physical structure for predator avoidance,
(v) Overwintering refugia for juvenile and adult Yosemite toads,
(vi) Dispersal corridors between aquatic breeding habitats,
(vii) Dispersal corridors between breeding habitats and areas of
suitable summer and winter refugia and foraging habitat, and/or
(viii) The natural hydrologic regime of aquatic habitats (the
catchment).
(b) These upland areas should also maintain sufficient water
quality to provide for the various life stages of the Yosemite toad and
its prey base.
With this designation of critical habitat, we identify the physical
or biological features and their associated PCEs that support the life-
history processes essential to the conservation of the species.
Special Management Considerations or Protection
When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the specific
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time
of listing contain features that are essential to the conservation of
the species and which may require special management considerations or
protection.
The features essential to the conservation of the Sierra Nevada
yellow-legged frog and northern DPS of the mountain yellow-legged frog
may require special management considerations or protection to reduce
the following threats: The persistence of introduced trout populations
in essential habitat; the risks related to the spread of pathogens; the
effects from water withdrawals and diversions; impacts associated with
timber harvest and fuels reduction activities; impacts associated with
inappropriate livestock grazing; and intensive use by recreationists,
including packstock camping and grazing.
Conservation actions that could ameliorate the threats described
above include (but are not limited to) nonnative fish eradication;
installation of fish barriers; modifications to fish stocking practices
in certain water bodies; physical habitat restoration; and responsible
management practices covering potentially incompatible activities, such
as timber harvest and fuels management, water supply development and
management, inappropriate livestock grazing, packstock grazing, and
other recreational uses. These management practices will protect the
PCEs for the mountain yellow-legged frog by reducing the stressors
currently affecting population viability. Additionally, management of
critical habitat lands will help maintain the underlying habitat
quality, foster recovery, and sustain populations currently in decline.
The features essential to the conservation of the Yosemite toad may
require special management considerations or protection to reduce the
following threats: Impacts associated with timber harvest and fuels
reduction activity; impacts associated with inappropriate livestock
grazing; the spread of pathogens; and intensive use by recreationists,
including packstock camping and grazing.
Management activities that could ameliorate the threats described
above include (but are not limited to) physical habitat restoration and
responsible management practices covering potentially incompatible
beneficial uses
[[Page 59066]]
such as timber harvest and fuels management, water supply development
and management, livestock and packstock grazing, and other recreational
uses. These management activities will protect the PCEs for the
Yosemite toad by reducing the stressors currently affecting population
viability. Additionally, management of critical habitat lands will help
maintain or enhance the necessary environmental components, foster
recovery, and sustain populations currently in decline.
Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat
As required by section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we use the best
scientific data available to designate critical habitat. In accordance
with the Act and our implementing regulations, we review available
information pertaining to the habitat requirements of the species and
identify occupied areas at the time of listing that contain the
features essential to the conservation of the species. If, after
identifying currently occupied areas, we determine that those areas are
inadequate to ensure conservation of the species, in accordance with
the Act and our implementing regulations, we then consider whether
designating additional areas--outside those currently occupied--are
essential for the conservation of the species. We are not designating
any areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species because
occupied areas are sufficient for their conservation.
We are designating critical habitat units that we have determined
based on the best scientific data available are known to be currently
occupied and contain the primary constituent elements of the physical
or biological features essential to the conservation of the Sierra
Nevada yellow-legged frog, northern DPS of the mountain yellow-legged
frog, and the Yosemite toad (under section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act).
These species exhibit a metapopulation life-history model, and although
they tend towards high site-fidelity, individuals within these
populations can and do move through suitable habitat to take advantage
of changing conditions. Additional areas outside the aquatic habitat
within each unit or subunit were incorporated to assist in maintaining
the hydrology of the aquatic features and to recognize the importance
of dispersal between populations. In most instances, we aggregated
areas we knew to be occupied, together with areas needed for hydrologic
function and dispersal, into single units or subunits as described at
50 CFR 424.12(d) of our regulations. However, not all areas within each
unit are being used by the species at all times, because, by
definition, individuals within metapopulations move in space and time.
For the purposes of this final rule (as in our proposed rule), we
equate the geographical area occupied at the time of listing with the
current range for each of the species (50 CFR 424.12). Therefore, we
are designating specific areas within the geographical area occupied at
the time of listing (see criteria below) on which are found those
physical or biological features that are essential to the conservation
of the species and which may require special management considerations
or protection pursuant to section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act. Within the
current range of the species, based on the best scientific data
available, some watersheds may or may not be actively utilized by
extant frog or toad populations, but we consider these areas to be
occupied at the scale of the geographic range of the species. We use
the term ``utilized'' to refer to the finer geographic scale at the
watershed or survey locality level of resolution when the species
actively uses the area.
For this final rule, we completed the following basic steps to
delineate critical habitat (specific methods follow below):
(1) We compiled all available data from observations of Sierra
Nevada yellow-legged frog, northern DPS of the mountain yellow-legged
frog, and Yosemite toad;
(2) We identified, based on the best scientific data available,
populations that are extant at the time of listing (current) versus
those that are extirpated;
(3) We identified areas containing the components comprising the
physical or biological features that may require special management
considerations or protection;
(4) We circumscribed boundaries of potential critical habitat units
based on the above information; and
(5) We removed, to the extent practicable, all areas that did not
have the specific the physical or biological feature components, and
therefore are not considered essential to the conservation of the
Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog, northern DPS of the mountain yellow-
legged frog, or Yosemite toad.
(6) Following receipt of additional information from public
comments along with those from USFS and CDFW, we reevaluated a number
of sites in the proposed designation for the Sierra Nevada yellow-
legged frog and the northern DPS of the mountain yellow-legged frog.
The re-evaluation was necessary because the MaxEnt 3.3.3e model we used
to derive the proposed critical habitat designation was based on
historical habitat conditions that did not reflect current habitat
conditions and land use of these sites (Knapp 2013). This information
has bearing on the restoration potential of such areas. Although the
model limitations applied to both frog species, none of the additional
criteria used to filter the aquatic habitats within the range of the
northern DPS of the mountain yellow-legged frog (see following)
suggested or supported change from the proposed designation for the
northern DPS of the mountain yellow-legged frog. By comparison, our
reevaluation did result in a reduction of sites from the proposed
designation for the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog. All further
discussion on the additional analysis (see ``(4) Additional Criteria
Applied to Final Critical Habitat Designation for Sierra Nevada Yellow-
legged Frog,'' below) only affects the final critical habitat
designation for the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog.
Specific criteria and methodology used to determine critical
habitat unit boundaries are discussed by species below.
Sierra Nevada Yellow-Legged Frog and Northern DPS of the Mountain
Yellow-Legged Frog
We are treating these two species as similar in habitat and
behavior.
(1) Data Sources
We obtained observational data from the following sources to
include in our Geographic Information System (GIS) database for
mountain yellow-legged frog: (a) Surveys of the National Parks within
the range of the mountain yellow-legged frog, including information
collected by R. Knapp's Sierra Lakes Inventory Project, and G. Fellers;
(b) CDFW High Mountain Lakes Project survey data; (c) Sierra Nevada
Amphibian monitoring program (SNAMPH) survey data from USFS; and (d)
unpublished data collected by professional biologists during systematic
surveys. Collectively, our survey data spanned August 1993 through
September 2010. We cross-checked our database against the California
Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) reports, and we opted to utilize
the above sources in lieu of the CNDDB data, due to the systematic
nature of the surveys and their inherent quality control.
[[Page 59067]]
(2) Occurrence Criteria
We considered extant all localities where presence of living
mountain yellow-legged frog has been confirmed since 1995, unless the
last three (or more) consecutive surveys have found no individuals of
any life stage. The 1995 cutoff date was selected because it reflects a
logical break point given the underlying sample coverage and relatively
long lifespan of the frogs and is consistent with the recent status
evaluation by CDFW, and is therefore consistent with trend analyses
compiled as part of that same effort (CDFW (formerly CDFG) 2011, pp.
17-25). We considered the specific areas within the currently occupied
geographic range of the species that include all higher-quality habitat
(see ``(3) Habitat Unit Delineation,'' below) that is contiguous to
extant mountain yellow-legged frog populations. To protect remnant
populations, areas where surveys confirmed the presence of mountain
yellow-legged frog using the criteria above were generally considered
necessary to conservation, including: All hydrologically connected
waters within a distance of 3 km (1.9 mi), all areas overland within
300 m (984 ft) of survey locations, and the remainder of the watershed
upgradient of that location. The 3-km (1.9-mi) boundary was derived
from empirical data recording frog movements using radiotelemetry (see
derivation below). Watersheds containing the physical or biological
features (as indicated by the MaxEnt Model), and with multiple and
repeated positive survey records spread throughout the habitat area,
were completely included. If two subareas within adjacent watersheds
(one utilized, and one not known to be utilized) had contiguous high-
quality habitat, the area was included up to approximately 3 km (1.9
mi) of the survey location. These areas are considered essential to the
conservation of the species, because they are presumed to be within the
dispersal capacity of extant frog metapopulations or their progeny.
Two detailed movement studies using radio telemetry have been
completed for mountain yellow-legged frogs from which movement and home
range data may be derived. One of the studies, focused on the mountain
yellow-legged frog, occurred in a lake complex in Dusy Basin in Kings
Canyon National Park (Matthews and Pope 1999, pp. 615-624). The other
study included a stream-dwelling population of what was, at the time,
identified as the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog in Plumas County,
California (Wengert 2008, pp. 1-32). While recent information suggests
that at least some of the frogs in the Wengert study may have actually
been foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii) (Poorten et al. 2013, p.
4), we expect that the movement distances recorded are applicable to
the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog within a stream-based system,
because the ecology is comparable between the two similar taxa in
regard to stream systems. The movement patterns of the mountain yellow-
legged frog within the lake complex included average distances moved
within a 5-day period ranging from 43-145 m (141-476 ft) (Matthews and
Pope, 1999, p. 620), with frogs traveling greater distances in
September compared to August and October. This period reflects foraging
and dispersal activity during the pre-wintering phase. Estimated
average home ranges from this study ranged from 53 square meters (174
square ft) in October to more than 5,300 square meters (0.4 ac) in
September (Matthews and Pope 1999, p. 620). The stream telemetry study
recorded movement distances from 3-2,300 m (10-7,546 ft) (average was
485 m (1,591 ft)) within a single season (July through September), with
as much as 3,300 m (10,827 ft) of linear stream habitat utilized by a
single frog across seasons (Wengert 2008, p. 11). Home ranges in this
study were estimated at 167,032 square meters (12.6 ac).
The farthest reported distance of a mountain yellow-legged frog
from water is 400 m (1,300 ft) (Vredenburg et al. 2005, p. 564). Frogs
within habitat connected by lake networks or migration corridors along
streams exhibit greater movement and home range. Frogs located in a
mosaic of fewer lakes or with greater distances between areas with high
habitat value are not expected to move as far over dry land. We used
values within the range of empirical data to derive our boundaries, but
erred towards the maxima, for reasons explained below.
These empirical results may not necessarily be applied across the
range of the mountain yellow-legged frog. It is likely that movement is
largely a function of the underlying habitat mosaic particular to each
location. Available data are limited to the two studies of different
species spanning distinct habitat types. Therefore, generalizations
across the range may not be inaccurate; however, two points are
evident. First, although mountain yellow-legged frogs are known to be
highly associated with aquatic habitat and to exhibit high site-
fidelity (Stebbins 1951, p. 340; Mullally and Cunningham 1956, p. 191;
Bradford et al. 1993, p. 886; Pope 1999a, p. 45), they do have the
capacity to move relatively large distances, even within a single
season. Our criteria for deriving critical habitat units, therefore,
must take into account not only dispersal behavior and home range, but
also consider the underlying habitat mosaic (and site-specific data,
where available) when defining final boundaries for critical habitat.
Another factor to consider when estimating home ranges from point
samples is encounter probability within the habitat range (whether the
point location where the surveyed frog is observed is at the center or
edge of a home range). It is more likely that surveys will encounter
individuals in their preferred habitat areas, especially when point
counts are attributed to main lakes (and during the height of the
breeding season or closer to the overwintering season). Nevertheless,
the full extent of actual utilized habitat may be removed in time and
space from the immediate area defined by point locations identified
during one-time surveys. The underlying uncertainty associated with
point encounters means that it is difficult, and possibly inaccurate,
to utilize bounded home ranges from empirical data when you lack site-
specific information regarding habitat use about the surveyed sample
unit. Additionally, emigration and recolonization of extirpated sites
require movement through habitat across generations, which may venture
well beyond estimated single-season home ranges or movement distances.
Therefore, the estimates from the very limited field studies are
available as guidelines, but we also use the nature and physical layout
of underlying habitat features (or site-specific knowledge, where
available) to better define critical habitat units.
Finally, results from studies conducted in single localities should
be considered estimates. Measured distance movements and estimated home
ranges from limited studies should not be the sole determinants in
habitat unit delineation. The ability of frogs to move along suitable
habitat corridors should also be considered. This is especially
significant in light of the need for dispersal and recolonization of
unoccupied habitat as the species recovers from declines resulting from
fish stocking and the spread of Bd. It is evident from the data that
frogs can, over the course of a season (and certainly over a lifespan),
move through several kilometers of habitat (if the intervening habitat
is suitable).
Therefore, given observed dispersal ability based on available
data, we have
[[Page 59068]]
determined as a general guideline that aquatic habitats associated with
survey encounters (point estimates or the entirety of associated water
bodies) and those within 3 km (1.9 mi) (approximating the upper bound
of observed estimates of movement from all available data) along stream
or meadow courses, and within 300 m (984 ft) overland (an intermediate
value between the maximum observed distance traveled across dry land
within a season) are included in the delineated habitat units, unless
some other habitat parameter (as outlined in the PCEs, above) indicates
low habitat utility or practical dispersal barriers such as high ridges
or rough terrain. At a minimum, stream courses and the adjacent upland
habitat up to a distance of 25 m (82 ft) are included (based on an
estimate from empirical data in Wengert (2008, p. 13)). A maximum value
was utilized here because habitat along stream courses must protect all
frogs present and include key features of habitat quality (see PCEs,
above).
(3) Habitat Unit Delineation
To identify specific areas containing the physical or biological
features essential for mountain yellow-legged frogs that may require
special management considerations or protection, we examined the
current and historical locations of mountain yellow-legged frogs in
relation to the State of California's CALWATER watershed classification
system (version 2.2), using the smallest planning watersheds.
In order to circumscribe the boundaries of potential critical
habitat, we adopted the CALWATER boundaries, where appropriate, and
delineated boundaries based on currently occupied aquatic habitat, as
well as historically occupied habitats within the current range of the
species. Watershed boundaries or other topographic features were
utilized as the boundary when they provided for the maintenance of the
hydrology and water quality of the aquatic system. Additional areas
were included in order to provide for the dispersal capacity of the
frogs, as discussed above.
To further refine the boundaries, we obtained the MaxEnt 3.3.3e
species distribution model covering both the Sierra Nevada yellow-
legged frog and the northern DPS of the mountain yellow-legged frog
(CDFG 2011, pp. A-1--A-5; Knapp, unpublished data). This model utilizes
10 environmental variables that were selected based on known
physiological tolerances of the mountain yellow-legged frog and the
Sierra Nevada yellow legged frog to temperature and water availability.
The variables used as model inputs included elevation, maximum
elevation of unit watershed, slope, average annual temperature, average
temperature of coldest quarter of the year, average temperature of the
warmest month of the year, annual precipitation, precipitation during
the driest quarter of the year, distance to water, and lake density.
The model additionally allows for interactions among these variables
and can fit nonlinear relationships using a diversity of feature
classes (CDFG 2011, pp. A-1--A-5).
The MaxEnt model renders a grid output with likelihood of frog
occurrence, a practical index of historical habitat quality. This
output was compared to 2,847 frog occurrence records to determine the
fit of the model. The model derived by Dr. Knapp fit the data well.
Area under the curve (AUC) values are a measure of model fit, where
values of 0.5 are random and values approaching 1.0 are fully accounted
for within the model. The model fit for the MaxEnt 3.3.3e species
distribution model covering both the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog
and the northern DPS of the mountain yellow-legged frog had AUC values
of 0.916 (standard deviation (s.d.) = 0.002) and 0.964 (s.d. = 0.006),
respectively.
Individual critical habitat units were constructed to reflect the
balance of frog dispersal ability and habitat use (in other words,
based on movement distances), along with projections of habitat quality
as expressed by the probability models (MaxEnt grid outputs) and other
habitat parameters consistent with the PCEs defined above.
Specifically, we considered areas to be actively utilized if extant
occurrences existed within 300 m (984 ft) overland, or within 3 km (1.9
mi) if connected by high-quality dispersal habitat (stream or high lake
density habitat). In general, areas up-gradient from occupied water
bodies (within the catchment) were circumscribed at the watershed
boundary. Aquatic habitat of high quality (defined by higher
probability of frog presence) within 3 km (1.9 mi) from extant survey
records was included, along with areas necessary to protect the
relevant physical or biological features. We circumscribed all habitats
with MaxEnt model output of 0.4 and greater within utilized watersheds,
but also extended boundaries to include stream courses, ridges, or
watershed boundaries where appropriate to protect the relevant physical
or biological features. The threshold value of 0.4 was utilized as an
index for establishing the historical range by Knapp, as it
incorporated most historical and current frog locations (CDFG 2011, p.
A-3). Using the available data (CDFW et al. unpub. data), this figure
accounted for approximately 90 percent of extant population habitat
association using our occurrence criteria (1,504 of 1,674 survey
records). In the case of stream-based populations, we used a lower
threshold for habitat suitability (0.2) to compensate for possible
model bias and limited coverage in such habitats.
