[Federal Register: September 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 176)]
[Proposed Rules]               
[Page 54891-54932]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

[[Page 54891]]


Part III

Department of the Interior


Fish and Wildlife Service


50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Designation of 
Critical Habitat for the California Red-Legged Frog (Rana aurora 
draytonii); Proposed Rule

[[Page 54892]]



Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AG32

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed 
Designation of Critical Habitat for the California Red-legged Frog 
(Rana aurora draytonii)

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.


SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, designate critical 
habitat pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, for 
the California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii). Approximately 
2,175,000 hectares (5,373,650 acres) of land fall within the boundaries 
of the proposed critical habitat designation. Specifically, aquatic and 
upland areas where suitable breeding and nonbreeding habitat is 
interspersed throughout the landscape and is interconnected by 
unfragmented dispersal habitat are areas proposed as critical habitat. 
Proposed critical habitat is located in Alameda, Butte, Calaveras, 
Contra Costa, El Dorado, Fresno, Kern, Los Angeles, Marin, Mariposa, 
Merced, Monterey, Napa, Plumas, Riverside, San Benito, San Diego, San 
Joaquin, San Luis Obispo, San Mateo, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara, Santa 
Cruz, Sierra, Solano, Sonoma, Stanislaus, Tehama, Tuolumne, Ventura, 
and Yuba counties, California. Critical habitat receives protection 
from destruction or adverse modification through required consultation 
under section 7 of the Act with regard to actions carried out, funded, 
or authorized by a Federal agency. Section 4 of the Act requires us to 
consider economic and other relevant impacts when specifying any 
particular area as critical habitat.
    Proposed critical habitat does not include lands covered by any 
existing, legally operative, incidental take permits for the California 
red-legged frog issued under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act. The 
Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs), required for issuance of these 
permits, provide for special management and protection under the terms 
of the permit and the lands covered by them are therefore not proposed 
for inclusion in the critical habitat. In areas where HCPs have not yet 
had permits issued, we have proposed critical habitat according to the 
factors outlined in this rule.
    We solicit data and comments from the public on all aspects of this 
proposal, including data on economic and other impacts of the 
designation and our approaches for handling HCPs. We may revise this 
proposal to incorporate or address new information received during the 
comment period.

DATES: We will accept comments until October 11, 2000. We will hold 
four public hearings on this proposed rule scheduled for September 19, 
21, 26, and 28, 2000. See the Public Hearing section below for details 
of location and time.

ADDRESSES: If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments and 
materials concerning this proposal by any one of several methods.
    1. You may submit written comments and information to the Field 
Supervisor, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, 2800 Cottage Way, Suite W-2605, Sacramento, California 95825.
    2. You may also send comments by electronic mail (e-mail) to 
fw1crfch@fws.gov. See the Public Comments Solicited section below for 
file format and other information about electronic filing.
    3. You may hand-deliver comments to our Sacramento Fish and 
Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2800 Cottage Way, 
Suite W. 2605, Sacramento, California 95825.
    Comments and materials received will be available for public 
inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the above 

Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
2800 Cottage Way, Suite W. 2605, Sacramento, California 95825 
(telephone 916/414-6600; facsimile 916/414-6712).
    For information about Monterey, Los Angeles, San Benito, San Luis 
Obispo, Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz, and Ventura counties, contact Diane 
Noda, Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
2394 Portola Road, Suite B, Ventura, California 93003 (telephone 805/
644-1766; facsimile 805/644-3958).
    For information about areas in the San Gabriel Mountains of Los 
Angeles County or Riverside and San Diego counties, contact Ken Berg, 
Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2730 
Loker Avenue West, Carlsbad, California 92008 (telephone 760/431-9440; 
facsimile 760/431-9624).



    The California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii) is the 
largest native frog in the western United States. It is endemic to 
California and Baja California, Mexico. It is typically found from sea 
level to elevations of approximately 1,500 meters (m) (5,000 feet 
(ft)). The California red-legged frog ranges in body length from 40 to 
130 millimeters (mm) (1.6 to 5.1 inches (in.)), with adult females 
attaining a significantly longer body length than males (138 mm (5.4 
in.) versus 116 mm (4.6 in.)) (Hayes and Miyamoto 1984). The posterior 
abdomen and hind legs of adults vary in color, but are often red or 
salmon pink; the back is characterized by small black flecks and larger 
irregular dark blotches with indistinct outlines on a brown, gray, 
olive, or reddish-brown background color. Dorsal spots usually have 
light centers (Stebbins 1985), and the dorsolateral folds are 
prominent. Larvae range from 14 to 80 mm (0.6 to 3.1 in.) in length, 
and the background color of the body is dark brown or olive with darker 
spots (Storer 1925). A line of very small, indistinct gold-colored 
spots becomes the dorsolateral fold. The California red-legged frog is 
one of two subspecies of the red-legged frog (R. aurora). For a 
detailed description of the two subspecies see the Draft Recovery Plan 
for the California Red-legged Frog (Service 2000) and references within 
the plan.
    Male California red-legged frogs appear at breeding sites 2 to 4 
weeks before females (Storer 1925). A pair in amplexus (breeding 
position) moves to an oviposition site (the location where eggs are 
laid) and the eggs are fertilized while being attached to a brace. 
Braces include emergent vegetation such as bulrushes (Scirpus sp.), 
cattails (Typha sp.), or roots and twigs. Each mass contains about 
2,000 to 5,000 individual eggs measuring approximately 2.0 to 2.8 mm 
(0.08 to 0.11 in.) in diameter. Eggs hatch in 6 to 14 days depending on 
water temperatures (Jennings et al. 1992). Larvae typically 
metamorphose between July and September, 3.5 to 7 months after eggs are 
laid (Storer 1925, Wright and Wright 1949). Of the various life stages, 
larvae probably experience the highest mortality rates. Survival rate 
from hatching to metamorphosis (the process of changing from a tadpole 
to a frog) has been estimated as less than 1 percent (Jennings et al. 
1992), 1.9 percent (Cook 1997), or less than 5 percent (Lawler et al. 
1999) for California red-legged frog tadpoles co-occurring with 
bullfrog tadpoles, and 30 to 40 percent for California red-legged frog 
tadpoles occurring without bullfrogs (Lawler et al. 1999). Sexual 
maturity can be attained at 2 years of age by males and 3 years of age 
by females (Jennings and Hayes 1985), with

[[Page 54893]]

adults living 8 to 10 years (M. Jennings, U.S. Geological Survey 
(USGS), Biological Resources Division (BRD), pers. comm. 2000). 
However, the average life span is probably much lower (N. Scott, USGS, 
BRD, pers. comm. 2000).
    The historic range of the California red-legged frog extended along 
the coast from the vicinity of Point Reyes National Seashore, Marin 
County, California, and inland from the vicinity of Redding, Shasta 
County, California, southward to northwestern Baja California, Mexico 
(Jennings and Hayes 1985, Hayes and Krempels 1986). California red-
legged frogs have been documented in 46 counties in California, but now 
remain in only 238 streams or drainages in 31 counties; the species has 
lost approximately 70 percent of its former range (Service 2000, 61 FR 
25813). California red-legged frogs are still locally abundant within 
portions of the San Francisco Bay area (including Marin County) and the 
central coast. Within the remaining distribution of the species, only 
isolated populations have been documented in the Sierra Nevada, 
northern Coast, and northern Transverse ranges. The species is believed 
to be extirpated from the southern Transverse and Peninsular ranges, 
but is still present in Baja California, Mexico (California Natural 
Diversity Data Base 1998).
    The California red-legged frog was listed as a threatened species 
on May 31, 1996 (61 FR 25813). Habitat loss and alteration, over-
exploitation, and introduction of exotic predators were significant 
factors in the species' decline in the early-to mid-1900s. Reservoir 
construction, expansion of introduced predators, grazing, and prolonged 
drought fragmented and eliminated many of the Sierra Nevada foothill 
populations. Only a few drainages are currently known to support 
California red-legged frogs in the Sierra Nevada foothills, compared to 
more than 60 historical records. Several researchers have attributed 
the decline and extirpation of California red-legged frogs to the 
introduction of bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana) and introduced predatory 
fishes (Hayes and Jennings 1986, Moyle 1973). This decline has been 
attributed to both predation and competition. Twedt (1993) observed the 
predation of juvenile northern red-legged frogs (R. aurora aurora) and 
suggested that bullfrogs may prey on subadult red-legged frogs. This is 
supported by Cook (Sonoma County Water Agency, in litt. 2000) and Cook 
and Jennings (in litt. 2000) who documented predation of both tadpoles 
and juvenile California red-legged frogs, as well as a large adult, by 
bullfrogs. In addition, bullfrogs may have a competitive advantage over 
red-legged frogs; bullfrogs are larger, have more generalized food 
habits (Bury and Whelan 1984), have an extended breeding season (Storer 
1933) where an individual female can produce as many as 20,000 eggs 
during a breeding season (Emlen 1977), and bullfrog larvae are 
unpalatable to predatory fish (Kruse and Francis 1977). In addition to 
competition, bullfrogs also interfere with red-legged frog 
reproduction. Both California and northern red-legged frogs have been 
observed in amplexus with (mounted on) both male and female bullfrogs 
(Twedt 1993, Service files).
    California red-legged frogs are currently threatened by human 
activities, many of which operate concurrently and cumulatively with 
each other and with natural disturbances (e.g., droughts and floods). 
Current factors associated with declining populations of the frog 
include degradation and loss of its habitat through agriculture, 
urbanization, mining, overgrazing, recreation, timber harvesting, 
invasion of nonnative plants, impoundments, water diversions, degraded 
water quality, and introduced predators. These factors have resulted in 
the isolation and fragmentation of habitats within many watersheds, 
often precluding dispersal between sub-populations and jeopardizing the 
viability of metapopulations (broadly defined as multiple 
subpopulations that occasionally exchange individuals through 
dispersal, and are capable of colonizing or rescuing extinct habitat 
patches). The fragmentation of existing habitat and the continued 
colonization of existing habitat by nonnative species may represent the 
most significant current threats to California red-legged frogs; 
however, California red-legged frog populations are usually threatened 
by more than one factor.
    Numerous studies have demonstrated the impacts of fragmentation on 
other frog and toad species. Urban populations of common frogs (Rana 
temporaria) were more genetically distinct than rural populations 
(Hitchins and Beebee 1997). Based on genetic analysis, Reh and Seitz 
(1990) found that highways effectively isolated R. temporaria 
populations. Kuhn (1987, in Reh and Seitz 1990) estimated that 24 to 40 
cars per hour killed 50 percent of common toad (Bufo bufo) individuals 
migrating across a road, while Heine (1987, in Reh and Seitz 1990) 
found that 26 cars per hour could reduce the survival rate of toads 
crossing roads to zero. In addition, Fahrig et al. (1995) found a 
significant negative correlation between traffic density and the 
density of anuran populations. Thus, roads are an important human-
caused landscape component hindering amphibian movement and thereby 
fragmenting amphibian populations.
    In addition to the fragmentation of habitat, upland impacts can 
have additional significant deleterious impacts on California red-
legged frogs. Amphibian species richness (number of species in an area) 
is related to land use in the watersheds of Puget Sound, Washington 
(Richter and Azous 1995, 1997); species richness was significantly 
lower in watersheds where more than 40 percent of the land area was 
developed. This was attributed to increases in the total water level 
fluctuations within wetlands. Specifically, urbanization leads to 
higher peak flows and volumes resulting in increases in the magnitude, 
frequency, and duration of wetland and stream levels (Reinalt and 
Taylor 1997). Urbanization within the range of the California red-
legged frog often results in similar effects on wetlands. Urbanization 
results in additional water sources into wetlands and stream courses 
associated with irrigation and home use activities, especially during 
the summer months. This often drastically alters the hydroperiod and 
converts intermittent streams and seasonal wetlands to perennial 
aquatic habitat. Such alteration allow exotic species such as bullfrogs 
and nonnative warm water fish species to invade the habitat and further 
affect California red-legged frog populations. California red-legged 
frogs are rarely found in areas where a large majority of the watershed 
has been developed (H.T. Harvey 1997, Service files).
    In addition to the modification of hydroperiod, impacts within the 
watershed can also affect water and habitat quality. As watersheds are 
developed, the amount of impervious surface increases, resulting in an 
increase of sediments containing organic matter, pesticides and 
fertilizers, heavy metals such as hydrocarbons, and other debris into 
streams and wetlands (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1993). 
Skinner et al. (1999) found developed watersheds had greater 
concentrations of toxic effluents than less developed areas with more 
open space. The decrease in water quality can have profound impacts on 
native amphibians and other wetland vertebrates. Richter and Azous 
(1997) observed wetlands adjacent to undeveloped upland areas were more 
likely to have richer populations of native amphibians. Mensing et al.

[[Page 54894]]

