Federal Register /Vol. 61, No. 101/Thursday, May 23, 1996 ...€¦ · Federal Register/Vol. 61, No. 101/Thursday, May 23, 1996/Rules and Regulations25813 Example: Bidder X wishes

25813Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 101 / Thursday, May 23, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

Example: Bidder X wishes to place theminimum accepted bid for Market 1. Thestanding high bid for this market after Round19 of the auction is $1 million. The minimumbid increment is set at ten percent. Thus, theminimum accepted bid for Market 1 inRound 20 would be $1.1 million. In Round20, Bidder X erroneously submits a bid of$110 million. If Bidder X withdraws iterroneous bid during the bid withdrawalperiod for Round 20, it would be subject toa bid withdrawal payment of the minimumbid increment for Round 20, $100,000, or thedifference between $1.1 million and thesubsequent winning bid, whichever isgreater. If Bidder X does not withdraw its biduntil Round 21, and the auction is in StageI or Stage II, it would be subject to a bidwithdrawal payment of two times theminimum bid increment, $200,000, or thedifference between $1.2 million and thesubsequent winning bid, whichever isgreater. If Bidder X waits until Round 22 orlater to withdraw its erroneous bid, it wouldbe subject to the standard bid withdrawalpayment. Similarly, if the auction is in StageIII, and Bidder X fails to withdraw itserroneous bid in Round 20, it would besubject to the standard bid withdrawalpayment.

19. Under this approach, the requiredbid withdrawal payment would besubstantial enough to discouragestrategic placement of erroneous bidswithout being so severe as to impose anuntenable burden on bidders. Inaddition, the payment is tailored to thesize of the license and the point in theauction when the mistaken bid wassubmitted. For example, if a mistakenbid is submitted early in asimultaneous, multiple round auction,the potential damage to the economicefficiency of the auction is lower thanif it were submitted during the laterstages of the auction, and the requiredbid withdrawal payment would becorrespondingly lower. As an auctionprogresses, however, the potential gainfrom a strategically-placed erroneousbid is higher, and the potential damageto the efficiency of the auction processis higher. In other words, erroneous bidscause greater damage to the economicefficiency of the auction process asmarket prices approach their finalvaluation. Thus, the cost of submittingan erroneous bid during the later stagesof an auction is higher than it would beif it were submitted earlier in anauction.

20. We have decided to grant ATAand MAP relief from full enforcement ofthe bid withdrawal payment rules.Specifically, we will utilize theapproach described above to reduceATA’s bid withdrawal payment to twotimes the minimum bid increment forlicense 11P in Round 9, or $45,594.Similarly, we will utilize the approachdescribed above to reduce MAP’s bid

withdrawal payment to the minimumbid increment for license B–380 inRound 10 of the broadband PCS C blockauction, or $206,400.

21. We delegate to the WirelessTelecommunications Bureau (the‘‘Bureau’’) the authority to resolvesimilar requests for waiver of theCommission’s bid withdrawalprovisions. In order for a party to beeligible for such a waiver, it mustsubmit a request for waiveraccompanied by a sworn declarationattesting to the veracity of the factualcircumstances surrounding theerroneous bid submission. We willcontinue to evaluate these requests on acase-by-case basis. We caution thatrelief will not be available to bidders ifthere is evidence that they have engagedin insincere or frivolous bidding or haveotherwise acted in bad faith. Weconsider all allegations of biddermisconduct very seriously.

IV. Ordering Clauses

22. Accordingly, it is ordered That thewaiver request submitted by AtlantaTrunking Associates, Inc. is granted tothe extent indicated above.

23. It is further ordered That AtlantaTrunking Associates, Inc. is subject to abid withdrawal payment requirement of$45,594.

24. It is further ordered That thewaiver request submitted by MAPWireless, L.L.C. is granted to the extentindicated above.