Where the MaxEnt 3.3.3e species distribution model indicated poor
quality of intervening habitat in the mapped landscape within 3 km (1.9
mi) of survey records, we generally cropped these areas at dispersal
barriers or watershed boundaries, but may have also followed streams or
topographic features. To minimize human error from visual interpolation
of habitat units, we aggregated the high-quality habitat grids from the
model output in ArcGIS using a neighbor distance within 1,000 m (3,281
ft), and we used this boundary to circumscribe model outputs when
selecting this boundary parameter. The 1,000-m (3,281-ft) aggregating
criterion most closely agreed with manual visual interpolation methods
that minimized land area included during unit delineation.
If areas were contiguous to designated areas within utilized
watersheds, we include the higher quality habitat of the adjacent
watersheds with model ranking 0.4 or greater. These areas are essential
if they are of sufficiently high habitat quality to be important for
future dispersal, translocation, and restoration consistent with
recovery needs. In general, for these ``neighboring'' watersheds,
circumscribed habitat boundaries followed either the 0.4+ MaxEnt
aggregate polygon boundary, stream courses, or topographic features
that otherwise constituted natural dispersal barriers. Further, subunit
designation does not include catchment areas necessary to protect
relevant physical or biological features if the mapped area was greater
than 3 km (1.9 mi) from a survey location. This lower protective
standard was appropriate because these areas were beyond the outside
bound of extant survey records, and our confidence that these areas
are, or will be, utilized is lower.
We also used historical records in some instances to include
proximate watersheds that may or may not be currently utilized within
subareas of high habitat quality as an index of the utility of habitat
essential to the conservation of the frogs. This methodology was
adopted to compensate for any uncertainties in our underlying
scientific and site-specific knowledge of ecological features that
[[Page 59069]]
indicate habitat quality. Unless significant changes have occurred on
the landscape, an unutilized site confirmed by surveys to have
historically supported frog populations likely contains more of the
physical or biological features relative to one that has no historical
records.
(4) Additional Criteria Applied to Critical Habitat for Sierra Nevada
Yellow-Legged Frog
While the MaxEnt 3.3.3e model was an effective indicator of PCEs,
and useful in defining suitable habitat based on the physical or
biological features required by the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog,
Dr. Knapp informed us in peer review that the model was based on
physical and ecological parameters as a historical model that does not
necessarily take into account current habitat conditions. Based on this
feedback, and in light of many comments highlighting that such sites
are degraded by water development and receive high public use (often
being lower elevation reservoirs, which are less optimal than high-
elevation, ``back country'' lakes and streams for frog restoration), we
determined it was necessary to apply additional criteria to re-evaluate
whether these very low restoration potential areas in fact should be
included in the designation of critical habitat for the Sierra Nevada
yellow-legged frog.
It was first necessary to find a method to objectively identify
which areas have very low restoration potential. We used three factors
to evaluate areas to determine which ones are characterized by: (1)
High public use and disturbance, (2) water level fluctuations from
reservoir management, and (3) a location where they are far removed
from extant frog metapopulations. Based on these factors, we determined
that such areas would be poor candidates for restoration actions when
other, better, opportunities exist in geographic proximity.
We identified all reservoirs that were located close to paved
roadways or populated areas and outside the expected, current, utilized
range of extant Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog populations. This
included all reservoirs within 1 km (0.62 mi) of a paved roadway
(TIGER/L shape files, U.S. Census 2014) or populated area (ESRI
Streetmap Premium for ArcGIS 2013) that also have a dam (water control
feature within 10 m (33 ft) (based on USGS National Hydrography Dams
Dataset 2013)), and were greater than 3 km (1.8 mi) from an extant frog
locality.
We also identified all lakes and streams slated for fish stocking
by the CDFW (CDFW unpubl. data). We evaluated the list of areas
proposed for the Statewide stocking program pending a final record of
decision on the Hatchery Operations Environmental Impact Statement/
Report (ICF Jones and Stokes, 2010). We looked at all those areas and
further screened them to identify only those outside and intersecting a
3-km (1.9-mi) buffer to extant frog localities.
We then identified all areas that were brought up during the public
comment periods (including agency comments) because they are subject to
high levels of public consumptive uses (such as cabins, resorts,
angling, and other recreational activities) or other significant
habitat alteration. These are areas where, during our public comment
periods, the commenter(s) identified, by name, locations that currently
experience recreational use (including angling), have low habitat-
restoration value, lack extant frogs, or are distanced from extant
frogs.
There were many areas common to each of the three evaluation groups
above. We aggregated all sites identified using the process above, and
we eliminated the duplicates. We evaluated each area on a case-by-case
basis to determine whether it met the criteria for final designation.
We analyzed the overall impact that the absence of a specific location
would have on the conservation value of the of critical habitat subunit
in which it was located. The analysis used the same ecological
qualifications, based on the physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frogs and the
amount and spatial arrangement of features needed in each subunit to
meet the definition of critical habitat.
If a site was intersecting, or within, a 3-km (1.9-mi) buffer
denoting proximity to extant frog metapopulations, we applied
additional weighting within our analysis using parameters such as:
Distance by land to the extant locality, distance by stream to the
extant locality, overall habitat quantity and habitat quality (by
MaxEnt 3.3.3e model) within that same subunit and in immediate
proximity to the site under consideration for reevaluation, and number
and spatial arrangement (density and overall dispersion) of other
extant frog localities within that same subunit. We also factored in
the relative status of the particular genetic clade to which that
subunit is associated. Sites that are within 500 m (1,640 ft) overland,
or 1 km (0.62 mi) via stream from an extant frog locality remain in
this final critical habitat designation. These figures are conservative
estimates for single season movement (from empirical data, USFWS
unpubl. data), which may be used to approximate functional home range;
are consistent with the 1.0-km distance used during the California
State Department of Fish and Wildlife status evaluation (CDFW 2011) to
define metapopulation connectivity; and are currently the standard
being implemented within ongoing consultations (USFWS 2014).
This analysis was conducted in the context of the spatial and
ecological features of each critical habitat subunit and the
conservation needs of the species. Although these areas do have the
PCEs reflecting the physical or biological features comprising critical
habitat, they are not being included in this final critical habitat
designation because current habitat conditions were not reflected in
our original habitat model. These areas were ultimately eliminated
based on the criteria we used for determining the boundaries of
critical habitat. As a result of comments received during the public
comment period and peer review, we are now considering current habitat
conditions and the restoration potential of these degraded habitats in
light of the recovery needs for Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog.
A full list of sites we no longer include in this critical habitat
designation appears in Table 2, below. The areal extent of each site on
the list is based on the high-water line for solely the aquatic portion
of the lake, reservoir, or stream stretch. Additionally, unless
explicitly indicated (by name) in Table 2, the surrounding lands,
waterways, or tributaries of each site on the list remain in the final
designation. Areas that are not explicitly indicated by name in Table 2
remain part of the final critical habitat designation. Interested
parties with questions as to whether a particular project lies within
designated critical habitat for Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog within
the immediate proximity to one of the areas listed in Table 2 should
contact the local jurisdictional field office of the Service to resolve
uncertainty.
Yosemite Toad
(1) Data Sources
We obtained observational data from the following sources to
include in our GIS database for the Yosemite toad: (a) Surveys of the
National Parks within the range of the Yosemite toad, including
information collected by R. Knapp's Sierra Lakes Inventory Project and
G. Fellers; (b) survey data from each of the
[[Page 59070]]
National Forests within the range of the species; (c) CDFW High
Mountain Lakes Project survey data; and (d) SNAMPH survey data from
USFS. We cross-checked the data received from each of these sources
with information contained in the CNDDB. Given that the data sources
(a) through (d) are the result of systematic surveys, provide better
survey coverage of the range of the Yosemite toad, and are based on
observation data of personnel able to accurately identify the species,
we opted to utilize the above sources in lieu of the CNDDB data.
(2) Occurrence Criteria
We considered extant all localities where Yosemite toad has been
detected since 2000. The 2000 date was used for several reasons: (1)
Comprehensive surveys for Yosemite toad throughout its range were not
conducted prior to 2000, so data prior to 2000 are limited; and (2)
given the longevity of the species, toad locations identified since
2000 are likely to contain extant populations.
We considered the occupied geographic range of the species to
include all suitable habitats within dispersal distance and
geographically contiguous to extant Yosemite toad populations. To
maintain genetic integrity and provide for sufficient range and
distribution of the species, we identified areas with dense
concentrations of Yosemite toad populations interconnected or
interspersed among suitable breeding habitats and vegetation types, as
well as populations on the edge of the range of the species. We also
delineated specific areas to include dispersal and upland migration
corridors.
Two movement studies using radiotelemetry have been completed for
the Yosemite toad from which migration distances may be derived. One
study took place in the Highland Lakes on the Stanislaus National
Forest (Martin 2008, pp. 98-113), and the other took place in the Bull
Creek watershed on the Sierra National Forest (Liang 2010, p. 96). The
maximum observed seasonal movement distances from breeding pools within
the Highland Lakes area was 657 m (2,157 ft) (Martin 2008, p. 144),
while the maximum at the Bull Creek watershed was 1,261 m (4,137 ft).
Additionally, Liang et al. (2010, p. 6) utilized all available
empirical data to derive a maximum movement distance estimate from
breeding locations to be 1,500 m (4,920 ft), which they utilized in
their modeling efforts. Despite these reported dispersal distances, the
results may not necessarily apply across the range of the species. It
is likely that movement is largely a function of the habitat types
particular to each location.
We used the mean plus 1.96 times the standard error as an
expression of the 95 percent confidence interval (Streiner 1996, pp.
498-502; Curran-Everett 2008, pp. 203-208) to estimate species-level
movement behavior from such studies. Using this measure, we derived a
confidence-bounded estimate for average distance moved in a single
season based on the Liang study (2010, pp. 107-109) of 1,015 m (3,330
ft). We focused on the Liang study because it had a much larger sample
size and likely captured greater variability within a population.
However, given that Liang et al. (2010, p. 6) estimated and applied a
maximum movement distance of 1,500 m (4,920 ft), we opted to choose the
approximate midpoint of these two methods, rounded to the nearest 0.25
km (0.16 mi) and determined 1,250 m (4,101 ft) to be an appropriate
estimated dispersal distance from breeding locations. As was the case
with the estimate chosen for the mountain yellow-legged frog complex,
this distance does not represent the maximum possible dispersal
distance, but represents a distance that will reflect the movement of a
large majority of Yosemite toads.
Therefore, our criteria for identifying the boundaries of critical
habitat units take into account dispersal behavior and distances, but
also consider the underlying habitat quality and types, specifically
the physical or biological features (and site-specific knowledge, where
available), in defining boundaries for essential habitat.
(3) Habitat Unit Delineation
To identify areas containing the physical or biological features
essential for the Yosemite toad that may require special management
considerations or protection, we examined the current and historical
locations of Yosemite toads in relation to the State of California
vegetation layer, USFS meadow information dataset, the State of
California's CALWATER watershed classification system (version 2.2)
using the smallest planning watersheds, and appropriate topographic
maps.
In order to circumscribe the boundaries of potential critical
habitat, we expanded the bounds of known breeding locations for the
Yosemite toad by the 1,250-m (4,101-ft) dispersal distance and
delineated boundaries also taking into account vegetation types, meadow
complexes, and dispersal barriers. Where appropriate, we utilized the
CALWATER boundaries to reflect potential barriers to dispersal (high,
steep ridges), and delineated boundaries based on our best estimate of
what constitutes currently utilized habitat. Watershed boundaries or
other topographic features were marked as the unit boundary when that
boundary provided for the maintenance of the hydrology and water
quality of the aquatic system.
In some instances (such as no obvious dispersal barrier or
uncertainty regarding the suitability of habitat within dispersal
distance of a known toad location), to further refine the boundaries,
we obtained the MaxEnt 3.3.3e species habitat suitability/distribution
model developed and utilized by Liang et al. (2010) and Liang and
Stohlgren (2011), which covered the range of the Yosemite toad. This
model utilized nine environmental and three anthropogenic data layers
to provide a predictor of Yosemite toad locations that serves as a
partial surrogate for habitat quality and therefore underlying physical
or biological features or PCEs. The variables used as model inputs
included slope, aspect, vegetation, bioclimate variables (including
annual mean temperature, mean diurnal range, temperature seasonality,
annual precipitation, precipitation of wettest month, and precipitation
seasonality), distance to agriculture, distance to fire perimeter, and
distance to timber activity.
As the model incorporated factors that did not directly correlate
to the physical or biological features or PCEs (for example, distance
to agriculture, distance to fire perimeter, and distance to timber
activity) (Liang and Stohlgren 2011, p. 22)), further analysis was
required. In areas that were either occupied by the Yosemite toad or
within dispersal distance of the toad (but the model indicated a low
probability of occurrence), we assessed the utility of the model by
further estimating potential sources of model derivation (such as fire
or anthropogenic factors). If habitat quality indicated by the MaxEnt
model was biased based on factors other than those linked to physical
or biological features or PCEs, we discounted the MaxEnt output in
those areas and based our designation on the PCEs. In these cases,
areas are included in our critical habitat designation that ranked low
in the MaxEnt output.
Individual critical habitat units are constructed to reflect toad
dispersal ability and habitat use, along with projections of habitat
quality, as expressed by the probability models (MaxEnt grid outputs)
and other habitat parameters consistent with the PCEs defined above.
[[Page 59071]]
We also used historical records as an index of the utility of
habitat essential to the conservation of the Yosemite toad to help
compensate for any uncertainties in our underlying scientific and site-
specific knowledge of ecological features that indicate habitat
quality, as we did for the frogs.
When determining critical habitat boundaries within this final
rule, we made every effort to avoid including developed areas such as
lands covered by buildings, pavement, and other structures because such
lands lack physical or biological features for the Sierra Nevada
yellow-legged frog, northern DPS of the mountain yellow-legged frog,
and Yosemite toad (i.e., areas with none of the PCEs extant). The scale
of the maps we prepared under the parameters for publication within the
Code of Federal Regulations may not reflect the exclusion of such
developed lands. Any such lands inadvertently left inside critical
habitat boundaries shown on the maps of this final rule have been
excluded by text in the rule and are not designated as critical
habitat. Therefore, a Federal action involving these lands will not
trigger section 7 consultation under the Act with respect to critical
habitat and the requirement of no adverse modification unless the
specific action would affect the physical or biological features in the
adjacent critical habitat.
The critical habitat designation is defined by the map or maps, as
modified by any accompanying regulatory text, presented at the end of
this document in the Regulation Promulgation section. We include more
detailed information on the boundaries of the critical habitat
designation in the preamble of this document. We will make the
coordinates or plot points or both on which each map is based available
to the public on http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-
2012-0074, on our Internet site http://www.fws.gov/sacramento, and at
the field office responsible for the designation (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT, above).
Units are designated based on sufficient elements of physical or
biological features being present to support the life processes of the
Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog, the northern DPS of the mountain
yellow-legged frog, or the Yosemite toad. Some units contain all of the
identified elements of physical or biological features and support
multiple life processes, while some segments contain only some elements
of the physical or biological features necessary to support the
species' particular use of that habitat. It is important to understand
that not all PCEs are required to provide functional habitat. When
trying to determine if any specific areas or infrastructure are
excluded by narrative, it is best to discuss your particular project
with the Fish and Wildlife Office of jurisdiction.
Final Critical Habitat Designation
Based on the above described criteria, we are designating 437,929
ha (1,082,147 ac) as critical habitat for the Sierra Nevada yellow-
legged frog (Table 1). This area represents approximately 18 percent of
the historical range of the species as estimated by Knapp (unpublished
data). All subunits designated as critical habitat are considered
occupied (at the subunit level) and include lands within Lassen,
Plumas, Sierra, Nevada, Placer, El Dorado, Amador, Calaveras, Alpine,
Tuolumne, Mono, Mariposa, Madera, Fresno, and Inyo Counties,
California.
Table 1--Designated Critical Habitat Units for the Sierra Nevada Yellow-Legged Frog
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subunit No. Subunit name Hectares (ha) Acres (ac)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1A..................................... Morris Lake............................ 1,079 2,665
1B..................................... Bean Creek............................. 13,523 33,417
1C..................................... Deanes Valley.......................... 2,020 4,990
1D..................................... Slate Creek............................ 2,688 6,641
2A..................................... Boulder/Lone Rock Creeks............... 4,500 11,119
2B..................................... Gold Lake.............................. 6,189 15,294
2C..................................... Black Buttes........................... 55,057 136,049
2D..................................... Five Lakes............................. 3,758 9,286
2E..................................... Crystal Range.......................... 33,406 82,548
2F..................................... East Amador............................ 43,414 107,278
2G..................................... North Stanislaus....................... 10,462 25,851
2H..................................... Wells Peak............................. 11,711 28,939
2I..................................... Emigrant Yosemite...................... 86,161 212,908
2J..................................... Spiller Lake........................... 1,094 2,704
2K..................................... Virginia Canyon........................ 891 2,203
2L..................................... Register Creek......................... 838 2,070
2M..................................... White Mountain......................... 8,416 20,796
2N..................................... Unicorn Peak........................... 2,088 5,160
3A..................................... Yosemite Central....................... 1,408 3,480
3B..................................... Cathedral.............................. 38,784 95,837
3C..................................... Minarets............................... 3,090 7,636
3D..................................... Mono Creek............................. 18,481 45,666
3E..................................... Evolution/Le Conte..................... 87,136 215,318
3F..................................... Pothole Lakes.......................... 1,736 4,289
-------------------------------
Total.............................. ....................................... 437,929 1,082,147
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following further evaluation (see Criteria Used To Identify
Critical Habitat above), response to comments, and peer review, we are
removing certain areas formerly included within the proposed critical
habitat designation (these removal areas are already subtracted from
the totals listed in Table 1). These areas are listed below.
[[Page 59072]]
Table 2--Areas Eliminated From Final Critical Habitat Designation for the Sierra Nevada Yellow-Legged Frog by
Critical Habitat Subunit \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Areas meeting
the definition of Areas removed
Subunit Specific critical from critical
habitat, in habitat, in
hectares (acres) hectares (acres)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1A. Morris Lake......................... Unoccupied Watershed............ 7,154 (17,677) 6,076 (15,012)
1B. Bean Creek.......................... Bucks Lake...................... 14,224 (35,148) 700 (1,731)
2B. Gold Lake........................... Big Deer Lake, Long Lake, Packer 6,354 (15,702) 165 (408)
Lake, Salmon Lakes (Upper and
Lower), Sardine Lakes (Upper
and Lower), Saxonia Lake, Smith
Lake, Volcano Lake, Young
America Lake.