(1998) found that amphibian abundance was negatively influenced by land 
use at small scales (e.g., within 0.5 to 1.0 kilometers (km) (0.30 to 
0.60 miles (mi)). Habitat fragmentation, wetland conversions, and 
hydrological alterations cumulatively result in changes in wetland 
species composition, including amphibians. Amphibian declines can be 
attributed to increasing numbers of nonnative competitors and predators 
capable of thriving in disturbed conditions (Harris 1998). Onorato et 
al. (1998) found native fish species were sensitive to anthropogenic 
disturbances and were becoming less abundant within the study area. 
They also found introduced generalists able to tolerate lower quality 
habitat and to replace native fish species within the system. This 
scenario has been demonstrated in the Santa Clara Valley, California, 
where the loss of California red-legged frog populations was attributed 
in part to the invasion of bullfrogs into urbanized areas (H.T. Harvey 
and Associates 1997).
    California red-legged frogs are adapted to survive in a 
Mediterranean climate where habitat quality varies spatially and 
temporally. Due to this variability, population sizes can vary widely 
from year to year. During favorable years, California red-legged frogs 
can experience extremely high rates of reproduction and produce large 
numbers of dispersing young resulting in an increase in the number of 
occupied sites. In contrast, frogs may temporarily disappear from an 
area during periods of extended drought. Therefore, it is important for 
the long term survival and recovery of the species to protect those 
sites that appear to be unoccupied but can be recolonized by dispersing 
individuals from nearby sub-populations.
    California red-legged frogs have been observed using a variety of 
habitat types, including various aquatic, riparian, and upland 
habitats. They include, but are not limited to, ephemeral ponds, 
intermittent streams, seasonal wetlands, springs, seeps, permanent 
ponds, perennial creeks, manmade aquatic features, marshes, dune ponds, 
lagoons, riparian corridors, blackberry (Rubus sp.) thickets, nonnative 
annual grasslands, and oak savannas. They are found in both natural and 
manmade aquatic habitats, and inhabit areas of diverse vegetation 
cover. Among the variety of habitats where California red-legged frogs 
have been found, the only common factor is association with a permanent 
water source. Apparently, California red-legged frogs can use virtually 
any aquatic system provided a permanent water source, ideally free of 
nonnative predators, is nearby. Permanent water sources can include, 
but are not limited to, ponds, perennial creeks (or permanent plunge 
pools within intermittent creeks), seeps, and springs. California red-
legged frogs may complete their entire life cycle in a particular area 
(i.e., a pond that is suitable for all life stages) or utilize multiple 
habitat types. These variable life history characteristics enable 
California red-legged frogs to change habitat use in response to 
varying conditions. During a period of abundant rainfall, the entire 
landscape may become suitable habitat. Conversely, habitat use may be 
drastically confined during periods of prolonged drought.
    Populations of California red-legged frogs are most likely to 
persist where multiple breeding areas are within an assemblage of 
habitats used for dispersal (N. Scott and G. Rathbun in litt., USGS, 
BRD, 1998), a trait typical of many frog and toad species (Laan and 
Verboom 1990, Reh and Seitz 1990, Mann et al. 1991, Sjogren-Gulve 1994, 
Griffiths 1997, Marsh et al. 1999). Breeding sites have been documented 
in a variety of aquatic habitats. Larvae, juveniles, and adult frogs 
have been observed inhabiting streams, creeks, ponds, marshes, sag 
ponds, deep pools and backwaters within streams and creeks, dune ponds, 
lagoons, estuaries, and artificial impoundments, such as stock ponds. 
Furthermore, breeding has been documented in these habitat types 
irrespective of vegetation cover. Frogs often successfully breed in 
artificial ponds with little or no emergent vegetation, and have been 
observed to successfully breed and inhabit stream reaches that are not 
cloaked in riparian vegetation. The importance of riparian vegetation 
for this species is not well understood. It is believed that riparian 
plant communities provide good foraging habitat due to the moisture and 
camouflage that occur within the community, as well as providing areas 
for dispersal and supporting pools and backwater aquatic areas for 
breeding. However, other factors are more likely to influence the 
suitability of aquatic breeding sites, such as the general lack of 
introduced aquatic predators.
    California red-legged frogs often disperse from their breeding 
habitat to utilize various aquatic, riparian, and upland habitats in 
the summer. Frogs use a number of habitat features, including ponds, 
streams, marshes, boulders or rocks, organic debris such as downed 
trees or logs, industrial debris, and agricultural features, such as 
drains, watering troughs, or spring boxes. When riparian habitat is 
present, frogs spend considerable time resting and feeding in the 
vegetation (Rathbun in litt. 2000). When riparian habitat is absent, 
frogs spend considerable time resting and feeding under rocks and 
ledges, both in and out of water (Tatarian, Sonoma State University, in 
litt. 2000). California red-legged frogs can also use small mammal 
burrows and moist leaf litter (Jennings and Hayes 1994). Stream 
channels with portions narrower and deeper than 46 cm (18 in.) may also 
provide habitat (61 FR 25813). This type of dispersal and habitat use 
is not observed in all California red-legged frogs, however, and is 
likely dependent on the year to year variations in climate and habitat 
suitability and varying requisites per life stage.
    At any time of the year, adult California red-legged frogs may move 
from breeding sites. They can be encountered living within streams at 
distances exceeding 2.9 km (1.8 mi) from the breeding site and have 
been found further than 100 m (328 ft) from water in adjacent dense 
riparian vegetation. The subspecies has been observed inhabiting 
riparian areas for up to 77 days (Bulger et al., USGS, BRD, in litt. 
2000), but were typically within 60 m (200 ft) of water. During periods 
of wet weather, starting with the first rains of fall, some individuals 
may make overland excursions through upland habitats. Most of these 
overland movements occur at night. Evidence from marked adult frogs on 
the San Simeon coast of California suggests that frog movements of 
about 1.6 km (1 mi), via upland habitats, are possible over the course 
of a wet season (N. Scott and G. Rathbun, USGS, BRD, in litt. 1998). 
Frogs have been observed to make long-distance movements that are 
straight-line, point-to-point migrations rather than using corridors 
for moving in between habitats (N. Scott and G. Rathbun, USGS, BRD, in 
litt. 1998). Dispersing adult frogs in northern Santa Cruz County 
traveled distances from 0.4 km (0.25 mi) to more than 3.2 km (2 mi) 
without apparent regard to topography, vegetation type, or riparian 
corridors (J. Bulger in litt. 2000). Newly metamorphosed juveniles tend 
to disperse locally July through September and then disperse away from 
the breeding habitat during warm rain events (Jennings in litt. 2000, 
Scott in litt. 2000). The distances these juveniles are capable of 
traveling has not been studied, but are likely dependent upon rainfall 
and moisture levels during and immediately following dispersal events 
and on habitat availability and environmental variability. The ability 
of juveniles and adults to disperse is

[[Page 54895]]

important for the long term survival and recovery of the species as the 
dispersing individuals can recolonize areas subjected to localized 
    The manner in which non-dispersing California red-legged frogs use 
upland habitats is not well understood. The length of time California 
red-legged frogs spend in upland habitats, patterns of use, and whether 
juveniles, subadults and adults use uplands differently are under 
study. Preliminary data from San Simeon and Pico creeks in central 
California indicated that the number of days when California red-legged 
frogs were found more than 2.0 m (7 ft) from water ranged from 0 to 56 
days (Rathbun in litt. 2000), while the majority of California red-
legged frogs observed in eastern Contra Costa County spent the entire 
wet season within streamside habitat (Tatarian in litt. 2000).
    The healthiest California red-legged frog populations persist as a 
collection of subpopulations that exchange genetic information through 
individual dispersal events. These populations persist and flourish 
where suitable breeding and nonbreeding habitats are interspersed 
throughout the landscape and are interconnected by unfragmented 
dispersal habitat. Where this habitat mosaic exists, local extinctions 
may be counterbalanced by the colonization of new habitat or 
recolonization of unoccupied areas of suitable habitat. Studies on 
other frogs and toads have demonstrated that the probability of a 
habitat being occupied is positively correlated with the distance to 
the nearest currently occupied habitat patch (Laan and Verboom 1990, 
Mann et al. 1991, Marsh et al. 1999). Isolated patches far removed from 
occupied patches eventually go extinct (Sjogren-Gulve 1994). In 
addition to distance between habitat patches, the fragmentation of 
dispersal routes can also result in the isolation of subpopulations. 
Studies from other anuran species have shown that fragmentation has 
resulted in problems associated with inbreeding (Reh and Seitz 1990, 
Hitchings and Beebee 1997) and an increase in unoccupied suitable 
habitat, and can ultimately result in extinction (Sjogren-Gulve 1994). 
Thus, connectivity is essential for the long term survival and recovery 
of California red-legged frogs.

Previous Federal Action

    We received a petition from Drs. Mark R. Jennings, Marc P. Hayes, 
and Dan Holland on January 29, 1992, to list the California red-legged 
frog as threatened along the coastal portion of its range and 
endangered throughout the remaining portion of its range. A 90-day 
petition finding (57 FR 45761) was published on October 5, 1992, that 
concluded that substantial information had been presented and that 
listing the subspecies may be warranted. The California red-legged frog 
had been previously included in our November 21, 1991, Animal Notice of 
Review (56 FR 58804) as a category 1 candidate species. Category 1 
candidates (now known simply as candidates) are species for which we 
have sufficient information on biological vulnerability and threats to 
support proposals to list them as endangered or threatened. On July 19, 
1993, we published a 12-month finding on the petitioned action (58 FR 
38553), indicating that listing of the frog was warranted and that a 
proposed rule would be published. We published a proposal to list the 
frog as an endangered species on February 2, 1994 (59 FR 4888). Based 
on information provided during the public comment period, we published 
a final rule listing the frog as threatened on May 23, 1996 (61 FR 
    We did not propose to designate critical habitat for the California 
red-legged frog within the proposed or final listing rule because we 
believed designation was not prudent. Since California red-legged frogs 
are found on private property, we determined the frog was at risk from 
vandalism, and that publication of specific localities would make the 
species more vulnerable to vandalism, as well as collection for market 
    On March 24, 1999, The Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund, on behalf 
of the Jumping Frog Research Institute, the Southwest Center for 
Biological Diversity, and the Center for Sierra Nevada Conservation, 
filed a lawsuit in the Northern District of California against the U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service and Bruce Babbitt, Secretary of the 
Department of the Interior (Secretary), for failure to designate 
critical habitat for the California red-legged frog (Jumping Frog 
Research Institute et al. v. Babbitt).
    On December 15, 1999, U.S. District Judge William Alsup ordered us 
to make a prudency determination by August 31, 2000, and issue a final 
rule by December 29, 2001. On January 18, 2000, Judge Alsup clarified 
an error in the December 15, 1999, order stating that the Service shall 
issue a final rule by December 29, 2000. Publication of this proposed 
rule is consistent with that decision.

Critical Habitat

    Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as: (i) The 
specific areas within the geographic area occupied by a species, at the 
time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found those 
physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation of 
the species and (II) that may require special management consideration 
or protection, and (ii) specific areas outside the geographic area 
occupied by a species at the time it is listed, upon determination that 
such areas are essential for the conservation of the species. 
``Conservation'' means the use of all methods and procedures that are 
necessary to bring an endangered species or a threatened species to the 
point at which listing under the Act is no longer necessary.
    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that we base critical habitat 
proposals upon the best scientific and commercial data available, after 
taking into consideration the economic impact, and any other relevant 
impact, of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. We may 
exclude areas from critical habitat designation when the benefits of 
exclusion outweigh the benefits of including the areas within critical 
habitat, provided the exclusion will not result in extinction of the 
    Designation of critical habitat can help focus conservation 
activities for a listed species by identifying areas that contain the 
physical and biological features that are essential for the 
conservation of that species. Designation of critical habitat alerts 
the public as well as land-managing agencies to the importance of these 
    Critical habitat also identifies areas that may require special 
management considerations or protection, and may provide protection to 
areas where significant threats to the species have been identified. 
Critical habitat receives protection from destruction or adverse 
modification through required consultation under section 7 of the Act 
with regard to actions carried out, funded, or authorized by a Federal 
agency. Section 7 also requires conferences on Federal actions that are 
likely to result in the adverse modification or destruction of proposed 
critical habitat. Aside from the protection that may be provided under 
section 7, the Act does not provide other forms of protection to lands 
designated as critical habitat.
    Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies to consult 
with us to ensure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is 
not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a threatened or 
endangered species, or result in the destruction or adverse 
modification of critical habitat. In 50 CFR 402.02, ``jeopardize the 
continued existence'' (of a species) is defined as

[[Page 54896]]

engaging in an activity likely to result in an appreciable reduction in 
the likelihood of survival and recovery of a listed species. 
``Destruction or adverse modification'' (of critical habitat) is 
defined as a direct or indirect alteration that appreciably diminishes 
the value of critical habitat for the survival and recovery of the 
listed species for which critical habitat was designated. Thus, the 
definitions of ``jeopardy'' to the species and ``adverse modification'' 
of critical habitat are nearly identical (50 CFR 402.02).
    Designating critical habitat does not, in itself, lead to recovery 
of a listed species. Designation does not create a management plan, 
establish numerical population goals, and prescribe specific management 
actions (inside or outside of critical habitat). Specific management 
recommendations for areas designated as critical habitat are most 
appropriately addressed in recovery, conservation, and management 
plans, and through section 7 consultations and section 10 permits.

Primary Constituent Elements

    In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and regulations at 
50 CFR 424.12, we are required to base critical habitat determinations 
on the best scientific and commercial data available, and to consider 
those physical and biological features (primary constituent elements) 
that are essential to the conservation of the species. These include, 
but are not limited to, space for individual and population growth, and 
for normal behavior; food, water, air, light, minerals, and other 
nutritional or physiological requirements; cover or shelter; sites for 
breeding, reproduction, rearing (or development) of offspring; 
protection from disturbance; and habitats that are representative of 
the historic geographical and ecological distributions of a species.
    Due to the complex life history and dispersal capabilities of the 
California red-legged frog, and the dynamic nature of the environment 
in which they are found, the primary constituent elements described 
below are found throughout the watersheds that are being proposed as 
critical habitat. Habitat rehabilitation efforts (e.g., removal of non-
native predators) may be necessary in some areas, as well as changes in 
current management activities, to attain optimal distribution of 
California red-legged frogs within each critical habitat unit. Critical 
habitat for California red-legged frogs, as currently proposed, will 
provide for breeding and nonbreeding habitat and for dispersal between 
these habitats, as well as allowing for expansion of California red-
legged frog populations, which is vital to the recovery of the species.
    The primary constituent elements of critical habitat for California 
red-legged frogs are: (a) Suitable aquatic habitat; (b) associated 
uplands; and (c) suitable dispersal habitat connecting suitable aquatic 
    Suitable aquatic habitat is essential for providing space, food, 
and cover needed to sustain eggs, tadpoles, metamorphosing juveniles, 
nonbreeding subadults, and breeding and nonbreeding adult frogs. 
Suitable aquatic habitat for California red-legged frogs consists of 
virtually all still or slow-moving fresh water bodies, including 
natural and manmade (e.g., stock) ponds, backwaters within streams and 
creeks, marshes, lagoons, and dune ponds, except deep lacustrine water 
habitat (e.g., deep lakes and reservoirs) inhabited by nonnative 
predators. The species requires a permanent water source to ensure that 
aquatic habitat is available year-round. Permanent water sources can 
include, but are not limited to, ponds, perennial creeks (or permanent 
plunge pools within intermittent creeks), seeps, and springs. Aquatic 
habitat used for breeding must have a minimum deep water depth of 20 cm 
(8 in.), and maintain water during the entire tadpole rearing season 
(at least March through July). During periods of drought or less than 
average rainfall, these breeding sites may not hold water long enough 
for individuals to complete metamorphosis, but these sites would still 
be considered suitable breeding habitat. To be considered a critical 
habitat, the aquatic component must consists of two or more breeding 
sites located within 2 km (1.25 mi) of each other, if at least one of 
the sites is also a permanent water source, or two or more breeding 
sites and a permanent water sources located within 2 km (1.25 mi), if 
the breeding sites are not permanent water sources. In addition, the 
sites must be connected by suitable dispersal habitat, described below.
    Associated uplands are essential to maintain the integrity of 
California red-legged frog aquatic habitat, by providing the conditions 
essential for providing food, water, nutrients, and protection from 
disturbance necessary for normal behavior, and provide shelter to frogs 
inhabiting upland areas adjacent to suitable aquatic habitat. Key 
conditions include the timing, duration, and extent of water moving 
within the system, filtering capacity, and maintaining the habitat to 
favor California red-legged frogs and discourage the colonization of 
exotic species such as bullfrogs. Suitable upland habitat consists of 
all upland areas within 150 m (500 ft), or no further than the 
watershed boundary, of the edge of suitable aquatic habitat.
    Suitable dispersal habitat provides connectivity among California 
red-legged frog aquatic habitat (and associated upland) patches. While 
frogs can pass many obstacles, and do not require a particular type of 
habitat for dispersal, the habitat connecting suitable breeding 
locations and other aquatic habitat must be free of barriers and at 
least 150 m (500 ft) wide. Suitable dispersal habitat consists of all 
upland and wetland habitat free of barriers that connects two or more 
patches of suitable aquatic habitat within 2 km (1.25 miles) of one 
another. Dispersal barriers include heavily traveled roads (with more 
than 30 cars per hour), moderate to high density urban or industrial 
developments, and large reservoirs. Areas where barriers to dispersal 
occur would not be considered critical habitat. Agricultural lands such 
as row crops, orchards, vineyards, and pastures do not constitute 
barriers to California red-legged frog dispersal.
    In summary, the primary constituent elements consist of three 
components. At a minimum, this will include two (or more) suitable 
breeding locations, a permanent water source, associated uplands 
surrounding these water bodies up to 150 m (500 ft) from the water's 
edge, all within 2 km (1.25) miles of one another and connected by 
barrier-free dispersal habitat that is at least 150 m (500 ft) in 
width. When these elements are all present, all other suitable aquatic 
habitat within 2 km (1.25 mi), and free of dispersal barriers, is also 
considered critical habitat.

Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat

    As stated previously, California red-legged frogs use a variety of 
aquatic habitats. These habitats include, but are not limited to, 
ephemeral ponds, intermittent streams, seasonal wetlands, springs, 
seeps, permanent ponds, perennial creeks, manmade aquatic features 
(e.g., stock ponds), marshes, dune ponds, and lagoons. California red-
legged frogs are found in both natural and manmade aquatic habitats and 
inhabit areas irrespective of vegetation cover; therefore, virtually 
any aquatic system can be utilized if a permanent water source is 
    The long-term probability of the survival and recovery of 
California red-legged frogs is dependant upon the protection of 
existing breeding habitat, the movements of individuals between aquatic 
patches, and the ability to recolonize newly created or vacated 
habitats. Recolonization, which is vital to the recovery of the 
species, is

[[Page 54897]]

dependent upon landscape characteristics including the distance between 
patches, the number and severity of barriers between patches, and the 
presence of interconnecting elements (e.g., habitat where frogs can 
rehydrate), and upon the dispersal capability of California red-legged 
frogs (Laan and Verboom 1990). California red-legged frogs have been 
documented to travel 3.6 km (2.25 mi) in a virtual straight line 
migration from nonbreeding to breeding habitats (Bulger, in litt. 
2000). We believe that this is likely the upward limit of dispersal 
capability, and that the proposed 2 km (1.25 mi) dispersal element will 
ensure that connectivity between breeding habitats will be maintained 
within areas proposed as critical habitat, thus allowing these areas to 
persist as, or develop into, viable metapopulations. The largest known 
populations of California red-legged frogs exist as subpopulations with 
several breeding habitats located within 2 km of each other (Service 
    The areas we are proposing to designate as critical habitat 
currently provide all of those habitat components essential for the 
primary biological needs of California red-legged frogs as described in 
the draft recovery plan and defined by the primary constituent 
elements. We did not include all areas currently occupied by California 
red-legged frogs, but propose those areas that possess a large 
population of frogs, represent unique ecological characteristics, or 
represent historic geographic areas where California red-legged frogs 
can be reestablished. Ponds that support a small population of 
California red-legged frogs (i.e., provide all of the requirements for 
the aquatic primary constituent element), but are not surrounded by 
suitable upland habitat or are cut off from other breeding ponds or 
permanent water sources by impassible dispersal barriers, would not be 
considered critical habitat.
    In designating critical habitat for the California red-legged frog, 
we have reviewed the overall approach to the conservation of the 
California red-legged frog undertaken by the local, State, Tribal and 
Federal agencies operating within the species' range since its listing 
in 1996. Based on this review and current literature, we considered 
several criteria in the selection and proposal of specific boundaries 
for California red-legged frog critical habitat. Such criteria focused 
on designating units (1) throughout the geographic and elevational 
range of the species; (2) that would result in protecting populations 
that are geographically distributed in a manner that allows for the 
continued existence of viable metapopulations despite fluctuations in 
the status of subpopulations; and (3) that possess large continuous 
blocks of occupied habitat, representing source populations and/or 
unique ecological characteristics, or areas where California red-legged 
frogs can be reestablished which is essential to the recovery of the 
species. This task was accomplished by first determining the occupancy 
status of areas. Areas were considered to possess extant populations if 
California red-legged frogs have been documented in that area since 
1985. We then selected areas that are inhabited by populations (source 
populations) that are capable of maintaining their current population 
levels and capable of providing individuals to recruit into 
subpopulations found in adjacent areas. We also selected several areas 
that lack source populations, but represent areas with unique 
ecological significance. These areas include extant populations found 
on the periphery of the current range, both extant and extirpated areas 
that represent the historic distribution of the species, and areas that 
provide connectivity among source populations or between source 
populations and unoccupied extirpated areas. Of the approximate 
2,175,000 ha (5,373,650 ac) that is designated as critical habitat, 
only around 17 percent (311,600 ha (769,900 ac)) is considered 
unoccupied habitat. Ninety percent of this unoccupied habitat (279,500 
ha (690,600 ac)) occurs on Federal lands; the remaining 10 percent is 
primarily privately owned lands that are inholdings surrounded by 
Federal lands. Both unoccupied and occupied areas not included in this 
designation can still be targets for recovery actions, including 
reestablishing populations. Furthermore, California red-legged frogs in 
areas not included in this designation are still afforded the 
protections of a threatened species under the Act.
    The proposed designation of 150 m (500 ft) of upland habitat 
surrounding aquatic habitat is based in part on the work of Bulger et 
al. (in litt. 2000), who found that frogs were capable of inhabiting 
upland habitats within 60 m (200 feet) of aquatic habitat for 
continuous durations exceeding 20 days, and Rathbun (in litt. 2000), 
who observed frogs inhabiting riparian habitat for durations exceeding 
30 days. In addition to the occupation of upland habitat, the 
surrounding watershed plays an important role in the health and 
integrity of the aquatic habitat. The 150 m (500 ft) upland habitat 
designation will help minimize changes in frequency, duration, and 
timing of the wetland hydroperiod, minimize the input of toxic 
sediments, and help maintain connectivity between habitats. It will 
also further minimize the creation of habitat conditions found to favor 
exotic species and/or urban adapted predators (Mensing et al. 1998, 
Onorato et al. 1998, H.T. Harvey and Associates 1997, Richter and Azous 
1997, Jennings and Hayes 1994, Hayes and Jennings 1986). The 150 m (500 
ft) upland habitat designation will ensure California red-legged frogs 
continue to exist within the watershed in multiple breeding areas 
embedded within a matrix of dispersal habitats.


    The proposed critical habitat units were delineated by first 
creating data layers in a geographic information system (GIS) format of 
all of the core areas as proposed in the recovery plan. We then used 
the California Watershed Map (CALWATER version 2.2), a coverage 
developed by California Department of Water Resources (DWR), to 
delineate boundaries in a 1:240,000 format. CALWATER is a set of 
watershed boundaries meeting standardized delineation criteria, 
consisting of six levels of increasing specificity, with the primary 
purpose of assigning a single, unique code to a specific watershed 
polygon (e.g., a planning watershed). CALWATER delineates the 
boundaries of planning watersheds 1,200 to 4,000 ha (3,000 to 10,000 
ac) in size. We used these planning watersheds as the minimum mapping 
unit to delineate critical habitat units because they represent 
functional management units that affect the quality of aquatic habitat 
and thus are extremely relevant to amphibian populations. The use of 
planning watersheds also allowed us to delineate critical habitat that 
protects habitat quality, breeding and nonbreeding habitat, and 
dispersal habitat in a manner consistent with the overall goal of 
protecting and promoting metapopulations. We selected all of the 
planning watersheds that intersected areas of high California red-
legged frog abundance, areas essential to maintain connectivity, and/or 
areas of unique ecological significance. In areas where planning 
watersheds were large and/or watersheds were significantly altered 
hydrologically, we used alternative structural, political, or 
topographic boundaries (e.g., roads, county boundaries, elevation 
contour lines) as critical habitat boundaries because in these areas 
the benefits of using planning watersheds were limited. In addition, we 
used digital data, as well as hard copy maps, from the National

[[Page 54898]]

Wetlands Inventory (NWI), which provides information on the 
characteristics, extent, and status of the nation's wetlands and 
deepwater habitats.
    When initially drafting this proposed rule, we investigated using 
digital data from the NWI. We planned to use these data to more 
precisely map those areas that possess the primary constituent 
elements. However, not all of the pertinent NWI maps had been digitized 
and we lacked the time necessary to acquire the data. Even though the 
data are not digitally available, they are available on 1:124,000 scale 
maps. These maps can be used to determine where patches of suitable 
breeding and other aquatic habitat exist within a matrix of dispersal 
habitat and thus delineate critical habitat areas. Using this 
information allows for identification of areas possessing the primary 
constituent elements associated with aquatic and dispersal habitats and 
to identify areas containing, or capable of supporting, viable 
metapopulations. Hard copies of the NWI maps can be viewed at any of 
our field offices, and are also available for purchase from the USGS, 
Menlo Park-ESIC, Building 3, MS 532, Rm. 3128, 345 Middlefield Road, 
Menlo Park, California 94025-3591.
    We could not depend solely on federally owned lands for proposed 
critical habitat designation as these lands are limited in geographic 
location, size, and habitat quality. In addition to the federally owned 
lands, we are proposing to designate critical habitat on non-Federal 
public lands and privately owned lands, including land owned by the 
California Department of Parks and Recreation, the California 
Department of Fish and Game, DWR, and the University of California, as 
well as regional and local park lands and water district lands. Areas 
proposed as critical habitat meet the definition of critical habitat 
under section 3 of the Act in that they are within the geographical 
area occupied by the species, are essential to the conservation of the 
species, and are in need of special management considerations or 
protection. We also propose areas that are outside the current 
distribution of the species, but are essential for the conservation of 
the species (e.g., recovery).
    We also considered the existing status of non-Federal and private 
lands in proposing areas as critical habitat. Section 10(a)(1)(B) of 
the Act authorizes us to issue permits for the take of listed species 
incidental to otherwise lawful activities. An incidental take permit 
application must be supported by a habitat conservation plan (HCP) that 
identifies conservation measures that the permittee agrees to implement 
for the species to minimize and mitigate the impacts of the permitted 
incidental take. Non-Federal and private lands that are covered by an 
existing operative HCP and executed implementation agreement (IA) for 
California red-legged frogs under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act 
receive special management and protection under the terms of the HCP/IA 
and are therefore not being proposed for inclusion in critical habitat 
as discussed in section 3(5) of the Act.
    We considered, and are proposing, portions of the Santa Ynez Band 
of the Chumash Mission Indian Reservation because we believe that 
riparian and adjoining upland areas on Tribal lands may be essential to 
the conservation of California red-legged frogs. However, the short 
amount of time allowed to propose critical habitat precluded us from 
adequately coordinating with the Tribe. Subsequent to this proposal, we 
will consult with the Tribe before making a final determination as to 
whether any Tribal lands should be included as critical habitat for 
California red-legged frogs. We will consider whether these Tribal 
lands require special management considerations or protection. We may 
also exclude some or all of these lands from critical habitat upon a 
determination that the benefits of excluding them outweighs the 
benefits of designating these areas as critical habitat, as provided 
under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. This consultation will take place 
under the auspices of the Presidential Memorandum of April 29, 1994, 
which require us to coordinate with federally recognized Tribes on a 
Government-to-Government basis.
    In selecting areas of proposed critical habitat, we made an effort 
to avoid developed areas, such as towns and other similar lands, that 
are unlikely to contribute to California red-legged frog conservation. 
However, we did not map critical habitat in sufficient detail to 
exclude all developed areas, such as towns or housing developments, or 
other lands unlikely to contain the primary constituent elements 
essential for conservation of the California red-legged frog. Areas of 
existing features and structures within the boundaries of the mapped 
units, such as buildings, roads, aqueducts, railroads, airports, other 
paved areas, lawns, and other urban landscaped areas, and uplands 
removed from suitable aquatic and dispersal habitat, will not contain 
one or more of the primary constituent elements. Federal actions 
limited to these areas, therefore, would not trigger a section 7 
consultation, unless they affect the species and/or primary constituent 
elements in adjacent critical habitat.
    In summary, the proposed critical habitat areas described below 
constitute our best assessment of areas needed for the species' 
conservation and recovery.

Proposed Critical Habitat Designation

    Table 1 shows the approximate acreage of proposed critical habitat 
by county and land ownership. Critical habitat proposed for the 
California red-legged frog includes approximately 2,175,000 ha 
(5,373,650 ac) in Alameda, Butte, Calaveras, Contra Costa, El Dorado, 
Fresno, Kern, Los Angeles, Marin, Mariposa, Merced, Monterey, Napa, 
Plumas, Riverside, San Benito, San Diego, San Joaquin, San Luis Obispo, 
San Mateo, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Sierra, Solano, 
Sonoma, Stanislaus, Tehama, Tuolumne, Ventura, and Yuba counties, 
California (see Map 1 in the Proposed Regulation Promulgation section).

              Table 1.--Approximate Area Encompassing Proposed Critical Habitat in Hectares (ha) (Acres (ac)) by County and Land Ownership
               County                         Federal land               Local/State land               Private land                    Total
Plumas..............................  57,500 ha                    NA                           8,200 ha                     65,700 ha
                                      (141,100 ac)                                              (20,250 ac)                  (162,350 ac)
Butte...............................  19,000 ha                    100 ha                       11,700 ha                    30,800 ha
                                      (47,000 ac)                  (250 ac)                     (28,900 ac)                  (76,150 ac)
Sierra..............................  1,400 ha                     NA                           300 ha                       1,700 ha
                                      (3,450 ac)                                                (750 ac)                     (4,200 ac)
Yuba................................  3,800 ha                     NA                           2,800 ha                     6,600 ha
                                      (9,400 ac)                                                (6,900 ac)                   (16,300 ac)

[[Page 54899]]