25. It is further ordered That MAPWireless, L.L.C. is subject to a bidwithdrawal payment requirement of$206,400.

26. It is further ordered That wedelegate to the WirelessTelecommunications Bureau theauthority to resolve bid withdrawalpayment waiver requests involvingfactual circumstances similar to thosepresented here.

Federal Communications Commission.William F. Caton,Acting Secretary.[FR Doc. 96–12967 Filed 5–22–95; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6712–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018–AC 34

Endangered and Threatened Wildlifeand Plants; Determination ofThreatened Status for the CaliforniaRed-Legged Frog

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,Interior.ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and WildlifeService (Service) determines threatenedstatus for the California red-legged frog(Rana aurora draytonii) pursuant to theEndangered Species Act of 1973, asamended (Act). The Service originallyproposed to list the California red-legged frog as endangered, butinformation obtained during thecomment period suggests that this taxonis found in more localities within itscurrent range than previously identified.The California red-legged frog is nowfound primarily in wetlands andstreams in coastal drainages of centralCalifornia. It has been extirpated from70 percent of its former range. TheCalifornia red-legged frog is threatenedwithin its remaining range by a widevariety of human impacts, includingurban encroachment, construction ofreservoirs and water diversions,introduction of exotic predators andcompetitors, livestock grazing, andhabitat fragmentation. This ruleimplements the Federal protection andrecovery provisions afforded by the Actfor this species.EFFECTIVE DATE: June 24, 1996.ADDRESSES: The complete file for thisrule is available for public inspection,by appointment, during normal businesshours at the U.S. Fish and WildlifeService, 2800 Cottage Way, Room E–1803, Sacramento, CA 95825–1846.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Karen J. Miller, at the above address(916 979–2725).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The California red-legged frog (Ranaaurora draytonii) is one of twosubspecies of the red-legged frog (Ranaaurora) found on the Pacific coast. Ranaa. draytonii was first described by Bairdand Girard in 1852 from specimenscollected at or near the City of SanFrancisco in 1841 (Storer 1925, Cochran1961). The California red-legged frog isthe largest native frog in the westernUnited States (Wright and Wright 1949),

25814 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 101 / Thursday, May 23, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

ranging from 4 to 13 centimeters (cm)(1.5 to 5.1 inches (in.)) in length(Stebbins 1985). The abdomen and hindlegs of adults are largely red; the backis characterized by small black flecksand larger irregular dark blotches withindistinct outlines on a brown, gray,olive, or reddish background color.Dorsal spots usually have light centers(Stebbins 1985). Dorsolateral folds areprominent on the back. Larvae(tadpoles) range from 14 to 80millimeters (mm) (0.6 to 3.1 in.) inlength and the background color of thebody is dark brown and yellow withdarker spots (Storer 1925).

The historical range of the Californiared-legged frog extended coastally fromthe vicinity of Point Reyes NationalSeashore, Marin County, California, andinland from the vicinity of Redding,Shasta County, California, southward tonorthwestern Baja California, Mexico(Jennings and Hayes 1985, Hayes andKrempels 1986). The northern red-legged frog (Rana aurora aurora) rangesfrom Vancouver Island, BritishColumbia, Canada, south along thePacific coast west of the Cascade rangesto northern California (northern DelNorte County). Red-legged frogs foundin the intervening area (southern DelNorte to northern Marin County) exhibitintergrade characteristics of both R. a.aurora and R. a. draytonii (Hayes andKrempels 1986). Systematicrelationships between the twosubspecies are not completelyunderstood (Hayes and Miyamoto 1984,Green 1985a, Green 1986, Hayes andKrempels 1986). However, significantmorphological and behavioraldifferences between the two subspeciessuggest that they may actually be twospecies in secondary contact (Hayes andKrempels 1986).