2C. Black Buttes........................ Bowman Reservoir, Cascade Lakes, 55,961 (138,283) 904 (2,234)
Donner Euer Valley, Faucherie
Lake, Ice Lakes, Independence
Lake, Jackson Lake, Kidd Lake,
Lake Angela, Lake Mary, Lake
Van Norden, Lower Lola Montez
Lake; Rock Lakes (Upper and
Lower), Sawmill Lake, Spaulding
Reservoir.
2E. Crystal Range....................... South Fork American River at 33,666 (83,191) 260 (643)
Camp Sacramento, Buck Island
Lake, Dark Lake, Echo Lakes
(Upper and Lower), Rockbound
Lake, Rubicon Reservoir,
Wrights Lake.
2F. East Amador......................... Bear River Reservoirs (Upper and 44,047 (108,842) 633 (1,564)
Lower), Caples Lake, Frog Lake,
Kinney Reservoir, Kirkwood
Lake, Woods Lake.
2G. North Stanislaus.................... Alpine Lake, Duck Creek North 10,701 (26,444) 240 (593)
Fork Diversion Reservoir, Union
Reservoir, Utica Reservoir.
2I. Emigrant Yosemite................... Camp Lake, Hyatt Lake........... 86,181 (212,958) 20 (50)
2M. White Mountain...................... Ellery Lake, South Fork Lee 8,596 (21,242) 180 (446)
Vining Creek, Lee Vining Creek
(Saddlebag Creek), Odell Lake,
Saddlebag Lake, Steelhead Lake,
Tioga Lake, Towser Lake.
3B. Cathedral........................... Gem Lake........................ 38,892 (96,104) 108 (267)
3D. Mono Creek.......................... Rock Creek, Rock Creek Lake..... 18,504 (45,723) 23 (57)
3E. Evolution/Leconte................... Apollo Lake, Grass Lake, Lamarck 87,239 (215,572) 103 (253)
Lakes (Upper and Lower),
Lamarck Creek, South Lake.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ These areas were eliminated either because of erroneous occupancy records (subunit 1A) (no lake was removed)
or because of very low recovery potential due to highly fluctuating water levels, heavy recreational use, and
distance from extant frogs (all other subunits).
We are designating 89,637 ha (221,498 ac) as critical habitat for
the northern DPS of the mountain yellow-legged frog (Table 3). This
area represents approximately 19 percent of the historical range of the
northern DPS of the mountain yellow-legged frog in the Sierra Nevada.
All subunits designated as critical habitat are considered occupied (at
the subunit level) and include lands within Fresno, Inyoand Tulare
Counties, California.
Table 3--Designated Critical Habitat Units for the Northern DPS of the Mountain Yellow-Legged Frog
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subunit No. \1\ Subunit name Hectares (ha) Acres (ac)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4A..................................... Frypan Meadows......................... 1,585 3,917
4B..................................... Granite Basin.......................... 1,777 4,391
4C..................................... Sequoia Kings.......................... 67,566 166,958
4D..................................... Kaweah River........................... 3,663 9,052
5A..................................... Blossom Lakes.......................... 2,069 5,113
5B..................................... Coyote Creek........................... 9,802 24,222
5C..................................... Mulkey Meadows......................... 3,175 7,846
-------------------------------
Total.............................. ....................................... 89,637 221,498
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Subunit numbering begins at 4, following designation of southern DPS of the mountain yellow-legged frog (3
units).
We are designating 303,889 ha (750,926 ac) as critical habitat for
the Yosemite toad (Table 4). This area represents approximately 28
percent of the historical range of the Yosemite toad in the Sierra
Nevada. All units designated as critical habitat are considered
occupied (at the unit level) and include lands within Alpine, Tuolumne,
Mono, Mariposa, Madera, Fresno, and Inyo Counties, California.
Table 4--Designated Critical Habitat Units for the Yosemite Toad
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit No. Unit name Hectares (ha) Acres (ac)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...................................... Blue Lakes/Mokelumne................... 14,884 36,778
2...................................... Leavitt Lake/Emigrant.................. 30,803 76,115
3...................................... Rogers Meadow.......................... 11,797 29,150
4...................................... Hoover Lakes........................... 2,303 5,690
[[Page 59073]]
5...................................... Tuolumne Meadows/Cathedral............. 56,530 139,688
6...................................... McSwain Meadows........................ 6,472 15,992
7...................................... Porcupine Flat......................... 1,701 4,204
8...................................... Westfall Meadows....................... 1,859 4,594
9...................................... Triple Peak............................ 4,377 10,816
10..................................... Chilnualna............................. 6,212 15,351
11..................................... Iron Mountain.......................... 7,706 19,043
12..................................... Silver Divide.......................... 39,987 98,809
13..................................... Humphrys Basin/Seven Gables............ 20,666 51,067
14..................................... Kaiser/Dusy............................ 70,978 175,390
15..................................... Upper Goddard Canyon................... 14,905 36,830
16..................................... Round Corral Meadow.................... 12,711 31,409
-------------------------------
Total.............................. ....................................... 303,889 750,926
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sierra Nevada Yellow-Legged Frog
We are designating three units encompassing 24 subunits as critical
habitat for the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog. The critical habitat
units and subunits that we describe below constitute our current best
assessment of areas that meet the definition of critical habitat for
the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog. Units are numbered for the three
major genetic clades (Vredenburg et al. 2007, p. 361) that have been
identified rangewide for the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog. Distinct
portions within each clade are designated as subunits. The 24 subunits
we designate as critical habitat are listed in Table 5, and all
subunits are known to be currently occupied based on the best available
scientific and commercial information.
Table 5--Critical Habitat Subunits for the Sierra Nevada Yellow-Legged Frog (in Hectares and Acres), Land
Ownership, and Known Threats That May Affect the Essential Physical or Biological Features Within the
Geographical Area Occupied by the Species at the Time of Listing
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Known
Critical habitat subunit Federal ha State/local Private ha Total \1\ ha manageable
(ac) \3\ ha (ac) (ac) (ac) threats \2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1A. Morris Lake................. 1,079 0 0 1,079 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
(2,665) (0) (0) (2,665)
1B. Bean Creek.................. 12,464 0 1,060 13,523 1, 3, 4, 5
(30,798) (0) (2,619) (33,417)
1C. Deanes Valley............... 1,962 0 58 2,020 3, 4, 5
(4,847) (0) (143) (4,990)
1D. Slate Creek................. 2,259 0 429 2,688 3, 4, 5
(5,581) (0) (1,060) (6,641)
2A. Boulder/Lone Rock Creeks.... 3,953 0 547 4,500 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
(9,767) (0) (1,352) (11,119)
2B. Gold Lake................... 5,488 0 702 6,189 1, 3, 4, 5
(13,561) (0) (1,734) (15,294)
2C. Black Buttes................ 32,649 0 22,408 55,057 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
(80,678) (0) (55,371) (136,049)
2D. Five Lakes.................. 2,396 0 1,362 3,758 1, 4, 5
(5,921) (0) (3,365) (9,286)
2E. Crystal Range............... 31,261 0 2,145 33,406 1, 2, 3, 5
(77,249) (0) (5,299) (82,548)
2F. East Amador................. 40,140 56 3,218 43,414 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
(99,188) (138) (7,952) (107,278)
2G. North Stanislaus............ 10,445 0 16 10,462 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
(25,811) (0) (41) (25,851)
2H. Wells Peak.................. 11,650 0 61 11,711 1, 3, 4, 5
(28,788) (0) (150) (28,939)
2I. Emigrant Yosemite........... 86,089 *50 22 86,161 1, 3
(212,730) (*124) (54) (212,908)
2J. Spiller Lake................ 1,094 0 0 1,094 1
(2,704) (0) (0) (2,704)
2K. Virginia Canyon............. 891 0 0 891 1
(2,203) (0) (0) (2,203)
2L. Register Creek.............. 838 0 0 838 1
(2,070) (0) (0) (2,070)
2M. White Mountain.............. 8,366 0 49 8,416 1
(20,674) (0) (122) (20,796)
2N. Unicorn Peak................ 2,088 0 0 2,088 1
(5,160) (0) (0) (5,160)
[[Page 59074]]
3A. Yosemite Central............ 1,408 0 0 1,408 1
(3,480) (0) (0) (3,480)
3B. Cathedral................... 38,784 0 0 38,784 1, 3
(95,837) (0) (0) (95,837)
3C. Minarets.................... 3,090 0 0 3,090 1, 5
(7,636) (0) (0) (7,636)
3D. Mono Creek.................. 18,481 0 0 18,481 1, 3, 5
(45,666) (0) (0) (45,666)
3E. Evolution/Leconte........... 86,968 * 81 87 87,136 1, 3
(214,903) (* 200) (215) (215,318)
3F. Pothole Lakes............... 1,735 0 1 1,736 1, 5
(4,286) (0) (2) (4,289)
----------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................... 405,578 56 (138) 32,165 437,929
(1,002,204) * 131 (79,481) (1,082,146)
(* 324)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding.
\1\ Area estimates in ha (ac) reflect the entire area within the designated critical habitat unit boundaries.
Area estimates are rounded to the nearest whole integer that is equal to or greater than 1.
\2\ Codes of known threats that may require special management considerations or protection of the essential
physical or biological features:
1. Fish Persistence and Stocking
2. Water Diversions/Development
3. Inappropriate Grazing
4. Timber Harvest/Fuels Reduction
5. Recreation
\3\ Asterisks * signify local jurisdictional (County) lands and are presented for brevity in the same column
with State jurisdiction lands.
We present brief descriptions of all units and reasons why they
meet the definition of critical habitat for the Sierra Nevada yellow-
legged frog below. Each unit and subunit contains the physical or
biological features essential to the conservation of the Sierra Nevada
yellow-legged frog, which may require special management considerations
or protection (see Special Management Considerations or Protection,
above).
Unit 1: Sierra Nevada Yellow-Legged Frog Clade 1
Unit 1 represents the northernmost portion of the species' range.
It reflects unique ecological features within the range of the species,
comprising populations that are stream-based. Unit 1, including all
subunits, is an essential component of the entirety of this critical
habitat designation due to the unique genetic and geographic
distribution this unit encompasses. The frog populations within Clade 1
of the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog are at very low numbers and
face significant threats from habitat fragmentation. The critical
habitat within the unit is necessary to sustain viable populations
within Clade 1 of the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog, which are at
very low abundances. Unit 1 is crucial to the species for range
expansion and recovery.
Subunit 1A: Morris Lake
The Morris Lake subunit consists of approximately 1,079 ha (2,665
ac), and is located in Plumas County, California, approximately 4 km
(2.5 mi) northwest of Highway 70. Land ownership within this subunit
consists entirely of Federal land within the Plumas National Forest.
This subunit is considered to be within the geographical area occupied
by the species at the time of listing and contains the physical or
biological features essential to the conservation of the species, is
currently functional habitat sustaining frogs, and is needed to provide
for core surviving populations and their unique genetic heritage.
The physical or biological features essential to the conservation
of the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog in the Morris Lake subunit may
require special management considerations or protection due to the
presence of introduced fishes, water diversions and operations,
inappropriate grazing activity, timber management and fuels reduction,
and recreational activities.
Subunit 1B: Bean Creek
The Bean Creek subunit consists of approximately 13,523 ha (33,417
ac). It is located in Plumas County, California, approximately 3 km
(1.9 mi) south of Highway 70 near the intersection with Caribou Road,
and it is bisected on the south end by the Oroville Highway. Land
ownership within this subunit consists of approximately 12,464 ha
(30,798 ac) of Federal land and 1,060 ha (2,619 ac) of private land.
The Bean Creek subunit is located entirely within the boundaries of the
Plumas National Forest. This subunit is considered to be within the
geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing and
contains the physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the species, is currently functional habitat sustaining
frogs, and is needed to provide for core surviving populations and
their unique genetic heritage.
The physical or biological features essential to the conservation
of the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog in the Bean Creek subunit may
require special management considerations or protection due to the
presence of introduced fishes, inappropriate grazing activity, timber
management and fuels reduction, and recreational activities.
Subunit 1C: Deanes Valley
The Deanes Valley subunit consists of approximately 2,020 ha (4,990
ac) and is located in Plumas County, California, approximately 5.7 km
(3.6 mi) south of Buck's Lake Road, 6.4 km (4 mi) east of Big Creek
Road, 7.5 km (4.7 mi) west of Quincy-LaPorte Road, and 3.5 km (2.2 mi)
north of the Middle Fork Feather
[[Page 59075]]
River. Land ownership within this subunit consists of approximately
1,962 ha (4,847 ac) of Federal land and 58 ha (143 ac) of private land.
The Deanes Valley subunit is located entirely within the boundaries of
the Plumas National Forest. This subunit is considered to be within the
geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing, and
it contains the physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the species, is currently functional habitat sustaining
frogs, and is needed to provide for core surviving populations and
their unique genetic heritage.
The physical or biological features essential to the conservation
of the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog in the Deanes Valley subunit
may require special management considerations or protection due to
inappropriate grazing activity, timber management and fuels reduction,
and recreational activities.
Subunit 1D: Slate Creek
The Slate Creek subunit consists of approximately 2,688 ha (6,641
ac), and is located in Plumas and Sierra Counties, California,
approximately 0.7 km (0.4 mi) east of the town of LaPorte, and 2.5 km
(1.6 mi) southwest of the west branch of Canyon Creek. Land ownership
within this subunit consists of approximately 2,259 ha (5,581 ac) of
Federal land and 429 ha (1,060 ac) of private land. The Slate Creek
subunit is located entirely within the boundaries of the Plumas
National Forest. This subunit is considered to be within the
geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing and
contains the physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the species, is currently functional habitat sustaining
frogs, and is needed to provide for core surviving populations and
their unique genetic heritage.
The physical or biological features essential to the conservation
of the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog in the Slate Creek subunit may
require special management considerations or protection due to
inappropriate grazing activity, timber management and fuels reduction,
and recreational activities.
Unit 2: Sierra Nevada Yellow-Legged Frog Clade 2
This unit represents a significant fraction of the Sierra Nevada
yellow-legged frog's range, and it reflects unique ecological features
within the range by comprising populations that are both stream- and
lake-based. Unit 2, including all subunits, is an essential component
of the entirety of this critical habitat designation due to the unique
genetic and geographic distribution this unit encompasses. The frog
populations within Clade 2 of the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog
distribution are at very low to intermediate abundance and face
significant threats from habitat fragmentation resulting from the
introduction of fish. The critical habitat within the unit is necessary
to sustain viable populations within Clade 2 of the Sierra Nevada
yellow-legged frog, which are at very low to intermediate abundances.
Unit 2 is crucial to the species for range expansion and recovery.
Subunit 2A: Boulder/Lone Rock Creeks
The Boulder/Lone Rock Creeks subunit consists of approximately
4,500 ha (11,119 ac), and is located in Plumas and Lassen Counties,
California, between 8 km (5 mi) and 18 km (11.3 mi) west of Highway 395
near the county line along Wingfield Road. Land ownership within this
subunit consists of approximately 3,953 ha (9,767 ac) of Federal land
and 547 ha (1,352 ac) of private land. Subunit 2A includes Antelope
Lake (which receives two creeks as its northwestern headwaters), and
these water bodies provide connectivity for both main areas within the
subunit. The Boulder/Lone Rock Creeks subunit is located predominantly
within the boundaries of the Plumas National Forest, with some area
lying within the Lassen National Forest. This subunit is considered to
be within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of
listing, and it contains the physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species, is currently functional habitat
sustaining frogs, and is needed to provide for core surviving
populations and their unique genetic heritage.
The physical or biological features essential to the conservation
of the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog in the Boulder/Lone Rock Creeks
subunit may require special management considerations or protection due
to the presence of introduced fishes, water diversions and operations,
inappropriate grazing activity, timber management and fuels reduction,
and recreational activities.
Subunit 2B: Gold Lake
The Gold Lake subunit consists of approximately 6,189 ha (15,294
ac), and is located in Plumas and Sierra Counties, California,
approximately 8.7 km (5.4 mi) south of Highway 70, and 4.4 km (2.75 mi)
north of Highway 49, along Gold Lake Highway to the east. Land
ownership within this subunit consists of approximately 5,488 ha
(13,561 ac) of Federal land and 702 ha (1,734 ac) of private land. The
Gold Lake subunit is located within the Plumas and Tahoe National
Forests. This subunit is considered to be within the geographical area
occupied by the species at the time of listing, and it contains the
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the
species, is currently functional habitat sustaining frogs, and is
needed to provide for core surviving populations and their unique
genetic heritage.
The physical or biological features essential to the conservation
of the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog in the Gold Lake subunit may
require special management considerations or protection due to
introduced fishes, inappropriate grazing activity, timber management
and fuels reduction, and recreational activities.
Subunit 2C: Black Buttes
The Black Buttes subunit consists of approximately 55,057 ha
(136,049 ac), and spans from Sierra County through Nevada County into
Placer County, California. It is 8.5 km (5.3 mi) west of Highway 89,
and 3.7 km (2.3 mi) north of the North Fork American River, and is
bisected on the south by Highway 80. Land ownership within this subunit
consists of approximately 32,649 ha (80,678 ac) of Federal land and
22,408 ha (55,371 ac) of private land. The Black Buttes subunit is
located entirely within the boundaries of the Tahoe National Forest.
This subunit is considered to be within the geographical area occupied
by the species at the time of listing, and it contains the physical or
biological features essential to the conservation of the species, is
currently functional habitat sustaining frogs, and is needed to provide
for core surviving populations and their unique genetic heritage.