El Dorado...........................  20,200 ha                    NA                           17,200 ha                    37,400 ha
                                      (49,900 ac)                                               (42,500 ac)                  (92,400 ac)
Calaveras...........................  1,500 ha                     NA                           2,900 ha                     4,400 ha
                                      (3,700 ac)                                                (7,150 ac)                   (10,850 ac)
Tuolumne............................  172,300 ha                   200 ha                       14,600 ha                    187,100 ha
                                      (425,750 ac)                 (500 ac)                     (36,100 ac)                  (462,350 ac)
Mariposa............................  1,400 ha                     NA                           400 ha                       1,800 ha
                                      (3,450 ac)                                                (1,000 ac)                   (4,450 ac)
Tehama..............................  24,600 ha                    300 ha                       23,500 ha                    48,400 ha
                                      (60,800 ac)                  (750 ac)                     (58,100 ac)                  (119,650 ac)
Napa................................  2,500 ha                     1,000 ha                     20,800 ha                    24,300 ha
                                      (6,200 ac)                   (2,500 ac)                   (51,400 ac)                  (60,100 ac)
Sonoma..............................  NA                           1,800 ha                     12,600 ha                    14,400 ha
                                                                   (4,450 ac)                   (31,150 ac)                  (35,600 ac)
Solano..............................  700 ha                       200 ha                       14,700 ha                    15,100 ha
                                      (1,750 ac)                   (500 ac)                     (35,100 ac)                  (37,350 ac)
Marin...............................  30,700 ha                    13,600 ha                    43,100 ha                    87,400 ha
                                      (75,850 ac)                  (33,600 ac)                  (106,500 ac)                 (215,950 ac)
Alameda.............................  600 ha                       2,500 ha                     105,500 ha                   108,600 ha
                                      (1,500 ac)                   (6,200 ac)                   (260,700 ac)                 (268,400 ac)
Contra Costa........................  400 ha                       7,600 ha                     57,000 ha                    65,000 ha
                                      (1,000 ac)                   (18,800 ac)                  (140,850 ac)                 (160,650 ac)
Santa Clara.........................  300 ha                       15,700 ha                    73,800 ha                    89,800 ha
                                      (750 ac)                     (38,800 ac)                  (182,350 ac)                 (221,900 ac)
San Joaquin.........................  NA                           NA                           11,700 ha                    11,700 ha
                                                                                                (28,900 ac)                  (28,900 ac)
Stanislaus..........................  NA                           10,900 ha                    6,100 ha                     17,000 ha
                                                                   (26,950 ac)                  (15,100 ac)                  (42,050 ac)
Merced..............................  900 ha                       9,700 ha                     65,800 ha                    76,400 ha
                                      (2,200 ac)                   (24,000 ac)                  (162,600 ac)                 (188,800 ac)
Fresno..............................  9,000 ha                     NA                           1,400 ha                     10,400 ha
                                      (22,250 ac)                                               (3,450 ac)                   (25,700 ac)
San Benito..........................  11,800 ha                    NA                           105,000 ha                   116,800 ha
                                      (29,150 ac)                                               (259,450 ac)                 (288,600 ac)
San Mateo...........................  700 ha                       12,200 ha                    98,900 ha                    111,800 ha
                                      (1,750 ac)                   (30,150 ac)                  (244,400 ac)                 (276,300 ac)
Santa Cruz..........................  100 ha                       10,700 ha                    40,600 ha                    51,400 ha
                                      (250 ac)                     (26,450 ac)                  (100,300 ac)                 (127,000 ac)
Monterey............................  16,400 ha                    6,700 ha                     137,200 ha                   160,300 ha
                                      (40,500 ac)                  (16,550 ac)                  (339,000 ac)                 (396,050 ac)
San Luis Obispo.....................  11,300 ha                    2,700 ha                     214,100 ha                   228,100 ha
                                      (27,900 ac)                  (6,650 ac)                   (529,050 ac)                 (563,600 ac)
Kern................................  700 ha                       NA                           12,300 ha                    13,000 ha
                                      (1,750 ac)                                                (30,400 ac)                  (32,150 ac)
Santa Barbara.......................  119,600 ha                   1,200 ha                     145,900 ha                   266,700 ha
                                      (295,550 ac)                 (2,950 ac)                   (360,500 ac)                 (659,000 ac)
Ventura.............................  125,900 ha                   100 ha                       11,600 ha                    137,600 ha
                                      (311,100 ac)                 (250 ac)                     (28,650 ac)                  (340,000 ac)
Los Angeles.........................  90,300 ha                    5,300 ha                     64,700 ha                    160,300 ha
                                      (223,150 ac)                 (13,100 ac)                  (159,850 ac)                 (396,100 ac)
Riverside...........................  12,100 ha                    1,100 ha                     6,900 ha                     20,100 ha
                                      (29,900 ac)                  (2,700 ac)                   (17,050 ac)                  (49,650 ac)
San Diego...........................  4,500 ha                     NA                           400 ha                       4,900 ha
                                      (11,100 ac)                                               (1,000 ac)                   (12,100 ac)
Total...............................  740,200 ha                   103,600 ha                   1,331,200 ha                 2,175,000 ha
                                      (1,829,150 ac)               (256,100 ac)                 (3,288,400 ac)               (5,373,650 ac)

    A brief description of each critical habitat unit is given below:

Unit 1. North Fork Feather Unit

    Unit 1 consists of drainages found within the North Fork Feather 
River drainage, including watersheds within Bucks Creek, Grizzly Creek, 
Mayoro Creek, Rock Creek, Three Lakes, and Lower Yellow Creek. The unit 
encompasses approximately 81,930 ha (202,450 ac). The North Fork 
Feather unit is the northeastern-most unit of the proposed critical 
habitat units. This unit is located in Plumas and Butte counties. 
Approximately 86 percent of the unit consists of Federal lands managed 
by Plumas and Lassen National Forests, and the majority of the 
remaining area is privately owned.

Unit 2. South Fork Feather-Indian Creek Unit

    Unit 2 consists of drainages found within the South Fork Feather 
River and the Yuba River watersheds found in Butte, Plumas, Yuba, and 
Sierra counties. Watersheds that drain into the

[[Page 54900]]

South Fork Feather River include Lewis Flat, Oroleve Creek, and Rock 
Creek; watersheds that flow into the Yuba River include Indian Creek, 
Brushy Creek, and Gold Run. The unit encompasses approximately 23,000 
ha (56,840 ac). Approximately 50 percent of this unit is managed by 
Plumas National Forest; the remainder is mostly privately owned.

Unit 3. Weber Creek-Cosumnes Unit

    Unit 3 consists of drainages in the Weber Creek and North Fork 
Cosumnes River watersheds in El Dorado County. The Ringold Creek, South 
Fork Weber Creek, North Fork Weber Creek, and China Creek drainages 
form the Weber Creek portion of this unit. Drainages that form the 
North Fork Cosumnes portion include Clear Creek, North Steely Creek, 
Jenkinson Lake, Headwaters Camp Creek, Snow Creek, North Canyon, Van 
Horn Creek, Capps Crossing, Leek Spring Valley, Hazel Creek, and North 
Sly Park Creek. The unit encompasses approximately 37,400 ha (92,400 
ac), of which 54 percent is within the El Dorado National Forest and 46 
percent is privately owned.

Unit 4. South Fork Calaveras River Unit

    Unit 4 consists of the Lower O'Neil Creek, Dirty Gulch, Old Gulch, 
Middle San Antonio Creek, Indian Creek, and Upper San Domingo Creek 
watersheds in Calaveras County. The unit encompasses approximately 
4,410 ha (10,910 ac); 65 percent of this unit is in private ownership, 
and 35 percent is managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).

Unit 5. Yosemite Unit

    Unit 5 consists of drainages found in the tributaries of the 
Tuolumne River and Jordan Creek, a tributary to the Merced River, in 
Tuolumne and Mariposa counties. The unit encompasses approximately 
188,970 ha (466,940 ac), of which 92 percent is managed by Stanislaus 
National Forest or the National Park Service (NPS); the majority of the 
remaining 8 percent is privately owned.

Unit 6. Headwaters of Cottonwood Creek Unit

    Unit 6 consists of drainages found within the headwaters of 
Cottonwood and Red Bank creeks in Tehama County. The unit consists of 
the watersheds that form Bear Gulch, Long Gulch, Maple Creek, Cracker 
Canyon, Panther Gulch, Buck Creek, Devils Hole Gulch, Elkhorn Creek, 
Slides Creek, Buck Creek, Harvey Creek, and Sulpher Creek in the 
Cottonwood Creek drainage, and the watersheds that form Jackass Canyon, 
Little Grizzly Creek, Sunflower Gulch, Red Bank Creek, and Alder Creek 
in the Red Bank Creek drainage. The unit encompasses approximately 
48,400 ha (119,600 ac), of which approximately 51 percent is within the 
boundaries of the Mendocino National Forest; the majority of the 
remaining 48 percent is privately owned.

Unit 7. Cleary Preserve Unit

    Unit 7 consists of drainages found within the watersheds that form 
the tributaries to Pope Creek in Napa County. The unit encompasses 
approximately 14,280 ha (35,280 ac), of which approximately 89 percent 
is privately owned; the remaining 11 percent is managed by Federal or 
State agencies.

Unit 8. Annadel State Park Preserve Unit

    Unit 8 consists of the Upper Sonoma Creek watershed found partially 
within Annadel State Park in Sonoma County. The unit encompasses 
approximately 4,910 ha (12,130 ac), of which approximately 86 percent 
is privately owned and 14 percent is managed by the California 
Department of Parks and Recreation (CDPR).

Unit 9. Stebbins Cold Canyon Preserve Unit

    Unit 9 consists of drainages found within and adjacent to Stebbins 
Cold Canyon Preserve and the Quail Ridge Wilderness Preserve in Napa 
and Solano counties. The unit is comprised of watersheds that form 
Capell Creek, including Wragg Canyon, Markley Canyon, Steel Canyon, and 
the Wild Horse Canyon watershed. The unit encompasses approximately 
9,250 ha (22,860 ac), of which approximately 71 percent is privately 
owned and 29 percent is managed by the University of California Natural 
Reserve System (UCNRS), the Quail Ridge Wilderness Conservancy, and the 

Unit 10. Sears Point Unit

    Unit 10 consists of Stage Gulch and Lower Petaluma River 
watersheds, tributaries to the Petaluma River. This unit is located in 
and adjacent to Sears Point in Sonoma and Marin counties and 
encompasses approximately 9,940 ha (24,570 ac), of which 86 percent is 
privately owned, and the remaining 14 percent is managed by State and 
local governments.

Unit 11. American Canyon Unit

    Unit 11 consists of watersheds within and adjacent to American 
Canyon Creek and Sulphur Springs Creek in Napa and Solano counties. 
Watersheds within this unit include Fagan Creek, a tributary to the 
Napa River, the Jameson Canyon watershed, and the Sky Valley and Pine 
Lake watersheds that flow into Lake Herman. The unit encompasses 
approximately 15,780 ha (39,000 ac), of which 99 percent is privately 

Unit 12. Point Reyes Unit

    Unit 12 consists of watersheds within and adjacent to Bolinas 
Lagoon, Point Reyes, and Tomales Bay in Marin and Sonoma counties. This 
unit encompasses approximately 84,520 ha (208,840 ac); 52 percent is 
managed by the NPS, CDPR, and the Marin Municipal Water District and 48 
percent is privately owned.

Unit 13. Tiburon Peninsula Unit

    Unit 13 consists of the Belvedere Lagoon watershed within and 
adjacent to the Tiburon Peninsula in Marin County. The unit encompasses 
approximately 2,560 ha (6,320 ac), of which 85 percent is privately 
owned; the remaining 15 percent is managed by State and local 

Unit 14. San Mateo-Northern Santa Cruz Unit

    Unit 14 consists of coastal watersheds within San Mateo County and 
Northern Santa Cruz County that drain into the Pacific Ocean, and 
tributaries that form the watersheds of Pescadero Creek, San Gregorio 
Creek, San Mateo Creek, and Corte Madera Creek in San Mateo, Santa 
Clara, and Santa Cruz counties. The unit encompasses approximately 
131,230 ha (324,280 ac), of which 85 percent is privately owned; the 
remaining 15 percent is primarily managed by the San Francisco Public 
Utilities District (SFPUD) and CDPR.

Unit 15. East Bay-Diablo Range Unit

    Unit 15 consists of tributaries of San Lorenzo Creek, Alameda 
Creek, Kellog Creek, Marsh Creek, Corral Hollow Creek, Orestimba Creek, 
Coyote Creek, Pacheco Creek, Romero Creek, Ortigalita Creek, Los Banos 
Creek, Panoche Creek, and the San Benito River in Contra Costa, 
Alameda, San Joaquin, Santa Clara, Stanislaus, San Benito, Merced, and 
Fresno counties. The unit encompasses approximately 456,930 ha 
(1,129,050 ac), of which 86 percent is privately owned; the remaining 
14 percent is managed in part by East Bay Regional Park District, East 
Bay Municipal Utilities District, USBR, Department of Energy, 
Department of Defense (DOD), CDPR, SFPUD, CDFG, Santa Clara Valley 
Water District, and DWR.

[[Page 54901]]

Unit 16. Pajaro River Unit

    Unit 16 consists of portions of two watersheds that are part of the 
Pajaro River Drainage, the Flint Hills watershed in San Benito County 
and the Santa Clara Valley watershed in Santa Clara and San Benito 
counties. This unit provides a link between the inner and outer Coast 
ranges (units 15 and 17). The unit encompasses approximately 20,400 ha 
(50,400 ac) and is all privately owned.

Unit 17. Elkhorn Slough-Salinas River Unit

    Unit 17 consists of coastal drainages of southern Santa Cruz 
County, including Aptos, Soquel, Hinckley, and Bates creeks; Elkhorn 
Slough, and the watersheds that form its tributaries; and the 
watersheds of the lower Pajaro River, including Sargent Creek, 
Corralitos Lagoon, Soda Lake, and the Mouth of the Pajaro River. The 
unit is located in Santa Cruz, Monterey, and San Benito counties. The 
unit encompasses approximately 76,950 ha (190,140 ac), of which 93 
percent is privately owned; the remaining 7 percent is managed by CDPR 
and the Elkhorn Slough National Estuarine Research Reserve.

Unit 18. Carmel River Unit

    Unit 18 consists of drainages comprising the Carmel River 
watersheds in Monterey County. This unit encompasses approximately 
65,310 ha (161,380 ac), of which approximately 32 percent of the land 
is managed by the Los Padres National Forest and CDPR, while the 
remaining 68 percent is privately owned.

Unit 19. The Pinnacles Unit

    Unit 19 consists of two watersheds, Gloria Lake and George Hansen 
Canyon, in San Benito and Monterey counties. This unit encompasses 
approximately 11,470 ha (28,330 ac), of which 56 percent is managed by 
the NPS and BLM; the remaining 44 is privately owned.

Unit 20. Estrella River/Cholame Creek Unit

    Unit 20 consists of the drainages comprising the Cholame Creek, 
Estrella River, and the Saw Tooth Ridge watersheds in Monterey, San 
Luis Obispo and Kern counties. The unit encompasses approximately 
161,600 ha (399,310 ac), of which 99 percent is privately owned and the 
remaining 1 percent is federally managed.

Unit 21. San Simeon Unit-Morro Bay Unit

    Unit 21 consists of the coastal watersheds of San Luis Obispo 
County from Arroyo de la Cruz south to Los Osos Creek. The unit 
encompasses approximately 92,690 (229,030 ac), of which 94 percent is 
privately owned; the remaining 6 percent is managed by CDPR and Federal 

Unit 22. Lopez Lake-Arroyo Grande Creek Unit

    Unit 22 consists of the watersheds of Arroyo Grande Creek and its 
tributaries; these include Los Berros Creek, Tarspring Creek, Guaya 
Canyon, Carpenter Canyon, Wittenberg Creek, Clapboard Canyon, Vasquez 
Creek, Big Falls Canyon, Nipomo Mesa, and Cienega Valley in San Luis 
Obispo County. The unit encompasses approximately 36,160 ha (89,350 
ac), of which 80 percent is privately owned and the remaining 20 
percent is managed by Los Padres National Forest and BLM.

Unit 23. Coastal Dunes Unit

    Unit 23 consists of coastal watersheds comprising the coastal dune 
ponds from Arroyo Grande south to San Antonio Creek in San Luis Obispo 
and Santa Barbara counties. The unit encompasses approximately 43,810 
ha (108,250 ac), of which 49 percent is managed by Federal, State, and 
local municipalities (primarily DOD and CDPR), with the remaining 51 
percent in private ownership.

Unit 24. Santa Ynez River Unit

    Unit 24 consists of watersheds forming the Santa Ynez River in 
Santa Barbara County. The unit encompasses approximately 117,070 ha 
(289,270 ac), of which approximately 59 percent is privately owned; the 
remaining 41 percent is managed by the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) and 
Los Padres National Forest.