Northern Marin County represents theapproximate dividing line between R. a.draytonii and the intergrade zone alongthe coastal range (Mark Jennings,National Biological Service, pers.comm., 1993). California red-leggedfrogs found in Nevada (Linsdale 1938,Green 1985b) were introduced. This ruledoes not extend the Act’s protection toany R. aurora in (1) The State ofNevada; (2) Humboldt, Trinity, andMendocino counties, California; (3)Glenn, Lake, and Sonoma counties,California, west of the Central ValleyHydrological Basin; or (4) Sonoma andMarin counties north and west of theNapa River, Sonoma Creek, andPetaluma River drainages, which draininto San Francisco Bay, and north of theWalker Creek drainage, which drains tothe Pacific Ocean.

Several morphological and behavioralcharacteristics differentiate California

red-legged frogs from northern red-legged frogs. Adult California red-leggedfrogs are significantly larger thannorthern red-legged frogs by 35 to 40mm (1.4 to 1.6 in.) (Hayes andMiyamoto 1984). Dorsal spots ofnorthern red-legged frogs usually lacklight centers common to California red-legged frogs (Stebbins 1985), but this isnot a strong diagnostic character.California red-legged frogs have pairedvocal sacs and call in air (Hayes andKrempels 1986), whereas northern red-legged frogs lack vocal sacs (Hayes andKrempels 1986) and call underwater(Licht 1969). Female California red-legged frogs deposit egg masses onemergent vegetation so that the egg massfloats on the surface of the water (Hayesand Miyamoto 1984). Northern red-legged frogs also attach their egg massesto emergent vegetation, but the mass issubmerged (Licht 1969).

California red-legged frogs breed fromNovember through March with earlierbreeding records occurring in southernlocalities (Storer 1925). Northern red-legged frogs breed in January to Marchsoon after the ice melts (Nussbaum et al.1983). California red-legged frogs foundin coastal drainages are rarely inactive(Jennings et al. 1992), whereas thosefound in interior sites may hibernate(Storer 1925).

The California red-legged frogoccupies a fairly distinct habitat,combining both specific aquatic andriparian components (Hayes andJennings 1988, Jennings 1988b). Theadults require dense, shrubby oremergent riparian vegetation closelyassociated with deep (>0.7 meters (m))still or slow moving water (Hayes andJennings 1988). The largest densities ofCalifornia red-legged frogs areassociated with deep-water pools withdense stands of overhanging willows(Salix spp.) and an intermixed fringe ofcattails (Typha latifolia) (Jennings1988b). Well-vegetated terrestrial areaswithin the riparian corridor mayprovide important sheltering habitatduring winter. California red-leggedfrogs estivate in small mammal burrowsand moist leaf litter (Jennings and Hayes1994b). California red-legged frogs havebeen found up to 30 m (98 feet (ft)) fromwater in adjacent dense riparianvegetation for up to 77 days (Rathbun etal. 1993, Galen Rathbun, NationalBiological Service, in litt., 1994).Rathbun (in litt., 1994) found that theuse of the adjacent riparian corridor wasmost often associated with drying ofcoastal creeks in mid to late summer.

California red-legged frogs disperseupstream and downstream of theirbreeding habitat to forage and seekestivation habitat. Estivation habitat is

essential for the survival of Californiared-legged frogs within a watershed.Estivation habitat, and the ability toreach estivation habitat can be limitingfactors in California red-legged frogpopulation numbers and survival.

Estivation habitat for the Californiared-legged frog is potentially all aquaticand riparian areas within the range ofthe species and includes any landscapefeatures that provide cover and moistureduring the dry season within 300 feet ofa riparian area. This could includeboulders or rocks and organic debrissuch as downed trees or logs; industrialdebris; and agricultural features, such asdrains, watering troughs, spring boxes,abandoned sheds, or hay-ricks. Incisedstream channels with portions narrowerthan 18 inches and depths greater than18 inches may also provide estivationhabitat.