The physical or biological features essential to the conservation
of the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog in the Black Buttes subunit may
require special management considerations or protection due to the
presence of introduced fishes, water diversions and operations,
inappropriate grazing activity, timber management and fuels reduction,
and recreational activities.
Subunit 2D: Five Lakes
The Five Lakes subunit consists of approximately 3,758 ha (9,286
ac), and is located in the eastern portion of Placer County,
California, approximately 2 km (1.25 mi) west of Highway 89 and 12.3 km
(7.7 mi) east of Foresthill Road. Land ownership within this subunit
consists of
[[Page 59076]]
approximately 2,396 ha (5,921 ac) of Federal land and 1,362 ha (3,365
ac) of private land. The Five Lakes subunit is located entirely within
the boundaries of the Tahoe National Forest, including area within the
Granite Chief Wilderness. This subunit is considered to be within the
geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing, and
it contains the physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the species, is currently functional habitat sustaining
frogs, and is needed to provide for core surviving populations and
their unique genetic heritage.
The physical or biological features essential to the conservation
of the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog in the Five Lakes subunit may
require special management considerations or protection due to the
presence of introduced fishes, timber management and fuels reduction,
and recreational activities.
Subunit 2E: Crystal Range
The Crystal Range subunit consists of approximately 33,406 ha
(82,548 ac), and is located primarily in El Dorado and Placer Counties,
California, approximately 3.8 km (2.4 mi) west of Highway 89, bounded
on the south by Highway 50, and 7 km (4.4 mi) east of Ice House Road.
The Crystal Range subunit includes portions of the Desolation
Wilderness. Land ownership within this subunit consists of
approximately 31,261 ha (77,249 ac) of Federal land and 2,145 ha (5,299
ac) of private land. The Crystal Range subunit includes areas within
the Eldorado and Tahoe National Forests and also the Lake Tahoe Basin
Management Unit. This subunit is considered to be within the
geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing, and
it contains the physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the species, is currently functional habitat sustaining
frogs, and is needed to provide for core surviving populations and
their unique genetic heritage.
The physical or biological features essential to the conservation
of the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog in the Crystal Range subunit
may require special management considerations or protection due to the
presence of introduced fishes, water diversions and operations,
inappropriate grazing activity, and recreational activities.
Subunit 2F: East Amador
The East Amador subunit consists of approximately 43,414 ha
(107,278 ac), and is located in Amador, Alpine, and El Dorado Counties,
California. The East Amador subunit is roughly bounded on the northwest
by Highway 88, and on the southeast by Highway 4. Land ownership within
this subunit consists of approximately 40,140 ha (99,188 ac) of Federal
land, 56 ha (138 ac) of State land, and 3,218 ha (7,952 ac) of private
land. The East Amador subunit includes areas within the Eldorado,
Stanislaus, and Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forests, and areas within the
Emigrant Wilderness. This subunit is considered to be within the
geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing, and
it contains the physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the species, is currently functional habitat sustaining
frogs, and is needed to provide for core surviving populations and
their unique genetic heritage.
The physical or biological features essential to the conservation
of the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog in the East Amador subunit may
require special management considerations or protection due to the
presence of introduced fishes, water diversions and operations,
inappropriate grazing activity, timber management and fuels reduction,
and recreational activities.
Subunit 2G: North Stanislaus
The North Stanislaus subunit consists of approximately 10,462 ha
(25,851 ac), and is located in Alpine, Tuolumne, and Calaveras
Counties, California. It is south of the North Fork Mokelumne River,
and is bisected by Highway 4, which traverses the unit from southwest
to northeast. Land ownership within this subunit consists of
approximately 10,445 ha (25,811 ac) of Federal land and 16 ha (41 ac)
of private land. The North Stanislaus subunit is located entirely
within the boundaries of the Stanislaus National Forest, the Mokelumne
Wilderness and Carson-Iceberg Wilderness. This subunit is considered to
be within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of
listing, and it contains the physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species, is currently functional habitat
sustaining frogs, and is needed to provide for core surviving
populations and their unique genetic heritage.
The physical or biological features essential to the conservation
of the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog in the North Stanislaus subunit
may require special management considerations or protection due to the
presence of introduced fishes, water diversions and operations,
inappropriate grazing activity, timber management and fuels reduction,
and recreational activities.
Subunit 2H: Wells Peak
The Wells Peak subunit consists of approximately 11,711 ha (28,939
ac), and is located in Alpine, Mono, and Tuolumne Counties, California,
approximately 6.4 km (4 mi) west of Highway 395, and bounded by Highway
108 on the south. Land ownership within this subunit consists of
approximately 11,650 ha (28,788 ac) of Federal land and 61 ha (150 ac)
of private land. Federal holdings within the Wells Peak subunit are
within the Humboldt-Toiyabe and Stanislaus National Forests, and the
Carson-Iceberg and Emigrant Wilderness Areas. This subunit is
considered to be within the geographical area occupied by the species
at the time of listing, and it contains the physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of the species, is currently
functional habitat sustaining frogs, and is needed to provide for core
surviving populations and their unique genetic heritage.
The physical or biological features essential to the conservation
of the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog in the Wells Peak subunit may
require special management considerations or protection due to
introduced fishes, inappropriate grazing activity, timber management
and fuels reduction, and recreational activities.
Subunit 2I: Emigrant Yosemite
The Emigrant Yosemite subunit consists of approximately 86,161 ha
(212,908 ac), and is located in Tuolumne and Mono Counties, California,
approximately 11 km (6.9 mi) south of Highway 108 and 7.4 km (4.6 mi)
north of Hetch Hetchy Reservoir. Land ownership within this subunit
consists of approximately 86,089 ha (212,730 ac) of Federal land, 50 ha
(124 ac) of local jurisdiction lands, and 22 ha (54 ac) of private
land. The Emigrant Yosemite subunit is predominantly in Yosemite
National Park and the Stanislaus and Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forests,
including lands within the Emigrant and Hoover Wilderness Areas. This
subunit is considered to be within the geographical area occupied by
the species at the time of listing, and it contains the physical or
biological features essential to the conservation of the species, is
currently functional habitat sustaining frogs, and is needed to provide
for core surviving populations and their unique genetic heritage.
The physical or biological features essential to the conservation
of the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog in the
[[Page 59077]]
Emigrant Yosemite subunit may require special management considerations
or protection due to the presence of introduced fishes and
inappropriate grazing activity.
Subunit 2J: Spiller Lake
The Spiller Lake subunit consists of approximately 1,094 ha (2,704
ac), and is located in Tuolumne County, California, approximately 1.2
km (0.75 mi) west of Summit Lake. The Spiller Lake subunit consists
entirely of Federal land, all located within Yosemite National Park.
This subunit is considered to be within the geographical area occupied
by the species at the time of listing, and it contains the physical or
biological features essential to the conservation of the species, is
currently functional habitat sustaining frogs, and is needed to provide
for core surviving populations and their unique genetic heritage.
The physical or biological features essential to the conservation
of the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog in the Spiller Lake subunit may
require special management considerations or protection due to fish
persistence.
Subunit 2K: Virginia Canyon
The Virginia Canyon subunit consists of approximately 891 ha (2,203
ac), and is located in Tuolumne County, California, approximately 4.3
km (2.7 mi) southwest of Spiller Lake, and roughly bounded on the east
by Return Creek. The Virginia Canyon subunit consists entirely of
Federal land, all located within Yosemite National Park. This subunit
is considered to be within the geographical area occupied by the
species at the time of listing, and it contains the physical or
biological features essential to the conservation of the species, is
currently functional habitat sustaining frogs, and is needed to provide
for core surviving populations and their unique genetic heritage.
The physical or biological features essential to the conservation
of the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog in the Virginia Canyon subunit
may require special management considerations or protection due to fish
persistence.
Subunit 2L: Register Creek
The Register Creek subunit consists of approximately 838 ha (2,070
ac), and is located in Tuolumne County, California, approximately 1.2
km (0.75 mi) west of Regulation Creek, with Register Creek intersecting
the subunit on the southwest end and running along the eastern portion
to the north. The Register Creek subunit consists entirely of Federal
land, all located within Yosemite National Park. This subunit is
considered to be within the geographical area occupied by the species
at the time of listing, and it contains the physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of the species, is currently
functional habitat sustaining frogs, and is needed to provide for core
surviving populations and their unique genetic heritage.
The physical or biological features essential to the conservation
of the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog in the Register Creek subunit
may require special management considerations or protection due to fish
persistence.
Subunit 2M: White Mountain
The White Mountain subunit consists of approximately 8,416 ha
(20,796 ac), and is located in Tuolumne and Mono Counties, California,
approximately 12.4 km (7.75 mi) west of Highway 395, and is intersected
on the southeast boundary by Tioga Pass Road (Highway 120). Land
ownership within this subunit consists of approximately 8,366 ha
(20,674 ac) of Federal land and 49 ha (122 ac) of private land. The
White Mountain subunit is predominantly located within Yosemite
National Park and Inyo National Forest, with area located within the
Hoover Wilderness. This subunit is considered to be within the
geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing, and
it contains the physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the species, is currently functional habitat sustaining
frogs, and is needed to provide for core surviving populations and
their unique genetic heritage.
The physical or biological features essential to the conservation
of the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog in the White Mountain subunit
may require special management considerations or protection due to fish
persistence.
Subunit 2N: Unicorn Peak
The Unicorn Peak subunit consists of approximately 2,088 ha (5,160
ac), and is located in Tuolumne County, California, and is intersected
from east to west on its northern boundary by Tioga Pass Road (Highway
120). The Unicorn Peak subunit consists entirely of Federal land, all
within Yosemite National Park. This subunit is considered to be within
the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing,
and it contains the physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the species, is currently functional habitat sustaining
frogs, and is needed to provide for core surviving populations and
their unique genetic heritage.
The physical or biological features essential to the conservation
of the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog in the Unicorn Peak subunit may
require special management considerations or protection due to fish
persistence.
Unit 3: Sierra Nevada Yellow-Legged Frog Clade 3
This unit represents a significant portion of the species' range,
and it reflects a core conservation area comprising the most robust
remaining populations at higher densities (closer proximity) across the
species' range. Unit 3, including all subunits, is an essential
component of the entirety of this critical habitat designation due to
the unique genetic and distributional area this unit encompasses. The
frog populations within Clade 3 of the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog
distribution face significant threats from habitat fragmentation. The
critical habitat within the Unit is necessary to sustain viable
populations within Clade 3 of the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog,
which are at very low abundances. Unit 3 is crucial to the species for
range expansion and recovery.
Subunit 3A: Yosemite Central
The Yosemite Central subunit consists of approximately 1,408 ha
(3,480 ac), and is located in Mariposa County, California,
approximately 4 km (2.5 mi) northwest of Tioga Pass Road (Highway 120)
in the heart of Yosemite National Park. The Yosemite Central subunit
consists entirely of Federal lands within Yosemite National Park. This
subunit is considered to be within the geographical area occupied by
the species at the time of listing, and it contains the physical or
biological features essential to the conservation of the species, is
currently functional habitat sustaining frogs, and is needed to provide
for core surviving populations and their unique genetic heritage.
The physical or biological features essential to the conservation
of the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog in the Yosemite Central subunit
may require special management considerations or protection due to fish
persistence.
Subunit 3B: Cathedral
The Cathedral subunit consists of approximately 38,784 ha (95,837
ac), and is located in Mariposa, Madera, Mono, and Tuolumne Counties,
California, approximately 15.6 km (9.75 mi) west of Highway 395 and 9.4
km (5.9 mi) south of Highway 120. The
[[Page 59078]]
Cathedral subunit consists entirely of Federal land, including lands in
Yosemite National Park, the Inyo National Forest, and an area within
the Ansel Adams Wilderness. This subunit is considered to be within the
geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing, and
it contains the physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the species, is currently functional habitat sustaining
frogs, and is needed to provide for core surviving populations and
their unique genetic heritage.
The physical or biological features essential to the conservation
of the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog in the Cathedral subunit may
require special management considerations or protection due to the
presence of introduced fishes and inappropriate grazing activity.
Subunit 3C: Minarets
The Minarets subunit consists of approximately 3,090 ha (7,636 ac),
and is located in Madera County, California, approximately 5.4 km (3.4
mi) southwest of Highway 203. The Minarets subunit consists entirely of
Federal land located within the Inyo National Forest. This subunit is
considered to be within the geographical area occupied by the species
at the time of listing, and it contains the physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of the species, is currently
functional habitat sustaining frogs, and is needed to provide for core
surviving populations and their unique genetic heritage.
The physical or biological features essential to the conservation
of the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog in the Minarets subunit may
require special management considerations or protection due to the
presence of introduced fishes and recreational activities.
Subunit 3D: Mono Creek
The Mono Creek subunit consists of approximately 18,481 ha (45,666
ac), and is located in Fresno and Inyo Counties, California,
approximately 16 km (10 mi) southwest of Highway 395. The Mono Creek
subunit consists entirely of Federal land located within the Sierra and
Inyo National Forests, including area within the John Muir Wilderness.
This subunit is considered to be within the geographical area occupied
by the species at the time of listing, and it contains the physical or
biological features essential to the conservation of the species, is
currently functional habitat sustaining frogs, and is needed to provide
for core surviving populations and their unique genetic heritage.
The physical or biological features essential to the conservation
of the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog in the Mono Creek subunit may
require special management considerations or protection due to the
presence of introduced fishes, inappropriate grazing activity, and
recreational activities.
Subunit 3E: Evolution/Leconte
The Evolution/Leconte subunit consists of approximately 87,136 ha
(215,318 ac), and is located in Fresno and Inyo Counties, California,
approximately 12.5 km (7.8 mi) southwest of Highway 395. Land ownership
within this subunit consists of approximately 86,968 ha (214,903 ac) of
Federal land, 81 ha (200 ac) of local jurisdictional lands, and 87 ha
(215 ac) of private land. The Evolution/Leconte subunit is
predominantly within the Sierra and Inyo National Forests, including
area within the John Muir Wilderness, and Kings Canyon National Park.
This subunit is considered to be within the geographical area occupied
by the species at the time of listing, and it contains the physical or
biological features essential to the conservation of the species, is
currently functional habitat sustaining frogs, and is needed to provide
for core surviving populations and their unique genetic heritage.
The physical or biological features essential to the conservation
of the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog in the Evolution/Leconte
subunit may require special management considerations or protection due
to the presence of introduced fishes and inappropriate grazing
activity.
Subunit 3F: Pothole Lakes
The Pothole Lakes subunit consists of approximately 1,736 ha (4,289
ac), and is located in Inyo County, California, approximately 13.1 km
(8.2 mi) west of Highway 395. Land ownership within this subunit
consists of approximately 1,735 ha (4,286 ac) of Federal land and 1 ha
(2 ac) of private land. The Pothole Lakes subunit is almost entirely
located within the Inyo National Forest. This subunit is considered to
be within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of
listing, and it contains the physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species, is currently functional habitat
sustaining frogs, and is needed to provide for core surviving
populations and their unique genetic heritage.
The physical or biological features essential to the conservation
of the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog in the Pothole Lakes subunit
may require special management considerations or protection due to the
presence of introduced fishes and recreational activities.
Northern DPS of the Mountain Yellow-Legged Frog
We are designating two units and seven subunits as critical habitat
for the northern DPS of the mountain yellow-legged frog. The critical
habitat areas we describe below constitute our current best assessment
of areas that meet the definition of critical habitat for the northern
DPS of the mountain yellow-legged frog. Units are named after the major
genetic clades (Vredenburg et al. 2007, p. 361), of which three exist
rangewide for the mountain yellow-legged frog, and two are within the
northern DPS of the mountain yellow-legged frog in the Sierra Nevada.
Distinct units within each clade are designated as subunits. Unit
designations begin numbering sequentially, following the three units
already designated on September 14, 2006, for the southern DPS of the
mountain yellow-legged frog (71 FR 54344). The seven subunits we
designate as critical habitat are listed in Table 6 and are, based on
the best available scientific and commercial information, currently
occupied.
Table 6--Critical Habitat Units for the Northern DPS of the Mountain Yellow-Legged Frog (in Hectares and Acres),
Land Ownership, and Known Threats That May Affect the Essential Physical or Biological Features for Units Within
the Geographical Area Occupied by the Species at the Time of Listing
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Known
Critical habitat unit Federal Ha Private Ha Total \1\ Ha manageable
(Ac) (Ac) (Ac) threats \2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4A. Frypan Meadows.............................. 1,585 (3,917) 0 (0) 1,585 (3,917) 1
[[Page 59079]]
4B. Granite Basin............................... 1,777 (4,391) 0 (0) 1,777 (4,391) 1
4C. Sequoia Kings............................... 67,566 0 (0) 67,566 1
(166,958) (166,958)
4D. Kaweah River................................ 3,663 (9,052) 0 (0) 3,663 (9,052) 1
5A. Blossom Lakes............................... 2,069 (5,113) 0 (0) 2,069 (5,113) 1
5B. Coyote Creek................................ 9,792 (24,197) 10 (24) 9,802 (24,222) 1, 5
5C. Mulkey Meadows.............................. 3,175 (7,846) 0 (0) 3,175 (7,846) 1, 3, 5
------------------------------------------------
Total....................................... 89,627 10 (24) 89,637
(221,474) (221,498)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding.
\1\ Area estimates in ha (ac) reflect the entire area within the designated critical habitat unit boundaries.
Area estimates are rounded to the nearest whole integer that is equal to or greater than 1.