Unit 25. Sisquoc River Unit

    Unit 25 consists of watersheds forming the drainages of the Sisquoc 
River in Santa Barbara County. These include the Cherokee Spring, 
Ernest Blanco Spring, Horse Canyon, La Brea Creek, Manzano Creek, Peach 
Tree Spring, and the Lower Sisquoc River watersheds. The unit 
encompasses approximately 55,260 ha (136,550 ac), of which 45 percent 
is privately owned, and 55 percent is managed by the Los Padres 
National Forest.

Unit 26. Coastal Santa Barbara Unit

    Unit 26 consists of coastal tributaries including the Bear Creek 
watershed, east to and including the Ellwood Canyon watershed in Santa 
Barbara County. The unit encompasses approximately 56,440 ha (139,470 
ac), of which 36 percent is managed by the Los Padres National Forest 
and the CDPR; the remaining 64 percent is privately owned.

Unit 27. Matilija-Sespe-Piru Creek Unit

    This unit consists of watersheds that comprise portions of the 
Matilija, Sespe, and Piru Creek drainages in Santa Barbara, Ventura, 
and Los Angeles counties. The unit encompasses approximately 149,750 ha 
(370,030 ac), of which 96 percent is managed by the Los Padres National 
Forest and 4 percent is privately owned.

Unit 28. San Francisquito-Amargosa Creek Unit

    This unit consists of the drainages that consist of San 
Francisquito and Amargosa Creeks in Los Angeles County, including all 
or parts of the Lancaster, Rock Creek, Acton, Bouquet Eastern, Mint 
Canyon, and Sierra Pelona watersheds. The unit encompasses 
approximately 83,760 ha (206,960 ac), of which 55 percent is privately 
owned; the remaining 45 percent is primarily managed by the Angeles 
National Forest.

Unit 29. Malibu Coastal Unit

    This unit consists of the upper coastal watersheds in Ventura and 
Los Angeles counties that drain into the Pacific Ocean near Malibu, 
including the West La Virgenes Canyon, Lindero Canyon, Sherwood, 
Triunfo Canyon, East La Virgenes Canyon, and Monte Nido watersheds. The 
unit encompasses approximately 29,960 ha (74,030 ac), of which 
approximately 77 percent is privately owned and 23 percent is managed 
in part by the NPS, CDPR, and local municipalities.

Unit 30. Santa Rosa Plateau/Santa Ana Mountains Unit

    This unit includes portions of the Santa Rosa Plateau Ecological 
Reserve, the Santa Rosa Plateau, and the southern extent of the Santa 
Ana Mountains in Riverside and San Diego counties, including portions 
of Deluz Creek, Murrieta, and San Mateo Canyon watersheds. The unit 
encompasses approximately 25,000 ha (61,770 ac), of which approximately 
66 percent is managed by the U.S. Forest Service (Forest Service); 
approximately 30 percent is privately owned (a portion of which is 
owned by The Nature Conservancy); and the remaining 4 percent is 
managed by the State of California.

[[Page 54902]]

Unit 31. Tujunga Unit

    This unit consists of portions of the Tujunga watershed in Los 
Angeles County. The unit encompasses approximately 36,290 ha (89,660 
ac), of which approximately 91 percent is managed by the Forest 
Service, 6 percent is privately owned, and the remaining 3 percent is 
managed by the State of California.

Effects of Critical Habitat Designation

Section 7  Consultation

    Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the 
Service, to ensure that actions they fund, authorize, or carry out do 
not destroy or adversely modify critical habitat to the extent that the 
action appreciably diminishes the value of the critical habitat for the 
survival and recovery of the species. Individuals, organizations, 
States, local governments, and other non-Federal entities are affected 
by the designation of critical habitat only if their actions occur on 
Federal lands, require a Federal permit, license, or other 
authorization, or involve Federal funding.
    Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies to evaluate their 
actions with respect to any species that is proposed or listed as 
endangered or threatened and with respect to its critical habitat, if 
any is designated or proposed. Regulations implementing this 
interagency cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR 
part 402. Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to 
confer with us on any action that is likely to jeopardize the continued 
existence of a proposed species or result in destruction or adverse 
modification of proposed critical habitat. Conference reports provide 
conservation recommendations to assist the agency in eliminating 
conflicts that may be caused by the proposed action. The conservation 
recommendations in a conference report are advisory.
    We may issue a formal conference report if requested by a Federal 
agency. Formal conference reports on proposed critical habitat contain 
an opinion that is prepared according to 50 CFR 402.14, as if critical 
habitat were designated. We may adopt the formal conference report as 
the biological opinion when the critical habitat is designated, if no 
substantial new information or changes in the action alter the content 
of the opinion (see 50 CFR 402.10(d)).
    If a species is listed or critical habitat is designated, section 
7(a)(2) requires Federal agencies to ensure that activities they 
authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the 
continued existence of such a species or to destroy or adversely modify 
its critical habitat. If a Federal action may affect a listed species 
or its critical habitat, the responsible Federal agency (action agency) 
must enter into consultation with us. Through this consultation, we 
ensure that the actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical 
    When we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is 
likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical 
habitat, we also provide reasonable and prudent alternatives to the 
project, if any are identifiable. Reasonable and prudent alternatives 
are defined at 50 CFR 402.02 as alternative actions identified during 
consultation that can be implemented in a manner consistent with the 
intended purpose of the action, that are consistent with the scope of 
the Federal agency's legal authority and jurisdiction, that are 
economically and technologically feasible, and that the Director 
believes would avoid the likelihood of jeopardizing the continued 
existence of listed species and avoid the destruction or adverse 
modification of critical habitat. Reasonable and prudent alternatives 
can vary from slight project modifications to extensive redesign or 
relocation of the project. Costs associated with implementing a 
reasonable and prudent alternative are similarly variable.
    Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require Federal agencies to reinitiate 
consultation in instances where we have already reviewed an action for 
its effects on a listed species if critical habitat is subsequently 
designated. Consequently, some Federal agencies may request 
reinitiation of consultation or conferencing with us on actions for 
which formal consultation has been completed, if those actions may 
affect designated critical habitat or adversely modify or destroy 
proposed critical habitat.
    Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to describe in any proposed 
or final regulation that designates critical habitat a description and 
evaluation of those activities involving a Federal action that may 
adversely modify or destroy such habitat or that may be affected by 
such designation. When determining whether any of these activities may 
adversely modify or destroy critical habitat, we base our analysis on 
the effects of the action on the entire critical habitat area and not 
just on the portion where the activity will occur. Adverse effects on 
constituent elements or individual segments of critical habitat units 
generally do not result in an adverse modification determination unless 
that loss, when added to the environmental baseline, is likely to 
appreciably diminish the capability of the critical habitat to satisfy 
essential requirements of the species. In other words, activities that 
may destroy or adversely modify critical habitat include those that 
alter the primary constituent elements (defined above) to an extent 
that the value of critical habitat for both the survival and recovery 
of the California red-legged frog is appreciably reduced.
    To properly portray the effects of critical habitat designation, we 
must first compare the section 7 requirements for actions that may 
affect critical habitat with the requirements for actions that may 
affect a listed species. Section 7 prohibits actions funded, 
authorized, or carried out by Federal agencies from jeopardizing the 
continued existence of a listed species or destroying or adversely 
modifying the listed species' critical habitat. Actions likely to 
``jeopardize the continued existence'' of a species are those that 
would appreciably reduce the likelihood of the species' survival and 
recovery (50 CFR 402.02). Actions likely to ``destroy or adversely 
modify'' critical habitat are those that would appreciably reduce the 
value of critical habitat for the survival and recovery of the listed 
species (50 CFR 402.02).
    Common to both definitions is an appreciable detrimental effect on 
both survival and recovery of a listed species. Given the similarity of 
these definitions, actions likely to destroy or adversely modify 
critical habitat would almost always result in jeopardy to the species 
concerned when the habitat is occupied by the species. The purpose of 
designating critical habitat is to contribute to a species' 
conservation, which by definition equates to survival and recovery. 
Section 7 prohibitions against the destruction or adverse modification 
of critical habitat apply to actions that would impair survival and 
recovery of the listed species. As a result of the direct link between 
critical habitat and recovery, the prohibition against destruction or 
adverse modification of the critical habitat should provide for the 
protection of the critical habitat's ability to contribute fully to a 
species' recovery. In those cases, the ramifications of its designation 
are few or none. Designation of critical habitat for the California 
red-legged frog is not likely to result in a regulatory burden above 
that already in place due to the presence of the listed species in 
areas currently occupied. In those cases where proposed actions occur 
in unoccupied critical habitat, it is conceivable that an action that 
adversely modifies

[[Page 54903]]

unoccupied critical habitat would not also result in a jeopardy 
conclusion in a section 7 consultation; this would result in an 
additional level of regulatory protection on lands where Federally 
authorized activities occur.
    Activities that, when carried out, funded, or authorized by a 
Federal agency, that may affect critical habitat and require that a 
section 7 consultation be conducted include, but are not limited to:
    (1) Sale, exchange, or lease of lands owned by Bureau of Land 
Management (BLM), U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR), Department of 
Defense (DOD), Department of Energy (DOE), National Park Service (NPS), 
or Forest Service (USFS);
    (2) Regulation of activities affecting waters of the United States 
by the Army Corps of Engineers under section 404 of the Clean Water 
    (3) Regulation of water flows, water delivery, damming, diversion, 
and channelization by the Bureau of Reclamation and the Army Corps of 
Engineers or other water transfers, diversion, or impoundment, 
groundwater pumping, irrigation activity that causes barriers or 
deterrents to dispersal, inundates or drains habitat, or significantly 
converts habitat;
    (4) Regulation of grazing, recreation, mining, or logging by the 
    (5) Funding and implementation of disaster relief projects by the 
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), including erosion control, 
flood control, streambank repair to reduce the risk of loss of 
    (6) Funding and regulation of new road construction or road 
improvements by the Federal Highways Administration;
    (7) Funding of construction or development activities by the 
Department of Housing and Urban Development or other agencies that 
destroy, fragment, or appreciably degrade suitable habitat;
    (8) Clearing of vegetation and hydrological modifications by the 
Department of Energy or other agencies; and
    (9) Promulgation of air and water quality standards under the Clean 
Air Act and the Clean Water Act and the clean up of toxic waste and 
superfund sites under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 
and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
Liability Act (CERCLA) by the EPA.
    Activities on private or State lands requiring a permit or funding 
from a Federal agency, such as a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers (Army Corps) under section 404 of the Clean Water Act, or 
some other Federal action, including funding (e.g., Federal Highway 
Administration, Federal Aviation Administration, or Federal Emergency 
Management Agency) will also continue to be subject to the section 7 
consultation process. Federal actions not affecting listed species or 
critical habitat and actions on non-Federal lands that are not 
federally funded or permitted do not require section 7 consultation.
    Any of the above activities that appreciably diminish the value of 
critical habitat to the degree that they affect the survival and 
recovery of the California red-legged frog may be considered an adverse 
modification of critical habitat. We note that such activities may also 
jeopardize the continued existence of the species.
    If you have questions regarding whether specific activities will 
constitute adverse modification of critical habitat, contact the Field 
Supervisor at our Sacramento, Ventura, or Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife 
Offices (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section). Requests for 
copies of the regulations on listed wildlife, and inquiries about 
prohibitions and permits may be addressed to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, Branch of Endangered Species, 911 N.E. 11th Ave, Portland, OR 
97232 (telephone 503/231-2063; facsimile 503/231-6243).

Relationship to Habitat Conservation Plans

    A number of small habitat conservation planning efforts have been 
completed within the range of the California red-legged frog. Habitat 
conservation plans (HCPs) currently under development are intended to 
provide for protection and management of habitat areas essential for 
the conservation of the California red-legged frog, while directing 
development and habitat modification to nonessential areas of lower 
habitat value. The HCP development process provides an opportunity for 
more intensive data collection and analysis regarding the use of 
particular habitat areas by the California red-legged frog. The process 
also enables us to conduct detailed evaluations of the importance of 
such lands to the long-term survival of the species in the context of 
constructing a suitable breeding and nonbreeding habitat within a 
matrix of dispersal habitat. We fully expect that HCPs undertaken by 
local jurisdictions (e.g., counties, cities) and other parties will 
identify, protect, and provide appropriate management for those 
specific lands within the boundaries of the plans that are essential 
for the long-term conservation of the species. We believe and fully 
expect that our analyses of proposed HCPs and proposed projects under 
section 7 will show that covered activities carried out in accordance 
with the provisions of the HCPs and biological opinions will not result 
in destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
    We provide technical assistance and work closely with applicants 
throughout the development of HCPs to identify lands essential for the 
long-term conservation of California red-legged frogs and appropriate 
conservation and management actions. Several HCP efforts are currently 
under way that address listed and nonlisted species in areas within the 
range of the California red-legged frogs and in areas we propose as 
critical habitat. These HCPs, which will incorporate appropriate 
adaptive management, should provide for the conservation of the 
species. Furthermore, we will complete intra-service consultation on 
our issuance of section 10(a)(1)(B) permits for these HCPs to ensure 
permit issuance will not destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. 
We are soliciting comments on whether future approval of HCPs and 
issuance of section 10(a)(1)(B) permits for the California red-legged 
frog should trigger revision of designated critical habitat to exclude 
lands within the HCP area and, if so, by what mechanism (see Public 
Comments Solicited section).

Economic Analysis

    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires us to designate critical 
habitat on the basis of the best scientific and commercial information 
available, and to consider the economic and other relevant impacts of 
designating a particular area as critical habitat. We may exclude areas 
from critical habitat upon a determination that the benefits of such 
exclusions outweigh the benefits of designating these areas as critical 
habitat. We cannot exclude areas from critical habitat when the 
exclusion will result in the extinction of the species. We will conduct 
an analysis of the economic impacts of designating these areas as 
critical habitat prior to a final determination. When completed, we 
will announce the availability of the draft economic analysis with a 
notice in the Federal Register, and, if necessary, reopen the comment 
period at that time to accept comments on the economic analysis or 
further comments on the proposed rule.