Egg masses that contain about 2,000 to5,000 moderate-sized (2.0 to 2.8 mm(0.08 to 0.11 in.) in diameter), darkreddish brown eggs are typicallyattached to vertical emergent vegetation,such as bulrushes (Scirpus spp.) orcattails (Typha spp.) (Jennings et al.1992). California red-legged frogs areoften prolific breeders, laying their eggsduring or shortly after large rainfallevents in late winter and early spring(Hayes and Miyamoto 1984). Eggs hatchin 6 to 14 days (Jennings 1988b). Incoastal lagoons, the most significantmortality factor in the pre-hatchingstage is water salinity (Jennings et al.1992). One hundred percent mortalityoccurs in eggs exposed to salinity levelsgreater than 4.5 parts per thousand(Jennings and Hayes 1990). Larvae diewhen exposed to salinities greater than7.0 parts per thousand (Mark Jennings,National Biological Service, in litt.,1994). Larvae undergo metamorphosis3.5 to 7 months after hatching (Storer1925, Wright and Wright 1949, Jenningsand Hayes 1990). Of the various lifestages, larvae probably experience thehighest mortality rates, with less than 1percent of eggs laid reachingmetamorphosis (Jennings et al. 1992).Sexual maturity normally is reached at3 to 4 years of age (Storer 1925, Jenningsand Hayes 1985), and California red-legged frogs may live 8 to 10 years(Jennings et al. 1992).

The diet of California red-legged frogsis highly variable. Larvae probably eatalgae (Jennings et al. 1992). Hayes andTennant (1985) found invertebrates tobe the most common food items of adultfrogs. Vertebrates, such as Pacific treefrogs (Hyla regilla) and California mice(Peromyscus californicus), representedover half of the prey mass eaten bylarger frogs (Hayes and Tennant 1985).Hayes and Tennant (1985) found


juvenile frogs to be active diurnally andnocturnally, whereas adult frogs werelargely nocturnal. Feeding activity likelyoccurs along the shoreline and on thesurface of the water (Hayes and Tennant1985).

The California red-legged frog hassustained a 70 percent reduction in itsgeographic range in California as aresult of several factors acting singly orin combination (Jennings et al. 1992).Habitat loss and alteration,overexploitation, and introduction ofexotic predators were significant factorsin the California red-legged frog’sdecline in the early to mid 1900s. It isestimated that California red-leggedfrogs were extirpated from the CentralValley floor before 1960. Remainingaggregations (assemblages of one ormore individuals, not necessarily aviable population) of California red-legged frogs in the Sierran foothillsbecame fragmented and were latereliminated by reservoir construction,continued expansion of exoticpredators, grazing, and prolongeddrought. Within the Central Valleyhydrographic basin, only 14 drainageson the Coast Ranges slope of the SanJoaquin Valley and one drainage in theSierran foothills are actually known tosupport or may support California red-legged frogs, compared to over 60historic locality records for this basin (a77 percent reduction). The pattern ofdisappearance of California red-leggedfrogs in southern California is similar tothat in the Central Valley, except thaturbanization and associated roadway,large reservoir (introduction of exoticpredators), and stream channelizationprojects were the primary factorscausing population declines. Insouthern California, California red-legged frogs are known from only fivelocations south of the TehachapiMountains, compared to over 80 historiclocality records for this region (areduction of 94 percent).

California red-legged frogs are knownto occur in 243 streams or drainages in22 counties, primarily in the centralcoastal region of California. The currentnumber of occupied drainagesrepresents information obtained duringthe public comment period and re-evaluation of Service records. This re-evaluation resulted in the compilationof a threat matrix for all drainagesknown to support California red-leggedfrogs (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service1995). The term ‘‘drainage’’ will be usedto describe named streams, creeks, andtributaries from which California red-legged frogs have been observed. Forpurposes of this final rule, a singleoccurrence of California red-legged frogis sufficient to designate a drainage as