\2\ Codes of known threats that may require special management considerations or protection of the essential
physical or biological features:
1. Fish Persistence and Stocking
2. Water Diversions/Development
3. Inappropriate Grazing
4. Timber Harvest/Fuels Reduction
5. Recreation
We present brief descriptions of all subunits and reasons why they
meet the definition of critical habitat for the northern DPS of the
mountain yellow-legged frog below. Each unit and subunit designated as
critical habitat for the northern DPS of the mountain yellow-legged
frog contains aquatic habitat for breeding activities (PCE 1); and/or
aquatic habitat to provide for shelter, foraging, predator avoidance,
and dispersal during nonbreeding phases within their life history (PCE
2); and/or upland areas for feeding and movement, and catchment areas
to provide for water supply and water quality (PCE 3); and is currently
occupied by the species. Each unit and subunit contains the physical or
biological features essential to the conservation of the northern DPS
of the mountain yellow-legged frog, which may require special
management (see the Special Management Considerations or Protection
section of this final rule for a detailed discussion of the threats to
the northern DPS of the mountain yellow-legged frog's habitat and
potential management considerations).
Unit 4: Northern DPS of the Mountain Yellow-Legged Frog Clade 4
This unit represents a significant portion of the northern DPS of
the mountain yellow-legged frog's range and reflects a core
conservation area comprising the most robust remaining populations at
higher densities (closer proximity) across the species' range. Unit 4,
including all subunits, is an essential component to the entirety of
this critical habitat designation due to the unique genetic and
distributional area this unit encompasses. The frog populations within
Clade 4 of the northern DPS of the mountain yellow-legged frog
distribution face significant threats from habitat fragmentation. The
critical habitat within the unit is necessary to sustain viable
populations within Clade 4 northern DPS of the mountain yellow-legged
frog, which are at very low abundances. Unit 4 is crucial to the
species for range expansion and recovery. In addition, Clade 4 includes
the only remaining basins with high-density, lake-based populations
that are not infected with Bd, and Bd will likely invade these
uninfected populations in the near future unless habitat protections
and special management considerations are implemented. It is necessary
to broadly protect remnant habitat across the range of Clade 4 to
facilitate species persistence and recovery.
Subunit 4A: Frypan Meadows
The Frypan Meadows subunit consists of approximately 1,585 ha
(3,917 ac), and is located in Fresno County, California, approximately
4.3 km (2.7 mi) northwest of Highway 180. The Frypan Meadows subunit
consists entirely of Federal land, located predominantly within the
boundaries of the Kings Canyon National Park, with some overlap into
the Monarch Wilderness within the Sequoia National Forest. This subunit
is considered to be within the geographical area occupied by the
species at the time of listing, and it contains the physical or
biological features essential to the conservation of the species, is
currently functional habitat sustaining frogs, and is needed to provide
for core surviving populations and their unique genetic heritage.
The physical or biological features essential to the conservation
of the northern DPS of the mountain yellow-legged frog in the Frypan
Meadows subunit may require special management considerations or
protection due to fish persistence.
Subunit 4B: Granite Basin
The Granite Basin subunit consists of approximately 1,777 ha (4,391
ac), and is located in Fresno County, California, approximately 3.2 km
(2 mi) north of Highway 180. The Granite Basin subunit consists
entirely of Federal land, located within the boundaries of the Kings
Canyon National Park. This subunit is considered to be within the
geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing, and
it contains the physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the species, is currently functional habitat sustaining
frogs, and is needed to provide for core surviving populations and
their unique genetic heritage.
The physical or biological features essential to the conservation
of the northern DPS of the mountain yellow-legged frog in the Granite
Basin subunit may require special management considerations or
protection due to fish persistence.
[[Page 59080]]
Subunit 4C: Sequoia Kings
The Sequoia Kings subunit consists of approximately 67,566 ha
(166,958 ac), and is located in Fresno, Inyo and Tulare Counties,
California, approximately 18 km (11.25 mi) west of Highway 395 and 4.4
km (2.75 mi) southeast of Highway 180. The Sequoia Kings subunit
consists entirely of Federal land, all within Sequoia and Kings Canyon
National Parks. This subunit is considered to be within the
geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing, and
it contains the physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the species, is currently functional habitat sustaining
frogs, and is needed to provide for core surviving populations and
their unique genetic heritage.
The physical or biological features essential to the conservation
of the northern DPS of the mountain yellow-legged frog in the Sequoia
Kings subunit may require special management considerations or
protection due to the presence of introduced fishes and fish
persistence.
Subunit 4D: Kaweah River
The Kaweah River subunit consists of approximately 3,663 ha (9,052
ac), and is located in Tulare County, California, approximately 2.8 km
(1.75 mi) east of Highway 198. The Kaweah River subunit consists
entirely of Federal land, all within Sequoia National Park. This
subunit is considered to be within the geographical area occupied by
the species at the time of listing, and it contains the physical or
biological features essential to the conservation of the species, is
currently functional habitat sustaining frogs, and is needed to provide
for core surviving populations and their unique genetic heritage.
The physical or biological features essential to the conservation
of the northern DPS of the mountain yellow-legged frog in the Kaweah
River subunit may require special management considerations or
protection due to fish persistence.
Unit 5: Northern DPS of the Mountain Yellow-Legged Frog Clade 5
This unit represents the southern portion of the species' range and
reflects unique ecological features within the range of the species
because it comprises populations that are stream-based. Unit 5,
including all subunits, is an essential component of the entirety of
this critical habitat designation due to the unique genetic and
distributional area this unit encompasses. The frog populations within
Clade 5 of the northern DPS of the mountain yellow-legged frog's
distribution are at very low numbers and face significant threats from
habitat fragmentation. The critical habitat within the nit is necessary
to sustain viable populations within Clade 5 of the northern DPS of the
mountain yellow-legged frog, which are at very low abundances. Unit 5
is crucial to the species for range expansion and recovery.
Subunit 5A: Blossom Lakes
The Blossom Lakes subunit consists of approximately 2,069 ha (5,113
ac), and is located in Tulare County, California, approximately 0.8 km
(0.5 mi) northwest of Silver Lake. The Blossom Lakes subunit consists
entirely of Federal land, located within Sequoia National Park and
Sequoia National Forest. This subunit is considered to be within the
geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing, and
it contains the physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the species, is currently functional habitat sustaining
frogs, and is needed to provide for core surviving populations and
their unique genetic heritage.
The physical or biological features essential to the conservation
of the northern DPS of the mountain yellow-legged frog in the Blossom
Lakes subunit may require special management considerations or
protection due to fish persistence.
Subunit 5B: Coyote Creek
The Coyote Creek subunit consists of approximately 9,802 ha (24,222
ac), and is located in Tulare County, California, approximately 7.5 km
(4.7 mi) south of Moraine Lake. Land ownership within this subunit
consists of approximately 9,792 ha (24,197 ac) of Federal land and 10
ha (24 ac) of private land. The Coyote Creek subunit is predominantly
within Sequoia National Park and Sequoia and Inyo National Forests,
including area within the Golden Trout Wilderness. This subunit is
considered to be within the geographical area occupied by the species
at the time of listing, and it contains the physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of the species, is currently
functional habitat sustaining frogs, and is needed to provide for core
surviving populations and their unique genetic heritage.
The physical or biological features essential to the conservation
of the northern DPS of the mountain yellow-legged frog in the Coyote
Creek subunit may require special management considerations or
protection due to the presence of introduced fishes and recreational
activities.
Subunit 5C: Mulkey Meadows
The Mulkey Meadows subunit consists of approximately 3,175 ha
(7,846 ac), and is located in Tulare and Inyo Counties, California,
approximately 10 km (6.25 mi) west of Highway 395. The Mulkey Meadows
subunit consists entirely of Federal land, all within the Inyo National
Forest, including area within the Golden Trout Wilderness. This subunit
is considered to be within the geographical area occupied by the
species at the time of listing, and it contains the physical or
biological features essential to the conservation of the species, is
currently functional habitat sustaining frogs, and is needed to provide
for core surviving populations and their unique genetic heritage.
The physical or biological features essential to the conservation
of the northern DPS of the mountain yellow-legged frog in the Mulkey
Meadows subunit may require special management considerations or
protection due to the presence of introduced fishes, inappropriate
grazing activity, and recreational activities.
Yosemite Toad
We are designating 16 units as critical habitat for the Yosemite
toad. The critical habitat areas we describe below constitute our
current best assessment of areas that meet the definition of critical
habitat for the Yosemite toad. The 16 units we designate as critical
habitat are listed in Table 7, and all 16 units are currently occupied.
[[Page 59081]]
Table 7--Critical Habitat Units for the Yosemite Toad (in Hectares and Acres), Land Ownership, and Known Threats
That May Affect the Essential Physical or Biological Features for Units Within the Geographical Area Occupied by
the Species at the Time of Listing
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Ha Private Ha Total \1\ Ha
Critical habitat unit (Ac) (Ac) (Ac) Threats \2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Blue Lakes/Mokelumne......................... 13,896 987 14,884 2, 4, 5, 6
(34,338) (2,440) (36,778)
2. Leavitt Lake/Emigrant........................ 30,789 13 30,803 2, 4, 5, 6
(76,081) (33) (76,115)
3. Rogers Meadow................................ 11,797 0 11,797 5, 6
(29,150) (0) (29,150)
4. Hoover Lakes................................. 2,303 0 2,303 4, 5, 6
(5,690) (0) (5,690)
5. Tuolumne Meadows/Cathedral................... 56,477 53 56,530 4, 5, 6
(139,557) (131) (139,688)
6. McSwain Meadows.............................. 6,472 0 6,472 4, 5, 6
(15,992) (0) (15,992)
7. Porcupine Flat............................... 1,701 0 1,701 4, 5, 6
(4,204) (0) (4,204)
8. Westfall Meadows............................. 1,859 0 1,859 4, 5, 6
(4,594) (0) (4,594)
9. Triple Peak.................................. 4,377 0 4,377 4, 5, 6
(10,816) (0) (10,816)
10. Chilnualna.................................. 6,212 0 6,212 4, 5, 6
(15,351) (0) (15,351)
11. Iron Mountain............................... 7,404 302 7,706 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
(18,296) (747) (19,043)
12. Silver Divide............................... 39,986 1 39,987 2, 4, 5, 6
(98,807) (2) (98,809)
13. Humphrys Basin/Seven Gables................. 20,658 8 20,666 4, 5, 6
(51,046) (21) (51,067)
14. Kaiser/Dusy................................. 70,670 308 70,978 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
(174,629) (761) (175,390)
15. Upper Goddard Canyon........................ 14,905 0 14,905 5, 6
(36,830) (0) (36,830)
16. Round Corral Meadow......................... 12,613 97 12,711 2, 4, 5, 6
(31,168) (241) (31,409)
------------------------------------------------
Total....................................... 302,118 1,771 303,889
(746,551) (4,376) (750,927)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding.
\1\ Area estimates in ha (ac) reflect the entire area within the designated critical habitat unit boundaries.
Area estimates are rounded to the nearest whole integer that is equal to or greater than 1.
\2\ Codes of known threats that may require special management considerations or protection of the essential
physical or biological features:
1. Water Diversions
2. Inappropriate Grazing
3. Timber Harvest/Fuels Reduction
4. Recreation
5. Climate Change
6. Disease and Predation (threats of uncertain magnitude)
We present brief descriptions of all units and reasons why they
meet the definition of critical habitat for the Yosemite toad below.
Each unit designated as critical habitat for the Yosemite toad contains
aquatic habitat for breeding activities (PCE 1) and/or upland habitat
for foraging, dispersal, and overwintering activities (PCE 2), and is
currently occupied by the species. Each unit contains the physical or
biological features essential to the conservation of the Yosemite toad,
which may require special management (see the Special Management
Considerations or Protection section of this final rule for a detailed
discussion of the threats to Yosemite toad habitat and potential
management considerations).
Unit 1: Blue Lakes/Mokelumne
This unit consists of approximately 14,884 ha (36,778 ac), and is
located in Alpine County, California, north and south of Highway 4.
Land ownership within this unit consists of approximately 13,896 ha
(34,338 ac) of Federal land and 987 ha (2,440 ac) of private land. The
Blue Lakes/Mokelumne unit is predominantly within the Eldorado,
Humboldt-Toiyabe, and Stanislaus National Forests, including lands
within the Mokelumne and Carson-Iceberg Wilderness Areas. This unit is
currently occupied and contains the physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the species. This unit represents the
northernmost portion of the Yosemite toad's range and constitutes an
area of high genetic diversity. The Blue Lakes/Mokelumne unit is an
essential component of the entirety of this critical habitat
designation due to the genetic and distributional area this unit
encompasses.
The physical or biological features essential to the conservation
of the Yosemite toad in the Blue Lakes/Mokelumne unit may require
special management considerations or protection due to inappropriate
grazing and recreational activities. This unit also has threats due to
disease,
[[Page 59082]]
predation, and climate change. Climate change is not considered a
manageable threat. The need for special management considerations or
protection due to disease and predation is currently undefined due to
uncertainty regarding the extent and magnitude of these particular
stressors.
Unit 2: Leavitt Lake/Emigrant
This unit consists of approximately 30,803 ha (76,115 ac), and is
located near the border of Alpine, Tuolumne, and Mono Counties,
California, predominantly south of Highway 108. Land ownership within
this unit consists of approximately 30,789 ha (76,081 ac) of Federal
land and 13 ha (33 ac) of private land. The Leavitt Lake/Emigrant unit
is predominantly within the Stanislaus and Humboldt-Toiyabe National
Forests, including lands within the Emigrant and Hoover Wilderness
Areas, and Yosemite National Park. This unit is currently occupied and
contains the physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the species. This unit is considered essential to the
conservation of the species because it contains a high concentration of
Yosemite toad breeding locations and represents a variety of habitat
types utilized by the species. The Leavitt Lake/Emigrant unit provides
continuity of habitat between adjacent units, as well as providing for
a variety of habitat types necessary to sustain Yosemite toad
populations under a variety of climate regimes.
The physical or biological features essential to the conservation
of the Yosemite toad in the Leavitt Lake/Emigrant unit may require
special management considerations or protection due to inappropriate
grazing and recreational activities. This unit also has threats due to
disease, predation, and climate change. Climate change is not
considered a manageable threat. The need for special management
considerations or protection due to disease and predation is currently
undefined due to uncertainty regarding the extent and magnitude of
these particular stressors.
Unit 3: Rogers Meadow
This unit consists of approximately 11,797 ha (29,150 ac) of
Federal land located entirely within Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest,
including area within the Hoover Wilderness and Yosemite National Park.
The Rogers Meadow unit is located along the border of Tuolumne and Mono
Counties, California, north of Highway 120. This unit is currently
occupied and contains the physical or biological features essential to
the conservation of the species. This unit contains a high
concentration of Yosemite toad breeding locations, is located in a
relatively pristine ecological setting, and represents a variety of
habitat types utilized by the species. The Rogers Meadow unit is an
essential component of the entirety of this critical habitat
designation because it provides continuity of habitat between adjacent
units as well as providing for a variety of habitat types necessary to
sustain Yosemite toad populations under various climate regimes. This
unit has no manageable threats (note that disease, predation, and
climate change are not considered manageable threats). However, the
physical or biological features with this unit require special
protection because of the unit's value as occupied habitat that
provides geographic connectivity to allow for Yosemite toad
metapopulation persistence and resilience across the landscape to
changing climate.
Unit 4: Hoover Lakes
This unit consists of approximately 2,303 ha (5,690 ac) of Federal
land located entirely within the Inyo and Humboldt-Toiyabe National
Forests, including area within the Hoover Wilderness and Yosemite
National Park. The Hoover Lakes unit is located along the border of
Mono and Tuolumne Counties, California, east of Highway 395. This unit
is currently occupied and contains the physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the species. This unit contains
Yosemite toad populations with a high degree of genetic variability
east of the Sierra crest within the central portion of the species'
range. This unit contains habitats that are important to the Yosemite
toad facing an uncertain climate future. The Hoover Lakes unit is an
essential component of the entirety of this critical habitat
designation because it provides a continuity of habitat between
adjacent units, provides for the maintenance of genetic variation, and
provides habitat types necessary to sustain Yosemite toad populations
under various climate regimes.
The physical or biological features essential to the conservation
of Yosemite toad in the Hoover Lakes unit may require special
management considerations or protection due to recreational activities.
This unit also has threats due to disease, predation, and climate
change. Climate change is not considered a manageable threat. The need
for special management considerations or protection due to disease and
predation is currently undefined due to uncertainty regarding the
extent and magnitude of these particular stressors.
Unit 5: Tuolumne Meadows/Cathedral
This unit consists of approximately 56,530 ha (139,688 ac), and is
located within Tuolumne, Mono, Mariposa, and Madera Counties,
California, both north and south of Highway 120. Land ownership within
this unit consists of approximately 56,477 ha (139,557 ac) of Federal
land and 53 ha (131 ac) of private land. The Tuolumne Meadows/Cathedral
unit is predominantly within the Inyo National Forest, with area within
the Hoover Wilderness and Yosemite National Park. This unit is
currently occupied and contains the physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the species. This unit contains a high
concentration of Yosemite toad breeding locations, represents a variety
of habitat types utilized by the species, has high genetic variability,
and, due to the long-term occupancy of this unit, is considered an
essential locality for Yosemite toad populations. The Tuolumne Meadows/
Cathedral unit is an essential component of the entirety of this
critical habitat designation because it provides continuity of habitat
between adjacent units, as well as providing for a variety of habitat
types necessary to sustain Yosemite toad populations under various
climate regimes.
The physical or biological features essential to the conservation
of the Yosemite toad in the Tuolumne Meadows/Cathedral unit may require
special management considerations or protection due to recreational
activities. This unit also has threats due to disease, predation, and
climate change. Climate change is not considered a manageable threat.
The need for special management considerations or protection due to
disease and predation is currently undefined due to uncertainty
regarding the extent and magnitude of these particular stressors.
Unit 6: McSwain Meadows
This unit consists of approximately 6,472 ha (15,992 ac) of Federal
land located entirely within Yosemite National Park. The McSwain
Meadows unit is located along the border of Tuolumne and Mariposa
Counties, California, north and south of Highway 120 in the vicinity of
Yosemite Creek. This unit is currently occupied and contains the
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the
species. This contains Yosemite toad populations located at the western
edge of the range of the species within the central region of its
geographic distribution. This area contains a
[[Page 59083]]
concentration of Yosemite toad localities, as well as representing a
wide variety of habitat types utilized by the species. This unit
contains habitats that are essential to the Yosemite toad facing an
uncertain climate future. The McSwain Meadows unit is an essential
component of the entirety of this critical habitat designation because
it provides a unique geographic distribution and variation in habitat
types necessary to sustain Yosemite toad populations under various
climate regimes.