[[Page 54904]]

Public Comments Solicited

    We intend that any final action resulting from this proposal will 
be as accurate and as effective as possible.
    Therefore, we solicit comments or suggestions from the public, 
other concerned governmental agencies, the scientific community, 
industry, or any other interested party concerning this proposed rule. 
We particularly seek comments concerning:
    (1) The reasons why any habitat should or should not be determined 
to be critical habitat for California red-legged frogs as provided by 
section 4 of the Act, including whether the benefits of designation 
will outweigh any benefits of exclusion;
    (2) Specific information on the distribution of California red-
legged frogs, the amount and distribution of the species' habitat, and 
what habitat is essential to the conservation of the species, and why;
    (3) Land use practices and current or planned activities in the 
subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat;
    (4) Any foreseeable economic or other impacts resulting from the 
proposed designation of critical habitat, including, in particular, any 
impacts on small entities or families; and
    (5) Economic and other values associated with designating critical 
habitat for California red-legged frogs, such as those derived from 
nonconsumptive uses (e.g., hiking, camping, bird-watching, enhanced 
watershed protection, improved air quality, increased soil retention, 
``existence values'', and reductions in administrative costs).
    In this proposed rule, we do not propose to designate critical 
habitat on non-Federal lands within the boundaries of any existing HCP 
with an executed Implementation Agreement and permit for California 
red-legged frogs approved under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act on or 
before the date of the final rule designating critical habitat. We 
believe that, since an existing HCP provides long-term commitments to 
conserve the species and areas essential to the conservation of 
California red-legged frogs, such areas do not meet the definition of 
critical habitat because they do not need special management 
considerations or protection. However, we are soliciting comments on 
the appropriateness of this approach, and on the following or other 
alternative approaches for critical habitat designation in areas 
covered by existing approved HCPs:
    (1) Designate critical habitat without regard to existing HCP 
boundaries and allow the section 7 consultation process on the issuance 
of the incidental take permit to ensure that any take we authorized 
will not destroy or adversely modify critical habitat;
    (2) Designate reserves, preserves, and other conservation lands 
identified by approved HCPs on the premise that they encompass areas 
that are essential to conservation of the species within the HCP area 
and will continue to require special management protection in the 
future. Under this approach, all other lands covered by existing 
approved HCPs where incidental take for California red-legged frogs is 
authorized under a legally operative permit pursuant to section 
10(a)(1)(B) of the Act would be excluded from critical habitat.
    The amount of critical habitat we designate for California red-
legged frogs in a final rule may either increase or decrease, depending 
upon which approach we adopt for dealing with designation in areas of 
existing approved HCPs.
    Several conservation planning efforts are now under way within the 
range of the California red-legged frog, and other listed and nonlisted 
species, in areas we are proposing as critical habitat. Where these 
HCPs are currently under development, we are proposing to designate as 
critical habitat the areas that we believe are essential to the 
conservation of the species and that need special management or 
protection. We invite comments on the appropriateness of this approach.
    In addition, we invite comments on the following, or other 
approaches, for addressing critical habitat within the boundaries of 
future approved HCPs upon issuance of section 10(a)(1)(B) permits for 
California red-legged frogs:
    (1) Retain critical habitat designation within the HCP boundaries 
and use the section 7 consultation process on the issuance of the 
incidental take permit to ensure that any take we authorize will not 
destroy or adversely modify critical habitat;
    (2) Revise the critical habitat designation upon approval of the 
HCP and issuance of the section 10(a)(1)(B) permit to retain only 
preserve areas, on the premise that they encompass areas essential for 
the conservation of the species within the HCP area and require special 
management and protection in the future. Assuming that we conclude, at 
the time an HCP is approved and the associated incidental take permit 
is issued, that the plan protects those areas essential to the 
conservation of California red-legged frogs, we would revise the 
critical habitat designation to exclude areas outside the reserves, 
preserves, or other conservation lands established under the plan. 
Consistent with our listing program priorities, we would publish a 
proposed rule in the Federal Register to revise the critical habitat 
boundaries; or
    (3) Remove designated critical habitat entirely from within the 
boundaries of an HCP when the plan is approved (including preserve 
lands), on the premise that the HCP establishes long-term commitments 
to conserve the species, and no further special management or 
protection is required. Consistent with our listing program priorities, 
we would publish a proposed rule in the Federal Register to revise the 
critical habitat boundaries.
    Our practice is to make comments, including names and home 
addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular 
business hours. Individual respondents may request that we withhold 
their home address from the rulemaking record, which we will honor to 
the extent allowable by law. In some circumstances, we would withhold 
from the rulemaking record a respondent's identity, as allowable by 
law. If you wish us to withhold your name and/or address, you must 
state this prominently at the beginning of your comments. However, we 
will not consider anonymous comments. We will make all submissions from 
organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying 
themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or 
businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety.
    If you would like to submit comments by e-mail (see ADDRESSES 
section), please submit as an ASCII file and avoid the use of special 
characters and any form of encryption. Please also include ``Attn: RIN 
1018-AG32'' and your name and return address in your e-mail message. If 
you do not receive a confirmation from the system that we have received 
your e-mail message, contact us directly by calling our Sacramento Fish 
and Wildlife Office at phone number 916/414-6600.

Peer Review

    In accordance with our policy published in the Federal Register on 
July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we will seek the expert opinions of at 
least three appropriate and independent specialists regarding this 
proposed rule. The purpose of such review is to ensure listing 
decisions are based on scientifically sound data, assumptions, and 
analyses. We will send these peer reviewers copies of this proposed 
rule immediately following publication in the Federal Register. We will 
invite these peer reviewers to comment,

[[Page 54905]]

during the public comment period, on the specific assumptions and 
conclusions regarding the proposed designation of critical habitat.
    We will consider all comments and information received during the 
comment period on this proposed rule during preparation of a final 
rulemaking. Accordingly, the final decision may differ from this 

Public Hearings

    The Act provides for one or more public hearings on this proposal, 
if requested. We will conduct four public hearings on this proposal, 
for commenters who may wish to make their comments orally. The hearings 
will take place on:
    (1) Tuesday, September 19, 2000, at the Holiday Inn Ventura, 450 
East Harbor Blvd., Ventura, California. There will be two sessions: An 
afternoon session from 1 to 3 pm, and an evening session from 6 to 8 
    (2) Thursday, September 21, 2000, at the Embassy Suites, 333 
Madonna Road, San Luis Obispo, California. There will be two sessions: 
an afternoon session from 1 to 3 pm, and an evening session from 6 to 8 
    (3) Tuesday, September 26, 2000, at the Best Western Monarch Hotel, 
6680 Regional Street, Dublin, California. There will be two sessions: 
an afternoon session from 1 to 3 pm, and an evening session from 6 to 8 
    (4) Thursday, September 28, 2000, at the Holiday Inn Sacramento 
Northeast, 5321 Date Avenue, Sacramento, California. There will be two 
sessions: an afternoon session from 1 to 3 pm, and an evening session 
from 6 to 8 pm.
    Anyone wishing to make an oral statement for the record is 
encouraged to provide a written copy of their statement and present it 
to us at the hearing. In the event of large attendance, the time 
allotted for oral statements may be limited. Oral and written 
statements receive equal consideration. There are no limits to the 
length of written comments presented at the hearing or mailed to us.

Clarity of the Rule

    Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write regulations/
notices that are easy to understand. We invite your comments on how to 
make proposed rules easier to understand including answers to questions 
such as the following:
    (1) Are the requirements in the document clearly stated?
    (2) Does the proposed rule contain technical language or jargon 
that interferes with the clarity?
    (3) Does the format of the proposed rule (grouping and order of 
sections, use of headings, paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce its 
    (4) Is the description of the proposed rule in the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section of the preamble helpful in understanding the 
proposed rule? What else could we do to make the proposed rule easier 
to understand?

Required Determinations

Regulatory Planning and Review

    In accordance with Executive Order 12866, this document is a 
significant rule and has been reviewed by the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB), under Executive Order 12866.
    (a) This rule will not have an annual economic effect of $100 
million or more or adversely affect an economic sector, productivity, 
jobs, the environment, or other units of government.
    Under the Act, critical habitat may not be adversely modified by a 
Federal agency action; critical habitat does not impose any 
restrictions on non-Federal persons unless they are conducting 
activities funded or otherwise sponsored or permitted by a Federal 
agency (Table 2). Section 7 requires Federal agencies to ensure that 
they do not jeopardize the continued existence of the species. Based 
upon our experience with the species and its needs, we conclude that 
any Federal action or authorized action on occupied habitat that could 
potentially cause destruction or adverse modification of the proposed 
critical habitat would currently be considered as ``jeopardy'' under 
the Act. Accordingly, the designation of critical habitat does not have 
any incremental impacts on what actions may or may not be conducted by 
Federal agencies or non-Federal persons that receive Federal 
authorization or funding in areas currently occupied by California red-
legged frogs. However, on the unoccupied lands proposed as critical 
habitat, 90 percent of which are Federal lands, a Federal action could 
potentially cause an adverse modification of proposed critical habitat, 
but not be considered as ``jeopardy'' under the Act. Therefore, there 
is an addition incremental impact in these circumstances. Non-Federal 
persons that do not have any Federal involvement with their actions are 
not restricted by the designation of critical habitat; however, they 
continue to be bound by the provisions of the Act concerning take of 
the species.

  Table 2.--Impacts of California Red-legged Frog Listing and Critical
                           Habitat Designation
                                   Activities            activities
                              potentially affected  potentially affected
  Categories of activities     by species listing    by critical habitat
                                    only \1\          critical habitat
                                                       designation \1\
Federal Activities            Grazing permits,      None in occupied
 Potentially Affected \2\.     commercial or or      habitat. In
                               silvicultural         unoccupied habitat,
                               logging               no additional types
                               prescriptions, 404    of activities will
                               permits, Flood        be affected, but
                               Control projects,     consultation,
                               Federal Emergency     previously not
                               Management Act        required due to
                               (FEMA) activities,    listing, will be
                               Federal Highway       required on these
                               Administration        activities.
                               actions, Federal
                               Housing Act actions.
Private or other non-Federal  Activities that       None in occupied
 Activities Potentially        require a Federal     habitat. In
 Affected \3\.                 action (permit,       unoccupied habitat,
                               authorization, or     no additional types
                               funding) and may      of.
                               remove or destroy
                               California red-
                               legged frog habitat
                               by mechanical,
                               chemical, or other
                               means (e.g.,
                               overgrazing, timber
                               harvesting within
                               riparian areas,
                               construction, road
                               building, herbicide
                               recreational use)
                               or appreciably
                               decrease habitat
                               value or quality
                               through indirect
                               effects (e.g., edge
                               effects, invasion
                               of exotic plants or
                               fragmentation of
\1\ These columns represent activities potentially affected by the
  critical habitat designation in addition to those activities
  potentially affected by listing the species.
\2\ Activities initiated by a Federal agency.

[[Page 54906]]

\3\ Activities initiated by a private or other non-Federal entity that
  may need Federal authorization or funding.

    (b) This rule will not create inconsistencies with other agencies' 
actions. As discussed above, Federal agencies have been required to 
ensure that their actions do not jeopardize the continued existence of 
the California red-legged frog since the listing in 1996. The 
prohibition against adverse modification of critical habitat is not 
expected to impose any additional restrictions to those that currently 
exist in the proposed critical habitat on currently occupied lands. 
There may be additional restrictions for unoccupied lands. However, we 
will continue to review this proposed action for any inconsistencies 
with other Federal agency actions.
    (c) This rule will not materially affect entitlements, grants, user 
fees, loan programs, or the rights and obligations of their recipients. 
Federal agencies are currently required to ensure that their activities 
do not jeopardize the continued existence of the species, and, as 
discussed above, we do not anticipate that the adverse modification 
prohibition (resulting from critical habitat designation) will have any 
incremental effects in areas of critical habitat currently occupied, 
and only minimal effects in areas currently unoccupied since the areas 
being proposed as unoccupied critical habitat is primarily on Federal 
    (d) This rule will not raise novel legal or policy issues. The 
proposed rule follows the requirements for determining critical habitat 
contained in the Endangered Species Act.

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)

    In the economic analysis (under section 4 of the Act), we will 
determine whether designation of critical habitat will have a 
significant effect on a substantial number of small entities. As 
discussed under Regulatory Planning and Review above, this rule is not 
expected to result in any restrictions in addition to those currently 
in existence for occupied areas of critical habitat. As indicated on 
Table 1 (see Proposed Critical Habitat Designation section), we propose 
designation of property owned by State and local governments and 
private property and identify the types of Federal actions or 
authorized activities that are of potential concern (Table 2). If these 
activities are sponsored by Federal agencies, they may be carried out 
by small entities (as defined by the Regulatory Flexibility Act) 
through contract, grant, permit, or other Federal authorization. As 
discussed above, these actions are currently required to comply with 
the listing protections of the Act, and the designation of critical 
habitat is not anticipated to have any additional effects on these 
activities in areas of critical habitat except on unoccupied lands 
proposed as critical habitat, 90 percent of which are on Federal lands. 
For actions on non-Federal property that do not have a Federal 
connection (such as funding or authorization), the current restrictions 
concerning take of the species remain in effect, and this rule will 
have no additional restrictions.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (5 U.S.C. 

    In the economic analysis, we will determine whether designation of 
critical habitat will cause (a) any effect on the economy of $100 
million or more, (b) any increases in costs or prices for consumers, 
individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or 
geographic regions in the economic analysis, or (c) any significant 
adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, 
innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with 
foreign-based enterprises. As discussed above, we anticipate that the 
designation of critical habitat will not have any additional effects on 
these activities in occupied areas of critical habitat.

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.):
    (a) This rule will not ``significantly or uniquely'' affect small 
governments. A Small Government Agency Plan is not required. 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 modify or destroy the 
critical habitat. However, as discussed above, these actions are 
currently subject to equivalent restrictions through the listing 
protections of the species, and no further restrictions are anticipated 
to result from critical habitat designation on occupied lands.
    (b) This rule will not produce a Federal mandate of $100 million or 
greater in any year, that is, it is not a ``significant regulatory 
action'' under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. The designation of 
critical habitat imposes no obligations on State or local governments.


    In accordance with Executive Order 12630, this rule does not have 
significant takings implications. A takings implication assessment is 
not required. As discussed above, the designation of critical habitat 
affects only Federal agency actions. The rule will not increase or 
decrease the current restrictions on private property concerning take 
of the California red-legged frog. Due to current public knowledge of 
the species protection, the prohibition against take of the species 
both within and outside of the designated areas, the fact that critical 
habitat on occupied lands provides no incremental restrictions, and 
because 90 percent of the unoccupied lands occur on Federal lands, we 
do not anticipate that property values will be affected by the critical 
habitat designation. Additionally, critical habitat designation does 
not preclude development of habitat conservation plans and issuance of 
incidental take permits. Landowners in areas that are included in the 
designated critical habitat will continue to have opportunity to 
utilize their property in ways consistent with the survival of the 
California red-legged frog. This proposed rule will not ``take'' 
private property and will not alter the value of private property. 
Critical habitat designation is only applicable to Federal lands and to 
private lands if a Federal nexus exists.


    In accordance with Executive Order 13132, the rule does not have 
significant Federalism effects. A Federalism assessment is not 
required. In keeping with Department of the Interior and Department of 
Commerce policy, the Service requested information from and coordinated 
development of this critical habitat proposal with appropriate State 
resource agencies in California. We will continue to coordinate any 
future designation of critical habitat for the California red-legged 
frog with the appropriate State agencies. The designation of critical 
habitat in areas currently occupied by the California red-legged frog 
imposes no additional restrictions to those currently in place and, 
therefore, has little incremental impact on State and local governments 
and their activities. The designation may have some benefit to these 
governments in that the areas essential to the conservation of the 
species are more clearly defined, and the primary constituent elements 
of the habitat

[[Page 54907]]

necessary to the survival of the species are specifically identified. 
While making this definition and identification does not alter where 
and what federally sponsored activities may occur, it may assist these 
local governments in long-range planning (rather than waiting for case-
by-case section 7 consultations to occur).

Civil Justice Reform

    In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Office of the 
Solicitor has determined that the rule does not unduly burden the 
judicial system and meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) 
of the Order. We designate critical habitat in accordance with the 
provisions of the Act, and plan public hearings on the proposed 
designation during the comment period. The rule uses standard property 
descriptions and identifies the primary constituent elements within the 
designated areas to assist the public in understanding the habitat 
needs of the California red-legged frog.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)

    This rule does not contain any information collection requirements 
for which Office of Management and Budget approval under the Paperwork 
Reduction Act is required. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a 
person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless 
it displays a valid OMB Control Number.

