[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