The physical or biological features essential to the conservation
of Yosemite toad in the McSwain Meadows unit may require special
management considerations or protection due to recreational activities.
This unit also has threats due to disease, predation, and climate
change. Climate change is not considered a manageable threat. The need
for special management considerations or protection due to disease and
predation is currently undefined due to uncertainty regarding the
extent and magnitude of these particular stressors.
Unit 7: Porcupine Flat
This unit consists of approximately 1,701 ha (4,204 ac) of Federal
land located entirely within Yosemite National Park. The Porcupine Flat
unit is located within Mariposa County, California, north and south of
Highway 120 and east of Yosemite Creek. This unit is currently occupied
and contains the physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the species. This unit contains a concentration of
Yosemite toad localities in proximity to the western edge of the
species' range within the central region of its geographic distribution
and provides a wide variety of habitat types utilized by the species.
The Porcupine Flat unit is an essential component of the entirety of
this critical habitat designation due to its proximity to Unit 6, which
allows Unit 7 to provide continuity of habitat between Units 5 and 6,
and its geographic distribution and variation in habitat types
necessary to sustain Yosemite toad populations under various climate
regimes.
The physical or biological features essential to the conservation
of the Yosemite toad in the Porcupine Flat unit may require special
management considerations or protection due to recreational activities.
This unit also has threats due to disease, predation, and climate
change. Climate change is not considered a manageable threat. The need
for special management considerations or protection due to disease and
predation is currently undefined due to uncertainty regarding the
extent and magnitude of these particular stressors.
Unit 8: Westfall Meadows
This unit consists of approximately 1,859 ha (4,594 ac) of Federal
land located entirely within Yosemite National Park. The Westfall
Meadows unit is located within Mariposa County, California, along
Glacier Point Road. This unit is currently occupied and contains the
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the
species. The Westfall Meadows unit contains Yosemite toad populations
located at the western edge of the species' range within the central
region of its geographic distribution, and south of the Merced River.
Given that the Merced River acts as a dispersal barrier in this portion
of Yosemite National Park, it is unlikely that there is genetic
exchange between Unit 8 and Unit 6; thus Unit 8 represents an important
geographic and genetic distribution of the species essential to
conservation. This unit contains habitats essential to the conservation
of the Yosemite toad, which faces an uncertain climate future. Unit 8
is an essential component of the entirety of this critical habitat
designation because it provides a unique geographic distribution and
variation in habitat types necessary to sustain Yosemite toad
populations under various climate regimes.
The physical or biological features essential to the conservation
of the Yosemite toad in the Westfall Meadows unit may require special
management considerations or protection due to recreational activities.
This unit also has threats due to disease, predation, and climate
change. Climate change is not considered a manageable threat. The need
for special management considerations or protection due to disease and
predation is currently undefined due to uncertainty regarding the
extent and magnitude of these particular stressors.
Unit 9: Triple Peak
This unit consists of approximately 4,377 ha (10,816 ac) of Federal
land located entirely within the Sierra National Forest and Yosemite
National Park. The Triple Peak unit is located within Madera County,
California, between the Merced River and the South Fork Merced River.
This unit is currently occupied and contains the physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of the species. This unit
contains a high concentration of Yosemite toad breeding locations and
represents a variety of habitat types utilized by the species. The
Triple Peak unit is an essential component of the entirety of this
critical habitat designation because it provides continuity of habitat
between adjacent units, specifically east-west connectivity, as well as
habitat types necessary to sustain Yosemite toad populations under
various climate regimes.
The physical or biological features essential to the conservation
of the Yosemite toad in the Triple Peak unit may require special
management considerations or protection due to recreational activities.
This unit also has threats due to disease, predation, and climate
change. Climate change is not considered a manageable threat. The need
for special management considerations or protection due to disease and
predation is currently undefined due to uncertainty regarding the
extent and magnitude of these particular stressors.
Unit 10: Chilnualna
This unit consists of approximately 6,212 ha (15,351 ac) of Federal
land located entirely within Yosemite National Park. The Chilnualna
unit is located within Mariposa and Madera Counties, California, north
of the South Fork Merced River. This unit is currently occupied and
contains the physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the species. This unit contains a high concentration of
Yosemite toad breeding locations and represents a variety of habitat
types utilized by the species. The Chilnualna Unit is an essential
component of the entirety of this critical habitat designation because
it provides continuity of habitat between adjacent units, as well as
habitat types necessary to sustain Yosemite toad populations under
various climate regimes.
The physical or biological features essential to the conservation
of the Yosemite toad in the Chilnualna unit may require special
management considerations or protection due to recreational activities.
This unit also has threats due to disease, predation, and climate
change. Climate change is not considered a manageable threat. The need
for special management considerations or protection due to disease and
predation is currently undefined due to uncertainty regarding the
extent and magnitude of these particular stressors.
Unit 11: Iron Mountain
This unit consists of approximately 7,706 ha (19,043 ac), and is
located within Madera County, California, south of the South Fork
Merced River. Land ownership within this unit consists of
[[Page 59084]]
approximately 7,404 ha (18,296 ac) of Federal land and 302 ha (747 ac)
of private land. The Iron Mountain unit is predominantly within the
Sierra National Forest and Yosemite National Park. This unit is
currently occupied and contains the physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the species. This unit contains a high
concentration of Yosemite toad breeding locations and represents a
variety of habitat types utilized by the species. Further, this unit
contains the southernmost habitat within the central portion of the
range of the Yosemite toad. The Iron Mountain unit is an essential
component of the entirety of this critical habitat designation because
it provides continuity of habitat between adjacent units, as well as
habitat types necessary to sustain Yosemite toad populations under
various climate regimes.
The physical or biological features essential to the conservation
of Yosemite toad in the Iron Mountain unit may require special
management considerations or protection due to inappropriate grazing,
timber harvest and fuels reduction, and recreational activities.
This unit also has threats due to disease, predation, and climate
change. Climate change is not considered a manageable threat. The need
for special management considerations or protection due to disease and
predation is currently undefined due to uncertainty regarding the
extent and magnitude of these particular stressors.
Unit 12: Silver Divide
This unit consists of approximately 39,987 ha (98,809 ac), and is
located within Fresno, Inyo, Madera, and Mono Counties, California,
southeast of the Middle Fork San Joaquin River. Land ownership within
this unit consists of approximately 39,986 ha (98,807 ac) of Federal
land and 1 ha (2 ac) of private land. The Silver Divide unit is
predominantly within the Inyo and Sierra National Forests, including
lands within the John Muir and Ansel Adams Wilderness Areas. This unit
is currently occupied and contains the physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the species. This unit contains a high
concentration of Yosemite toad breeding locations and represents a
variety of habitat types utilized by the species. The Silver Divide
unit is an essential component of the entirety of this critical habitat
designation because it provides continuity of habitat between adjacent
units, as well as habitat types necessary to sustain Yosemite toad
populations under various climate regimes.
The physical or biological features essential to the conservation
of the Yosemite toad in the Silver Divide unit may require special
management considerations or protection due to inappropriate grazing
and recreational activities. This unit also has threats due to disease,
predation, and climate change. Climate change is not considered a
manageable threat. The need for special management considerations or
protection due to disease and predation is currently undefined due to
uncertainty regarding the extent and magnitude of these particular
stressors.
Unit 13: Humphrys Basin/Seven Gables
This unit consists of approximately 20,666 ha (51,067 ac), and is
located within Fresno and Inyo Counties, California, northeast of the
South Fork San Joaquin River. Land ownership within this unit consists
of approximately 20,658 ha (51,046 ac) of Federal land and 8 ha (21 ac)
of private land. The Humphrys Basin/Seven Gables unit is predominantly
within the Inyo and Sierra National Forests, including area within the
John Muir Wilderness. This unit is currently occupied and contains the
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the
species. This unit contains a high concentration of Yosemite toad
breeding locations and represents a variety of habitat types utilized
by the species. The Humphrys Basin/Seven Gables unit is an essential
component of the entirety of this critical habitat designation because
it provides continuity of habitat between adjacent units, as well as
habitat types necessary to sustain Yosemite toad populations under
various climate regimes.
The physical or biological features essential to the conservation
of the Yosemite toad in the Humphrys Basin/Seven Gables unit may
require special management considerations or protection due to
recreation activities.
This unit also has threats due to disease, predation, and climate
change. Climate change is not considered a manageable threat. The need
for special management considerations or protection due to disease and
predation is currently undefined due to uncertainty regarding the
extent and magnitude of these particular stressors.
Unit 14: Kaiser/Dusy
This unit consists of approximately 70,978 ha (175,390 ac), and is
located in Fresno County, California, between the south fork of the San
Joaquin River and the north fork of the Kings River. Land ownership
within this unit consists of approximately 70,670 ha (174,629 ac) of
Federal land and 308 ha (761 ac) of private land. The Kaiser/Dusy unit
is predominantly within the Sierra National Forest. This unit is
currently occupied and contains the physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the species. This unit contains a high
concentration of Yosemite toad breeding locations, represents a variety
of habitat types utilized by the species, and is located at the
southwestern extent of the Yosemite toad range. The Kaiser/Dusy unit is
an essential component of the entirety of this critical habitat
designation because it provides continuity of habitat between adjacent
units, as well as habitat types necessary to sustain Yosemite toad
populations under various climate regimes.
The physical or biological features essential to the conservation
of the Yosemite toad in the Kaiser/Dusy unit may require special
management considerations or protection due to inappropriate grazing,
timber harvest and fuels reduction, and recreational activities.
This unit also has threats due to disease, predation, and climate
change. Climate change is not considered a manageable threat. The need
for special management considerations or protection due to disease and
predation is currently undefined due to uncertainty regarding the
extent and magnitude of these particular stressors.
Unit 15: Upper Goddard Canyon
This unit consists of approximately 14,905 ha (36,830 ac) of
Federal land located entirely within Kings Canyon National Park and the
Sierra National Forest. The Upper Goddard Canyon unit is located within
Fresno and Inyo Counties, California, at the upper reach of the South
Fork San Joaquin River. This unit is currently occupied and contains
the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of
the species. This unit contains a high concentration of Yosemite toad
breeding locations, represents a variety of habitat types utilized by
the species, and is located at the easternmost extent within the
southern portion of the Yosemite toad's range. The Upper Goddard Canyon
unit is an essential component of the entirety of this critical habitat
designation because it provides continuity of habitat between adjacent
units, as well as habitat types necessary to sustain Yosemite toad
populations under various climate regimes. This unit has no manageable
threats (note that disease, predation, and climate change are not
considered manageable threats). However, the area requires special
protection because of its value as
[[Page 59085]]
occupied habitat that provides geographic connectivity to allow for
Yosemite toad metapopulation persistence and resilience across the
landscape to changing climate.
Unit 16: Round Corral Meadow
This unit consists of approximately 12,711 ha (31,409 ac), and is
located in Fresno County, California, south of the North Fork Kings
River. Land ownership within this unit consists of approximately 12,613
ha (31,168 ac) of Federal land and 97 ha (241 ac) of private land. The
Round Corral Meadow unit is predominantly within the Sierra National
Forest. This unit contains a high concentration of Yosemite toad
breeding locations, represents a variety of habitat types utilized by
the species, and encompasses the southernmost portion of the range of
the species. The Round Corral Meadow unit is an essential component of
the entirety of this critical habitat designation because it provides
continuity of habitat between adjacent units, represents the
southernmost portion of the range, and provides habitat types necessary
to sustain Yosemite toad populations under various climate regimes.
The physical or biological features essential to the conservation
of the Yosemite toad in the Round Corral Meadow unit may require
special management considerations or protection due to inappropriate
grazing and recreational activities. This unit also has threats due to
disease, predation, and climate change. Climate change is not
considered a manageable threat. The need for special management
considerations or protection due to disease and predation is currently
undefined due to uncertainty regarding the extent and magnitude of
these particular stressors.
Effects of Critical Habitat Designation
Section 7 Consultation
Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the
Service, to ensure that any action they fund, authorize, or carry out
is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered
species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse
modification of designated critical habitat of such species.
We published a final rule setting forth a new definition of
destruction or adverse modification on February 11, 2016 (81 FR 7214),
which became effective on March 14, 2016. Destruction or adverse
modification means a direct or indirect alteration that appreciably
diminishes the value of critical habitat for the conservation of a
listed species. Such alterations may include, but are not limited to,
those that alter the physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of a species or that preclude or significantly delay
development of such features.
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. Examples of actions not on Federal land that are
subject to the section 7 consultation process are actions on State,
tribal, local, or private lands that require a Federal permit (such as
a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or a permit from the Service
under section 10 of the Act) or that involve some other Federal action
(such as funding from the Federal Highway Administration, Federal
Aviation Administration, or the Federal Emergency Management Agency).
Federal actions not affecting listed species or critical habitat, and
actions on State, tribal, local, or private lands that are not
federally funded or authorized, do not require section 7 consultation.
As a result of section 7 consultation, we document compliance with
the requirements of section 7(a)(2) through our issuance of:
(1) A concurrence letter for Federal actions that may affect, but
are not likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat;
or
(2) A biological opinion for Federal actions that may affect, and
are likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat.
When we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species and/or
destroy or adversely modify critical habitat, we provide reasonable and
prudent alternatives to the project, if any are identifiable, that
would avoid the likelihood of jeopardy and/or destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat. We define ``reasonable and prudent
alternatives'' (at 50 CFR 402.02) as alternative actions identified
during consultation that:
(1) Can be implemented in a manner consistent with the intended
purpose of the action,
(2) Can be implemented consistent with the scope of the Federal
agency's legal authority and jurisdiction,
(3) Are economically and technologically feasible, and
(4) Would, in the Director's opinion, avoid the likelihood of
jeopardizing the continued existence of the listed species and/or avoid
the likelihood of destroying or adversely modifying critical habitat.
Reasonable and prudent alternatives can vary from slight project
modifications to extensive redesign or relocation of the project. Costs
associated with implementing a reasonable and prudent alternative are
similarly variable.
Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require Federal agencies to reinitiate
consultation on previously reviewed actions in instances where we have
listed a new species or subsequently designated critical habitat that
may be affected and the Federal agency has retained discretionary
involvement or control over the action (or the agency's discretionary
involvement or control is authorized by law). Consequently, Federal
agencies sometimes may need to request reinitiation of consultation
with us on actions for which formal consultation has been completed, if
those actions with discretionary involvement or control may affect
subsequently listed species or designated critical habitat.
Application of the ``Adverse Modification'' Standard
The key factor related to the adverse modification determination is
whether, with implementation of the proposed Federal action, the
affected critical habitat would continue to serve its intended
conservation role for the species. Activities that may destroy or
adversely modify critical habitat are those that result in a direct or
indirect alteration that appreciably diminishes the value of critical
habitat for the conservation of the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog,
the northern DPS of the mountain yellow-legged frog, and the Yosemite
toad. Such alterations may include, but are not limited to, those that
alter the physical or biological features essential to the conservation
of these species or that preclude or significantly delay development of
such features. As discussed above, the role of critical habitat is to
support life-history needs of the species and provide for the
conservation of the species.
Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to briefly evaluate and
describe, in any proposed or final regulation that designates critical
habitat, activities involving a Federal action that may destroy or
adversely modify such habitat, or that may be affected by such
designation.
Activities that may affect critical habitat, when carried out,
funded, or authorized by a Federal agency, should result in
consultation for the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog and northern DPS
mountain yellow-legged frog. If
[[Page 59086]]
these actions occur at a scale or with a severity that detrimentally
impacts the recovery potential of a unit, then the project may
represent an adverse modification to critical habitat under the Act.
Such actions are evaluated in the context of many factors, and any one
alone may not necessarily lead to an adverse modification
determination. These activities 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
surface water or into connected ground water at a point source or by
dispersed release (non-point source). These activities may alter water
conditions beyond the tolerances of the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged
frog or northern DPS of the mountain yellow-legged frog and result in
direct or adverse effects to their critical habitat.
(2) Actions that would significantly increase sediment deposition
within the stream channel, lake, or other aquatic feature, or disturb
riparian foraging and dispersal habitat. Such activities could include,
but are not limited to, excessive sedimentation from livestock
overgrazing, road construction, 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 Sierra
Nevada yellow-legged frog or northern DPS of the mountain yellow-legged
frog by increasing the sediment deposition to levels that would
adversely affect a frog's ability to complete its life cycle.
(3) Actions that would significantly alter channel or lake
morphology, geometry, or water availability. Such activities could
include, but are not limited to, channelization, impoundment, road and
bridge construction, development, mining, dredging, destruction of
riparian vegetation, water diversion, water withdrawal, and hydropower
generation. These activities may lead to changes to the hydrologic
function of the channel or lake, and alter the timing, duration,
waterflows, and levels that would degrade or eliminate mountain yellow-
legged frog habitat. These actions can also lead to increased
sedimentation and degradation in water quality to levels that are
beyond the tolerances of the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog or
northern DPS of the mountain yellow-legged frog.
(4) Actions that significantly reduce or limit the availability of
breeding or overwintering aquatic habitat for the Sierra Nevada yellow-
legged frog or northern DPS of the mountain yellow-legged frog. Such
activities could include, but are not limited to, stocking of
introduced fishes, water diversion, water withdrawal, and hydropower
generation. These actions could lead to the reduction in available
breeding and overwintering habitat for the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged
frog or northern DPS of the mountain yellow-legged frog through
reduction in water depth necessary for the frog to complete its life
cycle. Additionally, the stocking of introduced fishes could prevent or
preclude recolonization of otherwise available breeding or
overwintering habitats, which is necessary for range expansion and
recovery of the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog and northern DPS of
the mountain yellow-legged frog metapopulations.