National Environmental Policy Act

    We have determined that we do not need to prepare an Environmental 
Assessment and/or an Environmental Impact Statement as defined by the 
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 in connection with 
regulations adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act. We published a 
notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the Federal 
Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).

Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

    In accordance with the Presidential Memorandum of April 29, 1994, 
we believe that, to the maximum extent possible, tribes should be the 
governmental entities to manage their lands and tribal trust resources. 
To this end, we support tribal measures that preclude the need for 
Federal conservation regulations. We provide technical assistance to 
Indian tribes who wish assistance in developing and expanding tribal 
programs for the management of healthy ecosystems so that Federal 
conservation regulations, such as designation of critical habitat, on 
tribal lands are unnecessary.
    The Presidential Memorandum of April 29, 1994, also requires us to 
consult with the tribes on matters that affect them, and section 
4(b)(2) of the Act requires us to gather information regarding the 
designation of critical habitat and the effects thereof from all 
relevant sources, including the tribes. Recognizing a government-to-
government relationship with tribes and our Federal trust 
responsibility, we will consult with the Indian tribes that might be 
affected by the designation of critical habitat.
    Due to the time constraints imposed by the court order, we will 
make every effort to consult with Santa Ynez Band of the Chumash 
Mission Indians during the comment period for this proposal to gain 
information on--(1) possible effects if critical habitat were 
designated on Indian reservation lands; and (2) possible effects on 
tribal resources resulting from designation of critical habitat on non-
tribal lands. We will meet with each potentially affected tribe to 
ensure that consultation on critical habitat issues occurs in a timely 

References Cited

    A complete list of all references cited in this proposed rule is 
available upon request from the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office 
(see ADDRESSES section).
    Authors: The primary authors of this notice are Curt McCasland and 
Brian Twedt, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service (see ADDRESSES section).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

    Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

    For the reasons given in the preamble above, we propose to amend 50 
CFR part 17 as set forth below:


    1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C. 
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.

    2. In Sec. 17.11(h) revise the entry for ``Frog, California red-
legged,'' under ``amphibians,'' to read as follows:

Sec. 17.11  Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

                      Species                                             Vertebrate population
----------------------------------------------------   Historic range      where endangered or      Status     When listed      Critical       Special
          Common name              Scientific name                             threatened                                       habitat         rules

                   *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *

                   *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *
Frog, California Red-legged....  Rana aurora         U.S.A.(CA), Mexico  Entire (excluding) Del  T                     583  17.95(d)                  NA
                                  draytonii.                              Norte, Humboldt,
                                                                          Trinity, and
                                                                          Mendocino Cos., CA;
                                                                          Glenn, Lake, And
                                                                          Sonoma Cos., CA, west
                                                                          of the Central Valley
                                                                          Hydrologic Basin;
                                                                          Sonoma and Marin
                                                                          Cos., CA, west and
                                                                          north of San
                                                                          Francisco Bay
                                                                          drainages and Walker
                                                                          Creek drainage; and

                   *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *

[[Page 54908]]

    3. Amend Sec. 17.95(d) by adding critical habitat for the 
California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii) in the same 
alphabetical order as this species occurs in 17.11(h), to read as 

Sec. 17.95  Critical habitat--fish and wildlife.

* * * * *
    (d) Amphibians.
* * * * *
California Red-Legged Frog (Rana aurora draytonii) 
    Primary constituent elements of the California red-legged frog, 
found in the designated watersheds in the following 31 units, include 
aquatic, dispersal, and upland habitat components. Aquatic components 
consists of all still or slow-flowing freshwater aquatic features 
possessing minimum water depths of 20 cm (8 in.), with the exception of 
deep lacustrine water habitat (lakes and reservoirs) inhabited by 
nonnative predators, that are essential for providing space, food, and 
cover needed to sustain eggs, tadpoles, metamorphosing juveniles, 
nonbreeding subadults, and breeding and nonbreeding adult frogs, and 
are found in areas with two or more suitable breeding locations and a 
permanent water source with no more than 2 km (1.25 mi) separating 
these locations. Dispersal habitat consists of upland and aquatic 
areas, free of barriers, essential for providing connectivity between 
aquatic areas identified above. Upland habitat component are areas 
within 150 m (500 ft) from the edge of the aquatic primary constituent 
element. In situations where a watershed boundary is less than 150 m 
(500 ft) from suitable habitat, the top of the watershed shall be the 
boundary for this constituent element. Existing features and 
structures, such as buildings, roads, railroads, urban development, and 
other features not containing primary constituent elements, are not 
considered critical habitat.

[[Page 54909]]



[[Page 54910]]

    Map Unit 1: The following watersheds in Plumas and/or Butte 
Counties, California: Grizzly Creek (1841), Mosquito Creek (1845), 
Caribou (1886), Rock Creek Reservoir (1926), Milk Ranch Creek (2008), 
Right Hand Salt Rock Creek (2025), Rainbow Point (2052), Haskins Valley 
(2103), Grizzly Forebay (2083), Duffey Dome (2092), Coyote Gap (2166), 
Bush Creek (2181), Kelly Reservoir (2204), Mosquito Creek (2236), Chino 
Creek (2201), Dogwood Creek (2112), Lockerman Creek (2077), Swamp Creek 
(2067), Lower Bucks Creek (2046), North Valley Creek (2011), Flying Pan 
(1965), Chambers Creek (1986), Chips Creek (1929), Squirrel Creek 
(1912), and Soda Creek (1881).

    Note: Map follows:

    Map Unit 2: The following watersheds in Plumas, Butte, Sierra, and/
or Yuba counties, California: Rock Creek (2285), Lewis Flat (2316), 
Gold Run (2304), Brushy Creek (2345), Indian Creek (2446), and Oroleve 
Creek (2410).

    Note: Map follows:


[[Page 54911]]



[[Page 54912]]

    Map Unit 3: The following watersheds in El Dorado County, 
California: North Fork Weber Creek (3127), Jenkinson Lake (3133), Hazel 
Creek (3135), North Sly Park Creek (3145), Headwaters Camp Creek 
(3189), Leek Spring Valley (3225), Capps Crossing (3222), North Steely 
Creek (3246), North Canyon (3224), Van Horn Creek (3202), Snow Creek 
(3167), Clear Creek (3157), South Fork Weber Creek (3160), Ringold 
Creek (3164), and China Creek (3159).

    Note: Map follows:

    Map Unit 4: The following watersheds in Calaveras County, 
California: Lower O'Neil Creek (3586), Dirty Gulch (3594), Old Gulch 
(3634), Middle San Antonio Creek (3583), Indian Creek (3639), and Upper 
San Domingo Creek (3620).

    Note: Map follows:

    Map Unit 5: The following watersheds in Tuolumne and/or Mariposa 
counties, California: North Fork Cherry Creek (3593), East Fork Cherry 
Creek (3613), Upper Jack Main Canyon (3626), Tilden Creek (3650), 
Stubblefield Canyon (3660), Thompson Canyon (3648), Kerrick Canyon 
(3664), Breeze Creek (3748), Tueulala (3796), Poopenaut Valley (3822), 
Base Line Camp (3840), Preston Falls (3858), Corral Creek (3827), Gold 
Queen Mine (3930), Jordan Creek (3989), Hells Hollow Creek (3940), 
Grapevine Creek (3863), Hunter Creek (3815), Basin Creek (3758), 
Sugarpine Creek (3675), Brownes Meadow (3631), Bell Creek (3618), Lily 
Creek (3615), Piute Creek (3610), Spring Creek (3600), Buck Meadow 
Creek (3608), Cherry Lake (3763), Lake Eleanor (3791), Rosasco Lake 
(3659), Wilson Ridge (3806), White Fir Creek (3737), Big Lake (3661), 
Kibble Creek (3709), Plum Flat (3850), Granite Creek (3834), Miguel 
Creek (3783), Kendrick Creek (3658), Bartlett Creek (3706), Eleanor 
Creek (3723), Upper Frog Creek (3690), Rock Creek (3685), Clavey River 
from mile 27 to 30 (3668), Trout Creek (3651), Cottonwood Creek (3767), 
Twomile Creek (3719), Hull Creek (3671), Crane Creek (3753), Skunk 
Creek (3802), Reynolds Creek (3707), Bear Spring Creek (3821), Bull 
Meadow Creek (3868), Bourland Creek (3677), Upper Frog Creek (3766), 
Brannigan Lake (3732), Lower Jack Main Canyon (3691), Tilden Canyon 
Creek (3705), East Side Tiltill Mtn. (3750), Deep Canyon (3756), and 
Tiltill Creek (3760).

    Note: Map follows:


[[Page 54913]]



[[Page 54914]]

    Map Unit 6: The following watersheds in Tehama County, California: 
Bear Gulch (1815), Long Gulch (1821), Maple Creek (1822),, Panther 
Gulch (1828), Buck Creek (1831), Cracker Canyon (1823), Jackass Canyon 
(1834), Little Grizzly Creek (1874), Sunflower Gulch (1902), Red Bank 
(1910), Alder Creek (1914), Sulphur Creek (1909), Slides Creek (1878), 
Harvey Creek (1894), Buck Creek (1893), Elkhorn Creek (1870), and 
Devils Hole Gulch (1867).

    Map follows:


[[Page 54915]]



[[Page 54916]]

    Map Unit 7: The following watersheds in Napa County, California: 
James Creek (3220), Pope Canyon (3235), Burton Creek (3278), and Swartz 
Creek (3250).

    Map follows:

    Map Unit 8: The following watershed in Sonoma County, California: 
Upper Sonoma Creek (3440).

    Map follows:

    Map Unit 9: The following watersheds in Napa and/or Solano 
counties, California: Steel Canyon (3390), Wragg Canyon (3361), Markley 
Canyon (3378), and Wild Horse Canyon (3395).

    Map follows: insert map 5.


[[Page 54917]]



[[Page 54918]]

    Map Unit 10: All or portions of the following watersheds in Marin 
and/or Sonoma counties, California: Lower Petaluma River [East of Hwy 
101, south of Hwy 116 to intersection with Frates Road; south and east 
of Frates Road] (3553), and Stage Gulch (3638).

    Note: Map follows:

    Map Unit 11: The following watersheds in Napa and/or Solano 
counties, California: Fagan Creek [south of Hwy 12] (3587), Jameson 
Canyon [south of Hwy 12] (3609), Pine Lake (3687), and Sky Valley 

    Note: Map follows:

    Map Unit 12: The following watersheds in Sonma and/or Marin 
counties, California: Keys Creek (3599), Chileno Creek (3622), Laguna 
Lake (3605), Salmon Creek (3672), Sausal (3684), Halleck Creek (3734), 
Nicasio Creek (3762), San Geronomo Creek (3798), Kent Lake (3813), 
Upper Lagunitas Creek (3851), Fern Creek (3897), Rodeo Lagoon (3959), 
Audobon Canyon (3870), Pine Gulch Creek (3838), Alamere Creek (3807), 
Glenbrook Creek (3745), Home Ranch Creek (3716), Point Reyes Peninsula 
(3729), Abbotts Lagoon (3640), Inverness (3621), Tomasini Canyon 
(3715), Millerton Gulch (3694), Nicks Cove (3641), Nicasio Reservoir 
(3714), Lower Lagunitas Creek (3736), Olema Creek (3792), Lower Walker 
Creek (3623), Upper Walker Creek (3653), and Arroyo (3689).

    Note: Map follows:

    Map Unit 13: The following watershed in Marin County, California: 
Belvedere Lagoon (3884).

    Note: Map follows:


[[Page 54919]]



[[Page 54920]]

    Map Unit 14: The following watersheds in San Mateo, Santa Clara, 
and/or Santa Cruz counties, California: Oyster Point (4112), Coyote 
Point (4167), Steinberger Slough (4234), Corte Madera Creek (4375), 
Peters Creek (4489), Slate Creek (4524), Waterman Creek (4544), East 
Waddell Creek (4603), Scott Creek (4669), Big Creek (4682), Waddel 
Creek (4613), Green Oaks Creek (4670), Cascade Creek (4635), Gazos 
Creek (4596), Arroyo de los Frijoles (4566), Little Butano Creek 
(4552), Bradley Creek (4512), Pompanio Creek (4488), Clear Creek 
(4436), Dry Creek (4377), Lobitos Creek (4374), Purisima Creek (4336), 
Pilarcitos Creek (4282), Denniston Creek (4250), San Pedro Creek 
(4197), San Andreas Lake (4190), Little Creek (4743), Butano Creek 
(4561), Honsinger Creek (4517), Teawater Creek (4506), Mindego Creek 
(4476), El Corte de Madera Creek (4380), La Honda Creek (4408), 
Harrington Creek (4420), Pilarcitos Lake (4232), Mills Creek (4328), 
West Union Creek (4347), Bear Gulch Reservoir (4291), Lower Crystal 
Springs Reservoir (4212), Upper Crystal Springs Reservoir (4290), 
Polhemus Creek (4236), and Millbrae (4189).

    Note: Map follows:

    Map Unit 15: All or portions of the following watersheds in Contra 
Costa, Alameda, San Joaquin, Santa Clara, Stanislaus, San Benito, 
Merced, and/or Fresno counties, California: Kirker Creek (3818), 
Markley Canyon (3816), Sand Creek (3856), Deer Creek (3883), Lower 
Kellogg Creek (3929), Altamont Speedway (3926), Brushy Creek (3968), 
Bethany Reservoir (4007), Mountain House Creek (4070), Patterson Run 
(4083), Carnegie (4136), Lower Elk Ravine (4154), Deep Gulch (4153), 
Mitchell Ravine (4168), Upper Corral Hollow Creek (4209), Upper Arroyo 
Mocho (4280), Colorado Creek (4320), Sweetwater Creek (4361), Pino 
Creek (4360), Jumpoff Creek (4426), Robinson Creek (4485), Lion Canyon 
(4516), Coon Creek (4626), Pine Springs Canyon (4627), Upper Quinto 
Creek (4608), Middle Quinto Creek (4607), Tule Lake (4655), Romero 
Overlook (4694), San Luis Reservoir (4704), San Luis Reservoir (4776), 
Arroyo Padre Flat (4840), Carusalito Creek (4884), Herrero Canyon 
(4905), Ruby Canyon (4952), Orognen Canyon (4983), Ojeda Canyon (5015), 
Mine Creek (5029) Merdey Creek (5053), Vasquez Creek (5106), E. of 
Glaucophane Ridge (5118), North of Indian Valley (5152), Capita Canyon 
(5128), Right Angle Canyon (5161), North Tumey Hills (5197), Upper 
Silver Creek (5218), South Tumey Hills (5180), Panoche Valley (5149), 
Clough Canyon (5200), Lower Bitterwater Canyon (5196), Panoche Creek 
(5136), Antelope Creek (5123), Las Aguilas Valley (5071), Upper Los 
Muertos Creek (5069), Canada Verde (5012), Lower Quien Sabe Creek 
(4977), Middle Quien Sabe Creek (4972), Santa Ana School (4954), Lone 
Tree Oak (4921), Sulfur Creek (4849), Elephant Head Creek (4790), Cedar 
Creek (4705), Middle Coyote Creek (4698), Rough Gulch (4647), Middle 
Fork Coyote Creek (4584), East Fork Coyote River (4560), Long Canyon 
(4479), Arroyo Bayo (4393), Valpe Creek (4287), Baby Peak (4300), Lower 
Arroyo Hondo (4321), Calaveras Creek (4346), Calaveras Reservoir 
(4295), Leyden Creek (4258), Sheridan Creek (4211), Stoneybrook Canyon 
(4152), Oakland [north of Hwy 84] (3984), San Lorenzo Creek [east of 
Mission Blvd. To intersection with B Street; east and south of B 
Street] (4077), Crow Creek [south of B Street to intersection with I-
580; south of I-580] (4017), Palomares Creek [south of I-580] (4082), 
Gold Creek [south of I-580] (4104), Livermore [north of I-580 to 
intersection with I-680; west of I-680 to intersection with Sunol Blvd; 
south and east of Sunol Blvd to intersection with 1st Street; south of 
1st Street to intersection with Stanley Blvd; south of Stanley Blvd to 
intersection with Hwy 84; south of Hwy 84 to intersection with I-580] 
(4051), Sycamore Creek (3951), Little Pine Creek (3855), Donner Creek 
(3865), Glaucophane Ridge (5126), Los Aquilas Canyon (5127), Hartman 
Creek (4586), Red Creek (4505), Hidden Creek (4775), Willow Spring 
(4791), Spicer Creek (4796), O'Connells Spring (4702), Cottonwood Creek 
(4686), La Baig Spring (4764), Williams Canyon (4638), Cleveland Ranch 
(5019), Rincon Creek (4918), Lookout Mountain (4922), North Side 
Mustang Ridge (4856), Twin Peaks (4870), Middle Los Banos Creek (4811), 
Lower Los Banos Creek (4847), Upper Kellogg Creek (3974), Curry Canyon 
(3928), Sycamore Creek (3916), Briones Valley (3896), Pacheco Creek 
(4759), Chimney Canyon (4656), Mississippi Creek (4577), Pacheco Lake 
(4725), Hawkins Lake (4857), Pacheco Pass (4740), South Fork Pacheco 
Creek (4793), Upper Quien Sabe Creek (4925), Slacks Valley (5080), 
Kelly Cabin Canyon (4639), Long Canyon (4479), Patterson Pass (4094), 
Brushy Peak (4045), Altamont Creek (4052), Arroyo Seco (4128), Tunnel 
Creek (4204), Lower Arroyo Mocho (4159), Coffee Mill Creek (4281), Lake 
Del Valle (4182), Lang Canyon (4229), Trout Creek (4272), Dry Creek 
(4151), Sycamore Creek (4314), Indian Creek (4219), San Antonio 
Reservoir (4186), Whitlock Creek (4268), La Costa Creek (4226), 
Cottonwood Creek (4056), Daugherty Hills (4067), Alamo West Branch 
(3980), Coyote Creek (4030), Sinbad Creek (4138), Vallecitos Creek 
(4162), Vern (4145), Cayetano Creek (4022), Long Canyon (3898), Upper 
Tassajara Creek (3966), and Lower Tassajara Creek (4013).

    Note: Map follows:


[[Page 54921]]



[[Page 54922]]

    Map Unit 16: Portions of the following watersheds in Santa Clara 
and/or San Benito counties, California: Santa Clara Valley [south and 
east of and including the Pajaro River; from intersection of Hwy 156 
and Union Road, north and west of Hwy 156; from intersection of Hwy 156 
with Los Viboras Road, north of Los Viboras Road] (4661) and Flint 
Hills [south and east of and including the Pajaro River] (4909).

    Note: Map follows:

    Map Unit 17: All or portions of the following watersheds in Santa 
Cruz, Monterey, and/or San Benito counties, California: West Branch 
Soquel (4680), Soquel Creek (4722), Aptos Creek (4762), Valencia Creek 
(4799), Corralitos Lagoon (4828), Mouth of Pajaro River (4852), Soda 
Lake (4914), Sargent Creek [south of and including the Pajaro River] 
(4912), Pinecate Creek (4951), Vierra Canyon (5001), Espinosa Lake 
[west of Hwy 101] (5060), Neponset [north and west of Hwy 68 to 
intersection with Hwy 101; north and west of Hwy 101] (5038), Elkhorn 
Slough (4968), Bates Creek (4770), Hinckley Creek (4757), Moro Cojo 
Slough (5032), Corncob Canyon (4958), Strawberry Canyon (4985), Vierra 
Canyon (5001), Paradise Canyon (5018), Moro Cojo Slough (5039), Vierra 
Canyon (4949), and Oak Hills (5031).

    Note: Map follows:

    Map Unit 18: All or portions of the following watersheds in 
Monterey County, California: Carmel Bay [east of Hwy 1] (5232), Carmel 
Valley (5243), Hitchcock Canyon (5297), Klondike Canyon (5307), 
Chupines Creek (5272), Rana Creek (5291), Upper Tularcitos Creek 
(5329), Bear Canyon (5363), Upper Finch Creek (5410), Miller Canyon 
(5424), Blue Creek (5459), Bruce Fork (5430), Danish Creek (5385), Pine 
Creek (5367), Black Rock Creek (5353), Las Garras Creek (5309), 
Robinson Canyon (5287), Lower Finch Creek (5368), Cachagua Creek 
(5375), and Lower Tularcitos Creek (5325).

    Note: Map follows:

    Map Unit 19: The following watersheds in San Benito and Monterey 
counties, California: Gloria Lake (5247) and George Hansen Canyon 

    Note: Map follows:

[[Page 54923]]



[[Page 54924]]

    Map Unit 20: The following watersheds in Monterey, San Luis Obispo, 
and/or Kern counties, California: Upper Little Chalome Creek (5706), 
Lower Little Chalome Creek (5724), Oak Grove Canyon (5775), Cottonwood 
Creek (5782), Red Rock Canyon (5841), Blue Point (5877), Jack Canyon 
(5906), Woods Canyon (5940), Francisco Creek (5955), Raven Pass (5974), 
Packwood Creek (5982), Wilinson Canyon (6022), Holland Canyon (6001), 
Hughes Canyon (5988), West of Red Hills (6003), Gillis Canyon (5970), 
Tucker Canyon (5950), Wood Canyon (5929), Indian Creek (5927), Mile 9 
to 11 Estrella River (5914), Estrella (5876), Lower Ranchito Canyon 
(5854), Lower San Jacinto Creek (5869), Upper San Jacinto Creek (5777), 
Headwaters Chalome Creek (5716), East of Palo Prieto Canyon (5921), 
Cholame Valley (5821), West Side Cholame Valley (5830), Palo Prieto 
Canyon (5886), South of Table Mtn. (5758), Lang Canyon (5757), Todds 
Spring Canyon (5756), Durham Ranch (5788), West of Ranchito Canyon 
(5807), Upper Keyes Canyon (5806), Upper Hog Canyon (5797), Lower Hog 
Canyon (5847), Lower Keyes Canyon (5878), Upper Ranchito Canyon (5789), 
Bud Canyon (5888), Hopper Canyon (5919), Lower Shimmin Canyon (5911), 
Taylor Canyon (5865), Pine Canyon (5839), Upper Shimmin Canyon (5864), 
Willow Springs Canyon (5836), Sheep Camp Canyon (5899), Salt Canyon 
(6002), Freeman Canyon (5883), and Choice Valley (5964).

    Note: Map follows:

    Map Unit 21: The following watersheds in San Luis Obispo County, 
California: Burnett Creek (5891), Upper Arroyo de la Cruz (5938), Pico 
Creek (5959), Upper San Simeon Creek (5968), Steiner Creek (5998), 
Upper Santa Rosa Creek (6018), Villa (6061), Cottontail Creek (6080), 
Old Creek (6098), Toro (6111), Morro (6123), Morro Bay (6159), San 
Luisito Creek (6170), Choro Reservoir (6185), Warden Lake (6214), Los 
Osos Creek (6221), Mouth of Los Osos Creek (6194), Whale Rock Reservoir 
(6124), Cayucos (6086), upper Green Valley Creek (6046), Lower Green 
Valley Creek (6049), Lower Santa Rosa Creek (6030), Lower San Simeon 
Creek (5993), Broken Bridge Creek (5956), Oak Knoll Creek (5952), 
Arroyo Del Corral (5947), Lower Arroyo de la Cruz (5926), and Middle 
Arroyo de la Cruz (5922).

    Note: Map follows:

    Map Unit 22: The following watersheds in San Luis Obispo County, 
California: Big Falls Canyon (6222), Wittenberg Creek (6253), Arroyo 
Grande Creek (6266), Tarspring Creek (6306), Los Berros Canyon (6327), 
Los Berros Creek (6330), Carpenter Canyon (6301), Clapboard Canyon 
(6278), Guaya Canyon (6277), and Vasquez Creek (6260).

    Note: Map follows:


[[Page 54925]]



[[Page 54926]]

    Map Unit 23: All or portions of the following watersheds in San 
Luis Obispo and/or Santa Barbara counties, California: Cienega Valley 
[south of Grand Ave. towards intersection with Hwy 1; south of Hwy 1] 
(6317), Nipomo Mesa [west of Hwy 1] (6357), Santa Maria Valley [west 
and south of Hwy 1] (6379), Graciosa Canyon [west and south of Hwy 1] 
(6457), Harris Canyon [west of Hwy 1] (6481), Barka Slough (6492), 
Purisima Point (6484), Lions Head (6451), Casmalia Canyon (6456), 
Corralitos Canyon (6437), and Mussel Rock (6436).

    Note: Map follows:

    Map Unit 24: All or portions of the following watersheds in Santa 
Barbara County, California: Oak Canyon (6538), Thompson Park (6567), 
Cebada Canyon [south of Hwy 246] (6545), Santa Rita Valley [south of 
Hwy 246] (6551), Santa Rosa Creek [south of Hwy 246] (6548), Canada de 
los Palos Blancos [south of Hwy 246] (6557), Canada de la Laguna [south 
of Hwy 246] (6558), Ballard Canyon [south of Hwy 246] (6561), Santa 
Ynez Valley [south of Hwy 246 and south and west of Hwy 154] (6568), 
San Lucas Creek (6593), S.E. of Happy Canyon (6573), Lower Cachuma 
Creek (6570), Lower Santa Cruz Creek (6563), Boat Canyon (6580), 
Redrock Canyon (6585), Oso Canyon (6587), Buckhorn Creek (6569), Lower 
Mono Creek (6592), Lower Aqua Caliente Canyon (6611), Alder Creek 
(6619), Juncal Canyon (6617), Blue Canyon (6613), Camuesa Creek (6596), 
Devils Canyon (6616), Arroyo Burro (6605), Los Lauveles Canyon (6600), 
Tequepis Creek (6608), Hilton Canyon (6601), Quiota Creek (6604), 
Alisal Creek (6607), Nojoqui Creek (6594), Yridisis Creek (6609), Palos 
Colorados Creek (6599), Upper Salsipuedes Creek (6606), Lake Cachuma 
(6588), Johnson Canyon (6579), Lower Salsipuedes Creek (6581), Canada 
de la Vina (6574), San Miguelito Creek (6577), Sloans Canyon (6576), 
and Lompoc Canyon (6562).

    Note: Map follows:

    Map Unit 25: The following watersheds in Santa Barbara County, 
California: Suey Canyon (6394), Colson Canyon (6409), Bear Canyon 
(6397), Lower South Fork La Brea Creek (6422), Middle South Fork La 
Brea Creek (6419), Tunnel Canyon (6452), Lower Horse Canyon (6440), 
Burro Canyon (6465), Lower Manzano Creek (6494), Middle Manzano Creek 
(6500), Fir Canyon (6514), Sulphur Creek (6487), Alkali Canyon (6446), 
Round Corral Canyon (6467), Kelly Canyon (6455), Rattlesnake Canyon 
(6428), Lower La Brea Creek (6433), Santa Maria Canyon (6439), and 
Tepusquet Creek (6432).

    Note: Map follows:

    Map Unit 26: The following watersheds in Santa Barbara County, 
California: Bear Creek (6575), La Honda Canyon (6590), Long Horn Canyon 
(6610), Gasper Creek (6614), Palo Alto Hill (6626), Arroyo El Bulito 
(6643), Canada de Alegria (6642), Canada de la Gavota (6618), Canada de 
las Cruces (6615), Arroyo Hondo (6637), Tajiguas Creek (6623), Canada 
del Corral (6625), Canada del Capitan (6627), Gato Canyon (6629), Dos 
Pueblos Canyon (6628), Ellwood Canyon (6633), Eagle Canyon (6641), 
Point Conception (6645), and Point Arguello (6595).

    Note: Map follows: insert map 10.


[[Page 54927]]



[[Page 54928]]

    Map Unit 27: The following watersheds in Santa Barbara, Ventura, 
and/or Los Angeles counties, California: Upper Piru Creek (6502), Upper 
Sespe Creek (6565), North Fork Matilija Creek (6612), Lower Matilija 
Creek (6624), Middle Matilija Creek (6603), Upper North Fork Matilija 
Creek (6598), and Upper Matilija Creek (6586).

    Note: Map follows:

    Map Unit 28: All or portions of the following watersheds in Los 
Angeles County, California: Lancaster [south of Johnson Road to 
intersection with California Aqueduct; south and west of Aqueduct until 
intersection with Barrel Springs Road; south of Barrel Springs Road to 
intersection with Hwy 14; and west of Hwy14] (6372), Rock Creek [west 
of Hwy 14] (6547), Eastern [north and west of Hwy 14 to intersection 
with Soledad Canyon Road; north of Soledad Canyon Road to intersection 
with Valencia Blvd.; north of Valencia Blvd. to Hwy 126; North of Hwy 
126 to intersection with I-5; east of I-5 to intersection with Ridge 
Route Road; east of Ridge Route Road to intersection with Lake Hughes 
Road; east of Lake Hughes Road to intersection with Elizabeth Lake 
Road; south along Elizabeth Lake Road to intersection with Johnson 
Road; south of Johnson Road to intersection with the Lancaster 
watershed (6372)] (6520), Bouquet (6564), Mint Canyon (6582), Sierra 
Pelona (6583), and Acton [west and north of Hwy 14] (6589).

    Note: Map follows:

    Map Unit 29: The following watersheds in Los Angeles and/or Ventura 
counties, California: West La Virgenes Canyon (6711), East La Virgenes 
Canyon (6746), Monte Nido (6747), Topanga Canyon (6738), Triunfo Canyon 
(6744), Sherwood (6728), and Lindero Canyon (6716).

    Note: Map follows: insert map 11


[[Page 54929]]



[[Page 54930]]

    Map Unit 30: Portions of the following watersheds in Riverside and/
or San Diego county, California: Deluz [within the boundaries of the 
Santa Rosa Plateau Ecological Reserve] (6870), Murrieta [eastern 
boundary of the Santa Rosa (Morina) land grant, south to the 
southeastern boundary of the Santa Rosa Plateau Ecological Reserve] 
(6847), and San Mateo Canyon [east of and including the western 
Cleveland National Forest boundary] (6852).

    Note: Map follows: insert map 12.


[[Page 54931]]



[[Page 54932]]

    Map Unit 31: Portions of the following watershed in Los Angeles 
County, California: Tujunga [east of and including the Angeles National 
Forest boundary] (6658). See Map 11 above.

    Dated: August 31, 2000.
Stephen C. Saunders,
Assistant Secretary of Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 00-22860 Filed 9-8-00; 8:45 am]