Activities that may affect critical habitat, when carried out,
funded, or authorized by a Federal agency, should result in
consultation for the Yosemite toad. These activities 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 ground water at a point source or
by dispersed release (non-point source). These activities could alter
water conditions beyond the tolerances of the Yosemite toad and result
in direct or cumulative adverse effects to the critical habitat.
(2) Actions that would significantly increase sediment deposition
within the wet meadow systems and other aquatic features utilized by
Yosemite toad. Such activities could include, but are not limited to,
excessive sedimentation from livestock overgrazing, road construction,
inappropriate fuels management activities, channel alteration,
inappropriate timber harvest activities, 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 Yosemite toad by increasing the
sediment deposition to levels that would adversely affect a toad's
ability to complete its life cycle.
(3) Actions that would significantly alter wet meadow or pond
morphology, geometry, or inundation period. Such activities could
include, but are not limited to, livestock overgrazing, channelization,
impoundment, road and bridge construction, mining, dredging, and
inappropriate vegetation management. These activities may lead to
changes in the hydrologic function of the wet meadow or pond and alter
the timing, duration, waterflows, and levels that would degrade or
eliminate Yosemite toad habitat. These actions can also lead to
increased sedimentation and degradation in water quality to levels that
are beyond the tolerances of the Yosemite toad.
(4) Actions that disturb or eliminate upland foraging or
overwintering habitat, as well as dispersal habitat, for the Yosemite
toad. Such activities could include, but are not limited to, livestock
overgrazing, road construction, recreational development, timber
harvest activities, unauthorized off-road vehicle or recreational use,
and other watershed and floodplain disturbances. These activities could
eliminate or reduce essential cover components in terrestrial habitats
of the Yosemite toad and adversely affect a toad's ability to
successfully overwinter or oversummer and may fragment habitat.
Exemptions
Application of Section 4(a)(3) of the Act
Section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i))
provides that: ``The Secretary shall not designate as critical habitat
any lands or other geographical areas owned or controlled by the
Department of Defense, or designated for its use, that are subject to
an integrated natural resources management plan [INRMP] 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.'' There are no
Department of Defense lands with a completed INRMP within the critical
habitat designation.
Consideration of Impacts Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary shall
designate and make revisions to critical habitat on the basis of the
best available scientific data after taking into consideration the
economic impact, national security impact, and any other relevant
impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. The
Secretary may exclude an area from critical habitat if she determines
that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying
such area as part of the critical habitat, unless she 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 statute on its face, as well
as the
[[Page 59087]]
legislative history are clear that the Secretary has broad discretion
regarding which factor(s) to use and how much weight to give to any
factor.
Consideration of Economic Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider the economic impacts
of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. In order to
consider economic impacts, we prepared an incremental effects
memorandum (IEM) and draft economic analysis (DEA) of the proposed
critical habitat designation and related factors (Industrial Economics,
Incorporated 2013). The analysis, dated August 27, 2013, was made
available for public review from January 10, 2014, through March 11,
2014 (Industrial Economics, Incorporated 2013). The DEA addressed
potential economic impacts of critical habitat designation for the
Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog, northern DPS of the mountain yellow-
legged frog, and Yosemite toad. Following the close of the comment
period, we reviewed and evaluated all information submitted during the
comment period that may pertain to our consideration of the probable
incremental economic impacts of this critical habitat designation.
Additional information relevant to the probable incremental economic
impacts of critical habitat designation for the Sierra Nevada yellow-
legged frog, northern DPS of the mountain yellow-legged frog, and
Yosemite toad is summarized below and available in the Final Economic
Analysis (FEA) (Industrial Economics, Incorporated 2015), available at
http://www.regulations.gov.
All areas identified for critical habitat designation are occupied
by or proximate to one or more of the listed amphibian species. The
Service anticipates that conservation efforts recommended through
section 7 consultation as a result of the listing of the species (i.e.,
to avoid jeopardy) will, in most cases, also avoid adverse modification
of critical habitat. In limited instances, the Service has indicated
that adverse modification findings could generate an outcome of
conservation measures different than those recommendations for jeopardy
findings. At this time, however, the Service is unable to predict the
types of projects that may require different conservation efforts.
Thus, impacts occurring under such circumstances are not quantified in
this analysis. We focus on quantifying incremental impacts associated
with the additional administrative effort required when addressing
potential adverse modification of critical habitat in section 7
consultation.
The DEA estimated total incremental impacts between $630,000 and
$1.5 million. The FEA estimates slightly higher total costs: Between
$760,000 and $1.7 million. The key findings are as follows: Low-end
total present value impacts anticipated to result from the designation
of all areas proposed as critical habitat for the amphibians are
approximately $760,000 over 20 years, assuming a 7 percent discount
rate ($960,000 assuming a 3 percent discount rate). High-end total
present value impacts are approximately $1.7 million over 20 years,
assuming a 7 percent discount rate ($2.3 million assuming a 3 percent
discount rate). The actual impact for each activity likely falls
between the two bounds considered; however information allowing for
further refinement of the presented methodology presented is not
readily available.
The increase in costs reflects the following updates/changes:
(1) Updated grazing/packstock analysis based on additional
information provided by Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest (HTNF) and
public commenters.
(2) Expanded analytic time frame. The DEA estimated incremental
impacts over a 17-year time frame. The FEA updated this analysis to use
a 20-year analytic timeframe. The only activity that this had a
material effect on is hydropower, for which the FEA forecasts annual
consultations, thus expanding the time frame by 3 years and resulting
in an increase in the number of consultations. This change also impacts
annualized impact calculations.
(3) The FEA updated the first year of analysis to 2015, whereas the
DEA had assumed 2014 as the first year of the analysis. This change
does not affect the total number of consultations forecast, but changes
the year in which consultations occur. In other words, we assume that
consultations set for the first year of the analysis will still occur
in the first year of the analysis (2015).
(4) The FEA updates the dollar year of the analysis from 2014 to
2015, and thus includes updating the GS salary rates from which the
administrative costs are derived.
Exclusions Based on Economic Impacts
Our economic analysis did not identify any disproportionate costs
that are likely to result from the designation. Consequently, the
Secretary is not exercising her discretion to exclude any areas from
this designation of critical habitat for the Sierra Nevada yellow-
legged frog, northern DPS of the mountain yellow-legged frog, and
Yosemite toad based on economic impacts.
A copy of the IEM, DEA, and FEA may be obtained from the Sacramento
Fish and Wildlife Office (2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2605, Sacramento CA,
95825, or see http://www.fws.gov/sacramento/) or by downloading from
the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.
Exclusions Based on National Security Impacts or Homeland Security
Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider whether there are
lands owned or managed by the Department of Defense in the proposed
critical habitat designation where a national security impact might
exist. In preparing this final rule, we have determined that no lands
within the designation of critical habitat for the Sierra Nevada
yellow-legged frog, northern DPS of the mountain yellow-legged frog,
and Yosemite toad are owned or exclusively managed by the Department of
Defense or Department of Homeland Security. The area that is managed by
the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest and used by the USMC for high-
altitude training purposes via special use permit can be successfully
managed through a completed INRMP with ongoing uses; therefore, we
anticipate no impact on national security or homeland security.
Consequently, the Secretary is not exercising her discretion to exclude
any areas from this final designation based on impacts on national
security or homeland security.
Exclusions Based on Other Relevant Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we also consider any other
relevant impacts resulting from the designation of critical habitat. We
consider a number of factors, including whether the landowners have
developed any HCPs or other management plans for the area, or whether
there are conservation partnerships that would be encouraged by
designation of, or exclusion from, critical habitat. In addition, we
look at any tribal issues and consider the government-to-government
relationship of the United States with tribal entities. We also
consider any social impacts that might occur because of the
designation.
In preparing this final rule, we have determined that there are
currently no permitted HCPs or other approved management plans for the
Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog, the northern DPS of the mountain
yellow-legged frog, or the Yosemite toad, and the final designation
does not include any tribal lands or tribal trust resources. We
anticipate no
[[Page 59088]]
impact on tribal lands, partnerships, or HCPs from this critical
habitat designation. Accordingly, the Secretary is not exercising her
discretion to exclude any areas from this final designation based on
other relevant impacts.
Required Determinations
Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Orders 12866 and 13563)
Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) will review all significant rules. The Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this rule is
not significant.
Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while
calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote
predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most
innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends.
The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches
that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for
the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and
consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further
that regulations must be based on the best available science and that
the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open
exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent
with these requirements.
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.),
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996 (SBREFA; 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), whenever an agency is required to
publish a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must
prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility
analysis that describes the effects of the rule on small entities
(i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small government
jurisdictions). However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required
if the head of the agency certifies the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The SBREFA amended the RFA to require Federal agencies to provide a
certification statement of the factual basis for certifying that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
According to the Small Business Administration, small entities
include small organizations such as independent nonprofit
organizations; small governmental jurisdictions, including school
boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000
residents; and small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses
include manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than 500
employees, wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees,
retail and service businesses with less than $5 million in annual
sales, general and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5
million in annual business, special trade contractors doing less than
$11.5 million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with
annual sales less than $750,000. To determine if potential economic
impacts to these small entities are significant, we considered the
types of activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under this
designation as well as types of project modifications that may result.
In general, the term ``significant economic impact'' is meant to apply
to a typical small business firm's business operations.
The Service's current understanding of the requirements under the
RFA, as amended, and following recent court decisions, is that Federal
agencies are only required to evaluate the potential incremental
impacts of rulemaking on those entities directly regulated by the
rulemaking itself, and, therefore, are not required to evaluate the
potential impacts to indirectly regulated entities. The regulatory
mechanism through which critical habitat protections are realized is
section 7 of the Act, which requires Federal agencies, in consultation
with the Service, to ensure that any action authorized, funded, or
carried by the agency is not likely to destroy or adversely modify
critical habitat. Therefore, under section 7, only Federal action
agencies are directly subject to the specific regulatory requirement
(avoiding destruction and adverse modification) imposed by critical
habitat designation. Consequently, it is our position that only Federal
action agencies will be directly regulated by this designation. There
is no requirement under RFA to evaluate the potential impacts to
entities not directly regulated. Moreover, Federal agencies are not
small entities. Therefore, because no small entities are directly
regulated by this rulemaking, the Service certifies that this final
critical habitat designation will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
During the development of this final rule, we reviewed and
evaluated all information submitted during the comment period that may
pertain to our consideration of the probable incremental economic
impacts of this critical habitat designation. Based on this
information, we affirm our certification that this final critical
habitat designation will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities, and a regulatory flexibility
analysis is not required.
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use--Executive Order 13211
Executive Order 13211 (Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use) requires
agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking
certain actions. OMB has provided guidance for implementing this
Executive Order that outlines nine outcomes that may constitute ``a
significant adverse effect'' when compared to not taking the regulatory
action under consideration. The economic analysis finds that none of
these criteria is relevant to this analysis. Thus, based on information
in the economic analysis, energy-related impacts associated with the
Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog's, northern DPS of the mountain
yellow-legged frog's, and Yosemite toad's conservation activities
within critical habitat are not expected. As such, the designation of
critical habitat 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:
(1) This rule will not produce a Federal mandate. In general, a
Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or regulation
that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal
governments, or the private sector, and includes both ``Federal
intergovernmental mandates'' and ``Federal private sector mandates.''
These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). ``Federal
intergovernmental mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose
an enforceable duty upon State, local, or 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
[[Page 59089]]
provided annually to State, local, and tribal governments under
entitlement authority,'' if the provision would ``increase the
stringency of conditions of assistance'' or ``place caps upon, or
otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's responsibility to provide
funding,'' and the State, local, or tribal governments ``lack
authority'' to adjust accordingly. At the time of enactment, these
entitlement programs were: Medicaid; Aid to Families with Dependent
Children work programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social Services
Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants; Foster Care,
Adoption Assistance, and Independent Living; Family Support Welfare
Services; and Child Support Enforcement. ``Federal private sector
mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose an enforceable duty
upon the private sector, except (i) a condition of Federal assistance
or (ii) a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal
program.''
The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally
binding duty on non-Federal Government entities or private parties.
Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must
ensure that their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat under section 7. While non-Federal entities that receive
Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that otherwise require
approval or authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be
indirectly impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the legally
binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical
habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to the
extent that non-Federal entities are indirectly impacted because they
receive Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal aid
program, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply, nor would
critical habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs
listed above onto State governments.
(2) We do not believe that this rule will significantly or uniquely
affect small governments because only a tiny fraction of designated
critical habitat is under small government jurisdiction. Further, the
designation of critical habitat imposes no obligations on State or
local governments. 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. Incremental
impacts may occur due to administrative costs of section 7
consultations for project activities; however, these are not expected
to significantly affect small governments as they are expected to be
borne by the Federal Government and CDFW. By definition, Federal
agencies are not considered small entities, although the activities
they fund or permit may be proposed or carried out by small entities.
Small governments will be affected only to the extent that any programs
having Federal funds, permits, or other authorized activities must
ensure that their actions will not adversely affect the critical
habitat. Therefore, a Small Government Agency Plan is not required.
Takings--Executive Order 12630
In accordance with Executive Order 12630 (``Government Actions and
Interference with Constitutionally Protected Private Property
Rights''), we have analyzed the potential takings implications of
designating critical habitat for the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog,
the northern DPS of the mountain yellow-legged frog, and the Yosemite
toad in a takings implications assessment. Based on the best available
information, the assessment concludes that this designation of critical
habitat for the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog, the northern DPS of
the mountain yellow-legged frog, and the Yosemite toad does not pose
significant takings implications.
Federalism--Executive Order 13132
In accordance with E.O. 13132 (Federalism), this final rule does
not have significant Federalism effects. A federalism summary impact
statement is not required. In keeping with Department of the Interior
and Department of Commerce policy, we requested information from, and
coordinated development of this critical habitat designation with,
appropriate State resource agencies in California. We received comments
from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and we have
addressed them in the Summary of Comments and Recommendations section
of this rule. From a federalism perspective, the designation of
critical habitat directly affects only the responsibilities of Federal
agencies. The Act imposes no other duties with respect to critical
habitat, either for States and local governments, or for anyone else.
As a result, the rule does not have substantial direct effects either
on the States, or on the relationship between the Federal Government
and the States, or on the distribution of powers and responsibilities
among the various levels of government. The designation may have some
benefit to these governments because the areas that contain the
features essential to the conservation of the species are more clearly
defined, and the physical or biological features of the habitat
necessary to the conservation of the species are specifically
identified. This information does not alter where and what federally
sponsored activities may occur. However, it may assist these local
governments in long-range planning (because these local governments no
longer have to wait for case-by-case section 7 consultations to occur).
Where State and local governments require approval or authorization
from a Federal agency for actions that may affect critical habitat,
consultation under section 7(a)(2) will be required. While non-Federal
entities that receive Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that
otherwise require approval or authorization from a Federal agency for
an action, may be indirectly impacted by the designation of critical
habitat, the legally binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency.
Civil Justice Reform--Executive Order 12988
In accordance with Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform),
the Office of the Solicitor has determined that the rule does not
unduly burden the judicial system and that it meets the applicable
standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. We are
designating critical habitat in accordance with the provisions of the
Act. To assist the public in understanding the habitat needs of the
species, the rule identifies the elements of physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of the Sierra Nevada yellow-
legged frog, northern DPS of the mountain yellow-legged frog, and
Yosemite toad. The designated areas of critical habitat are presented
on maps, and the rule provides several options for the interested
public to obtain more detailed location information, if desired.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
This rule does not contain any new collections of information that
require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 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.
[[Page 59090]]
National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
It is our position that, outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to prepare
environmental analyses pursuant to the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) in connection with designating
critical habitat under the Act. We published a notice outlining our
reasons for this determination in the Federal Register on October 25,
1983 (48 FR 49244). This position was upheld by the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495
(9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied 516 U.S. 1042 (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 (Consultation and
Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments), and the Department of the
Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with
Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights,
Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act),
we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with
tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge
that tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal
public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make
information available to tribes. We determined that there are no tribal
lands occupied by the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog, northern DPS of
the mountain yellow-legged frog, or Yosemite toad at the time of
listing that contain the physical or biological features essential to
conservation of the species, and no tribal lands unoccupied by the
Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog, northern DPS of the mountain yellow-
legged frog, or Yosemite toad that are essential for the conservation
of the species. Therefore, we are not designating critical habitat for
the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog, northern DPS of the mountain
yellow-legged frog, or Yosemite toad on tribal lands.
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited is available on the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the
Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
Authors
The primary authors of this rulemaking are the staff members of the
Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50
of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS
0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245, unless
otherwise noted.
0
2. Amend Sec. 17.11(h) by revising the entries for ``Frog, mountain
yellow-legged [Northern California DPS]'', ``Frog, Sierra Nevada
yellow-legged'', and ``Toad, Yosemite'' under AMPHIBIANS in the List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife to read as follows:
Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Listing citations
Common name Scientific name Where listed Status and applicable
rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
AMPHIBIANS
* * * * * * *
Frog, mountain yellow-legged Rana muscosa....... Northern California E 79 FR 24255; 4/29/
[Northern California DPS]. DPS--U.S.A., 2014
northern 50 CFR
California. 17.95(d).\CH\
* * * * * * *
Frog, Sierra Nevada yellow-legged Rana sierrae....... Wherever found..... E 79 FR 24255; 4/29/
2014
50 CFR
17.95(d).\CH\
* * * * * * *
Toad, Yosemite................... Anaxyrus canorus... Wherever found..... T 79 FR 24255; 4/29/
2014
50 CFR
17.95(d).\CH\
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
3. In Sec. 17.95, amend paragraph (d) by adding entries for ``Mountain
Yellow-legged Frog (Rana muscosa), Northern California DPS'', ``Sierra
Nevada Yellow-legged Frog (Rana sierrae)'', and ``Yosemite Toad
(Anaxyrus canorus)'' in the same alphabetical order that these species
appear in the table at Sec. 17.11(h), to read as follows:
Sec. 17.95 Critical habitat--fish and wildlife.
* * * * *
(d) Amphibians.
* * * * *
Mountain Yellow-Legged Frog (Rana muscosa), Northern California DPS
(1) Critical habitat units are depicted for Fresno, Inyo and Tulare
Counties, California, on the maps in this entry.
(2) Within these areas, the primary constituent elements of the
physical or biological features essential to the
[[Page 59091]]
conservation of the northern DPS of the mountain yellow-legged frog
consist of:
(i) Aquatic habitat for breeding and rearing. Habitat that consists
of permanent water bodies, or those that are either hydrologically
connected with, or close to, permanent water bodies, including, but not
limited to, lakes, streams, rivers, tarns, perennial creeks (or
permanent plunge pools within intermittent creeks), pools (such as a
body of impounded water contained above a natural dam), and other forms
of aquatic habitat. This habitat must:
(A) For lakes, be of sufficient depth not to freeze solid (to the
bottom) during the winter (no less than 1.7 meters (m) (5.6 feet (ft)),
but generally greater than 2.5 m (8.2 ft), and optimally 5 m (16.4 ft)
or deeper (unless some other refuge from freezing is available)).
(B) Maintain a natural flow pattern, including periodic flooding,
and have functional community dynamics in order to provide sufficient
productivity and a prey base to support the growth and development of
rearing tadpoles and metamorphs.
(C) Be free of introduced predators.
(D) Maintain water during the entire tadpole growth phase (a
minimum of 2 years). During periods of drought, these breeding sites
may not hold water long enough for individuals to complete
metamorphosis, but they may still be considered essential breeding
habitat if they provide sufficient habitat in most years to foster
recruitment within the reproductive lifespan of individual adult frogs.
(E) Contain:
(1) Bank and pool substrates consisting of varying percentages of
soil or silt, sand, gravel, cobble, rock, and boulders (for basking and
cover);
(2) Shallower microhabitat with solar exposure to warm lake areas
and to foster primary productivity of the food web;
(3) Open gravel banks and rocks or other structures projecting
above or just beneath the surface of the water for adult sunning posts;
(4) Aquatic refugia, including pools with bank overhangs, downfall
logs or branches, or rocks and vegetation to provide cover from
predators; and
(5) Sufficient food resources to provide for tadpole growth and
development.
(ii) Aquatic nonbreeding habitat (including overwintering habitat).
This habitat may contain the same characteristics as aquatic breeding
and rearing habitat (often at the same locale), and may include lakes,
ponds, tarns, streams, rivers, creeks, plunge pools within intermittent
creeks, seeps, and springs that may not hold water long enough for the
species to complete its aquatic life cycle. This habitat provides for
shelter, foraging, predator avoidance, and aquatic dispersal of
juvenile and adult mountain yellow-legged frogs. Aquatic nonbreeding
habitat contains:
(A) Bank and pool substrates consisting of varying percentages of
soil or silt, sand, gravel, cobble, rock, and boulders (for basking and
cover);
(B) Open gravel banks and rocks projecting above or just beneath
the surface of the water for adult sunning posts;
(C) Aquatic refugia, including pools with bank overhangs, downfall
logs or branches, or rocks and vegetation to provide cover from
predators;
(D) Sufficient food resources to support juvenile and adult
foraging;
(E) Overwintering refugia, where thermal properties of the
microhabitat protect hibernating life stages from winter freezing, such
as crevices or holes within bedrock, in and near shore; and/or
(F) Streams, stream reaches, or wet meadow habitats that can
function as corridors for movement between aquatic habitats used as
breeding or foraging sites.
(iii) Upland areas.
(A) Upland areas adjacent to or surrounding breeding and
nonbreeding aquatic habitat that provide area for feeding and movement
by mountain yellow-legged frogs.
(1) For stream habitats, this area extends 25 m (82 ft) from the
bank or shoreline.
(2) In areas that contain riparian habitat and upland vegetation
(for example, mixed conifer, ponderosa pine, montane conifer, and
montane riparian woodlands), the canopy overstory should be
sufficiently thin (generally not to exceed 85 percent) to allow
sunlight to reach the aquatic habitat and thereby provide basking areas
for the species.
(3) For areas between proximate (within 300 m (984 ft)) water
bodies (typical of some high mountain lake habitats), the upland area
extends from the bank or shoreline between such water bodies.
(4) Within mesic habitats such as lake and meadow systems, the
entire area of physically contiguous or proximate habitat is suitable
for dispersal and foraging.
(B) Upland areas (catchments) adjacent to and surrounding both
breeding and nonbreeding aquatic habitat that provide for the natural
hydrologic regime (water quantity) of aquatic habitats. These upland
areas should also allow for the maintenance of sufficient water quality
to provide for the various life stages of the frog and its prey base.
(3) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures (such as
buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, and other paved areas) and the
land on which they are located existing within the legal boundaries of
designated critical habitat on September 26, 2016.
(4) Critical habitat map units. The critical habitat subunit maps
were originally created using ESRI's ArcGIS Desktop 10.2.1 software and
then exported as .emf files. All maps are in the North American Datum
of 1983 (NAD83), Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) Zone 10N. The
California County Boundaries dataset (Teale Data Center), and the USA
Minor Highways, USA Major Roads, and USA Rivers and Streams layers
(ESRI's 2010 StreetMap Data) were incorporated as base layers to assist
in the geographic location of the critical habitat subunits. The
coordinates or plot points or both on which each map is based are
available to the public on http://regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R8-
ES-2012-0074, on our Internet site (http://www.fws.gov/sacramento), and
at the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, 2800 Cottage Way Room W-
2605, Sacramento, CA 95825.
(5) Index map for northern DPS of the mountain yellow-legged frog
critical habitat follows:
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
[[Page 59092]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26AU16.002
(6) Unit 4 (Subunits 4A, 4B, 4C, 4D), Fresno, Inyo, and Tulare
Counties, California. Map follows:
[[Page 59093]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26AU16.003
(7) Unit 5 (Subunits 5A, 5B, 5C), Tulare and Inyo Counties,
California. Map follows:
[[Page 59094]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26AU16.004
BILLING CODE 4333-15-C
* * * * *
Sierra Nevada Yellow-Legged Frog (Rana sierrae)
(1) Critical habitat units are depicted for Lassen, Plumas, Sierra,
Nevada, Placer, El Dorado, Amador, Alpine, Calaveras, Tuolumne, Mono,
Mariposa, Madera, Fresno, and Inyo Counties, California, on the maps in
this entry.
(2) Within these areas, the primary constituent elements of the
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the
Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog consist of:
(i) Aquatic habitat for breeding and rearing. Habitat that consists
of permanent water bodies, or those that are either hydrologically
connected with, or close to, permanent water bodies, including, but not
limited to, lakes, streams, rivers, tarns, perennial creeks (or
permanent plunge pools within intermittent creeks), pools (such as a
body of impounded water contained above a natural dam), and other forms
of aquatic habitat. This habitat must:
(A) For lakes, be of sufficient depth not to freeze solid (to the
bottom) during the winter (no less than 1.7 meters (m) (5.6 feet (ft)),
but generally greater than 2.5 m (8.2 ft), and optimally 5 m (16.4 ft)
or deeper (unless some other refuge from freezing is available)).
(B) Maintain a natural flow pattern, including periodic flooding,
and have functional community dynamics in order to provide sufficient
productivity and a prey base to support the growth and development of
rearing tadpoles and metamorphs.
(C) Be free of introduced predators.
(D) Maintain water during the entire tadpole growth phase (a
minimum of 2 years). During periods of drought, these breeding sites
may not hold water long enough for individuals to complete
metamorphosis, but they may still be
[[Page 59095]]
considered essential breeding habitat if they provide sufficient
habitat in most years to foster recruitment within the reproductive
lifespan of individual adult frogs.
(E) Contain:
(1) Bank and pool substrates consisting of varying percentages of
soil or silt, sand, gravel, cobble, rock, and boulders (for basking and
cover);
(2) Shallower microhabitat with solar exposure to warm lake areas
and to foster primary productivity of the food web;
(3) Open gravel banks and rocks or other structures projecting
above or just beneath the surface of the water for adult sunning posts;
(4) Aquatic refugia, including pools with bank overhangs, downfall
logs or branches, or rocks and vegetation to provide cover from
predators; and
(5) Sufficient food resources to provide for tadpole growth and
development.
(ii) Aquatic nonbreeding habitat (including overwintering habitat).
This habitat may contain the same characteristics as aquatic breeding
and rearing habitat (often at the same locale), and may include lakes,
ponds, tarns, streams, rivers, creeks, plunge pools within intermittent
creeks, seeps, and springs that may not hold water long enough for the
species to complete its aquatic life cycle. This habitat provides for
shelter, foraging, predator avoidance, and aquatic dispersal of
juvenile and adult mountain yellow-legged frogs. Aquatic nonbreeding
habitat contains:
(A) Bank and pool substrates consisting of varying percentages of
soil or silt, sand, gravel, cobble, rock, and boulders (for basking and
cover);
(B) Open gravel banks and rocks projecting above or just beneath
the surface of the water for adult sunning posts;
(C) Aquatic refugia, including pools with bank overhangs, downfall
logs or branches, or rocks and vegetation to provide cover from
predators;
(D) Sufficient food resources to support juvenile and adult
foraging;
(E) Overwintering refugia, where thermal properties of the
microhabitat protect hibernating life stages from winter freezing, such
as crevices or holes within bedrock, in and near shore; and/or
(F) Streams, stream reaches, or wet meadow habitats that can
function as corridors for movement between aquatic habitats used as
breeding or foraging sites.
(iii) Upland areas.
(A) Upland areas adjacent to or surrounding breeding and
nonbreeding aquatic habitat that provide area for feeding and movement
by mountain yellow-legged frogs.
(1) For stream habitats, this area extends 25 m (82 ft) from the
bank or shoreline.
(2) In areas that contain riparian habitat and upland vegetation
(for example, mixed conifer, ponderosa pine, montane conifer, and
montane riparian woodlands), the canopy overstory should be
sufficiently thin (generally not to exceed 85 percent) to allow
sunlight to reach the aquatic habitat and thereby provide basking areas
for the species.
(3) For areas between proximate (within 300 m (984 ft)) water
bodies (typical of some high mountain lake habitats), the upland area
extends from the bank or shoreline between such water bodies.
(4) Within mesic habitats such as lake and meadow systems, the
entire area of physically contiguous or proximate habitat is suitable
for dispersal and foraging.
(B) Upland areas (catchments) adjacent to and surrounding both
breeding and nonbreeding aquatic habitat that provide for the natural
hydrologic regime (water quantity) of aquatic habitats. These upland
areas should also allow for the maintenance of sufficient water quality
to provide for the various life stages of the frog and its prey base.
(3) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures (such as
buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, and other paved areas) and the
land on which they are located existing within the legal boundaries of
designated critical habitat on September 26, 2016.
(4) Critical habitat map units. The critical habitat subunit maps
were originally created using ESRI's ArcGIS Desktop 10.2.1 software and
then exported as .emf files. All maps are in the North American Datum
of 1983 (NAD83), Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) Zone 10N. The
California County Boundaries dataset (Teale Data Center), and the USA
Minor Highways, USA Major Roads, and USA Rivers and Streams layers
(ESRI's 2010 StreetMap Data) were incorporated as base layers to assist
in the geographic location of the critical habitat subunits. The
coordinates or plot points or both on which each map is based are
available to the public on http://regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R8-
ES-2012-0074, on our Internet site (http://www.fws.gov/sacramento), and
at the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, 2800 Cottage Way Room W-
2605, Sacramento, CA 95825.
(5) Index map for Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog critical habitat
follows:
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
[[Page 59096]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26AU16.005
(6) Unit 1 (Subunits 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D), Plumas, and Sierra Counties,
California. Map follows:
[[Page 59097]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26AU16.006
(7) Unit 2 (Subunits 2A, 2B, 2C, 2D), Lassen, Plumas, Sierra,
Nevada, and Placer Counties, California. Map follows:
[[Page 59098]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26AU16.007
(8) Unit 2 (Subunits 2E, 2F, 2G, 2H), Placer, El Dorado, Amador,
Alpine, Calaveras, Tuolumne, and Mono Counties, California. Map
follows:
[[Page 59099]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26AU16.008
(9) Unit 2 (Subunits 2I, 2J, 2K, 2L, 2M, 2N), Tuolumne and Mono
Counties, California. Map follows:
[[Page 59100]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26AU16.009
(10) Unit 3 (Subunits 3A, 3B, 3C), Tuolumne, Mariposa, Mono, and
Madera Counties, California. Map follows:
[[Page 59101]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26AU16.010
(11) Unit 3 (Subunits 3D, 3E, 3F), Mono, Fresno, and Inyo Counties,
California. Map follows:
[[Page 59102]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26AU16.011
* * * * *
Yosemite Toad (Anaxyrus canorus)
(1) Critical habitat units are depicted for Alpine, Tuolumne, Mono,
Mariposa, Madera, Fresno, and Inyo Counties, California, on the maps in
this entry.
(2) Within these areas, the primary constituent elements of the
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the
Yosemite toad consist of two components:
(i) Aquatic breeding habitat.
(A) This habitat consists of bodies of fresh water, including wet
meadows, slow-moving streams, shallow ponds, spring systems, and
shallow areas of lakes, that:
(1) Are typically (or become) inundated during snowmelt;
(2) Hold water for a minimum of 5 weeks, but more typically 7 to 8
weeks; and
(3) Contain sufficient food for tadpole development.
(B) During periods of drought or less than average rainfall, these
breeding sites may not hold surface water long enough for individual
Yosemite toads to complete metamorphosis, but they are still considered
essential breeding habitat because they provide habitat in most years.
(ii) Upland areas.
(A) This habitat consists of areas adjacent to or surrounding
breeding habitat up to a distance of 1.25 kilometers (0.78 miles) in
most cases (that is, depending on surrounding landscape and dispersal
barriers), including seeps, springheads, talus and boulders, and areas
that provide:
(1) Sufficient cover (including rodent burrows, logs, rocks, and
other surface objects) to provide summer refugia,
(2) Foraging habitat,
(3) Adequate prey resources,
(4) Physical structure for predator avoidance,
[[Page 59103]]
(5) Overwintering refugia for juvenile and adult Yosemite toads,
(6) Dispersal corridors between aquatic breeding habitats,
(7) Dispersal corridors between breeding habitats and areas of
suitable summer and winter refugia and foraging habitat, and/or
(8) The natural hydrologic regime of aquatic habitats (the
catchment).
(B) These upland areas should also maintain sufficient water
quality to provide for the various life stages of the Yosemite toad and
its prey base.
(3) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures (such as
buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, and other paved areas) and the
land on which they are located existing within the legal boundaries of
designated critical habitat on September 26, 2016.
(4) Critical habitat map units. The critical habitat subunit maps
were originally created using ESRI's ArcGIS Desktop 10 software and
then exported as .emf files. All maps are in the North American Datum
of 1983 (NAD83), Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) Zone 10N. The
California County Boundaries dataset (Teale Data Center), and the USA
Minor Highways, USA Major Roads, and USA Rivers and Streams layers
(ESRI's 2010 StreetMap Data) were incorporated as base layers to assist
in the geographic location of the critical habitat subunits. The
coordinates or plot points or both on which each map is based are
available to the public on http://regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R8-
ES-2012-0074, on our Internet site (http://www.fws.gov/sacramento), and
at the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, 2800 Cottage Way Room W-
2605, Sacramento, CA 95825.
(5) Index map for Yosemite toad critical habitat follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26AU16.012
[[Page 59104]]
(6) Unit 1: Blue Lakes/Mokelumne, Alpine County, California. Map
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26AU16.013
(7) Unit 2: Leavitt Lake/Emigrant, Alpine, Mono, and Tuolumne
Counties, California. Map follows:
[[Page 59105]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26AU16.014
(8) Unit 3: Rogers Meadow, Mono and Tuolumne Counties, California.
Map follows:
[[Page 59106]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26AU16.015
(9) Unit 4: Hoover Lakes, Mono and Tuolumne Counties, California.
Map follows:
[[Page 59107]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26AU16.016
(10) Unit 5: Tuolumne Meadows/Cathedral, Madera, Mariposa, Mono,
and Tuolumne Counties, California. Map follows:
[[Page 59108]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26AU16.017
(11) Unit 6: McSwain Meadows, Mariposa and Tuolumne Counties,
California. Map follows:
[[Page 59109]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26AU16.018
(12) Unit 7: Porcupine Flat, Mariposa County, California. Map
follows:
[[Page 59110]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26AU16.019
(13) Unit 8: Westfall Meadows, Mariposa County, California. Map
follows:
[[Page 59111]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26AU16.020
(14) Unit 9: Triple Peak, Madera County, California. Map follows:
[[Page 59112]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26AU16.021
(15) Unit 10: Chilnualna, Madera and Mariposa Counties, California.
Map follows:
[[Page 59113]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26AU16.022
(16) Unit 11: Iron Mountain, Madera County, California. Map
follows:
[[Page 59114]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26AU16.023
(17) Unit 12: Silver Divide, Fresno, Inyo, Madera, and Mono
Counties, California. Map follows:
[[Page 59115]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26AU16.024
(18) Unit 13: Humphrys Basin/Seven Gables, Fresno and Inyo
Counties, California. Map follows:
[[Page 59116]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26AU16.025
(19) Unit 14: Kaiser/Dusy, Fresno County, California. Map follows:
[[Page 59117]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26AU16.026
(20) Unit 15: Upper Goddard Canyon, Fresno and Inyo Counties,
California. Map follows:
[[Page 59118]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26AU16.027
(21) Unit 16: Round Corral Meadow, Fresno County, California. Map
follows:
[[Page 59119]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26AU16.028
* * * * *
Dated: August 16, 2016.
Karen Hyun,
Acting Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and
Parks.
[FR Doc. 2016-20352 Filed 8-25-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-C