occupied by, or supporting Californiared-legged frogs. Monterey (32), SanLuis Obispo (36), and Santa Barbara (36)counties support the greatest number ofcurrently occupied drainages.Historically the California red-leggedfrog was known from 46 counties, butthe taxon is now extirpated from 24 ofthose counties (a 52 percent reductionin county occurrences). In seven of the22 occupied counties (32 percent),California red-legged frogs are knownfrom a single occurrence. The mostsecure aggregations of California red-legged frogs are found in aquatic sitesthat support substantial riparian andaquatic vegetation and lack exoticpredators (e.g., bullfrogs (Ranacatesbeiana), bass (Micropterus spp.),and sunfish (Lepomis spp.)). Only threeareas within the entire historic range ofthe California red-legged frog maycurrently support more than 350 adults,Pescardero Marsh Nature Preserve (SanMateo County), Point Reyes NationalSeashore (Marin County), and RanchoSan Carlos (Monterey County). The SanFrancisco Airport drainage location,identified in the proposed rule ascontaining over 350 individuals, is nowthought to be nearly extirpated. Threats,such as expansion of exotic predators,proposed residential development, andwater storage projects, occur in themajority of drainages known to supportCalifornia red-legged frogs.

Previous Federal ActionOn January 29, 1992, the Service

received a petition from Drs. Mark R.Jennings and Marc P. Hayes, and Mr.Dan Holland to list the California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii). Thepetition specified endangered orthreatened status by distinct drainages(watersheds) within the range of thespecies. On October 5, 1992, the Servicepublished a 90-day petition finding (57FR 45761) that substantial informationhad been presented indicating therequested action may be warranted.Public comments were requested and areview of the species’ status wasinitiated. The California red-legged froghad been included as a Category 1candidate species in the Service’sNovember 21, 1991, Animal Notice ofReview (56 FR 58804). Category 1candidates (now known simply ascandidates) are species for which theService has sufficient information onbiological vulnerability and threat tosupport proposals to list them asendangered or threatened. On July 19,1993, the Service published a 12-monthfinding on the petitioned action (58 FR38553). This finding indicated thatlisting of the California red-legged frogwas warranted and that a proposed rule

would be published promptly. OnFebruary 2, 1994 (59 FR 4888), theService published a proposal to list theCalifornia red-legged frog as anendangered species. Based on newinformation received during thecomment period on the proposed rule,the Service now determines theCalifornia red-legged frog to be athreatened species.

Summary of Comments andRecommendations

In the February 2, 1994 proposed rule(58 FR 4888) and associatednotifications, all interested parties wererequested to submit factual reports orinformation that might contribute todevelopment of a final rule. AppropriateState agencies and representatives,County and City governments, Federalagencies and representatives, scientificorganizations, and other interestedparties were contacted and requested tocomment. Newspaper notices werepublished in the San FranciscoChronicle on February 9, 1994, and theSacramento Bee on February 10, 1994,both of which invited public comment.

The Service received eight writtenrequests for a public hearing. Threerequests came from the Mosquito andVector Control Districts of Glenn,Sutter/Yuba, and Butte counties.Additional requests came from WilliamHazeltine, a private consultant; theCalifornia Cattlemen’s Association; theCambria Community Services District;the United Residential Lot Owners ofCambria, Inc.; and Price, Postel, andParma, a Santa Barbara law firm. As aresult, the Service published a notice ofpublic hearing on April 8, 1994 (59 FR16792), and reopened the commentperiod until May 27, 1994. AppropriateState agencies and representatives,County and City governments, Federalagencies and representatives, scientificorganizations, and other interestedparties were contacted regarding thehearing. A newspaper notice of thepublic hearing was published in theSacramento Bee on April 25, 1994,which invited general public comment.A public hearing was conducted at theRadisson Hotel in Sacramento,California on May 12, 1994. Testimonywas taken from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.Seventeen individuals testified at thehearing.

During the comment periods, theService received 72 comments (i.e.,letters and oral testimony) from 57individuals or agencies. Of the 31commenters that stated a position, 22(71 percent) supported listing and 9 (29percent) did not.

Support for the listing was expressedby one State agency (California


Department of Parks and Recreation)and 18 other interested parties. Threecommenters recommended listing theCalifornia red-legged frog as threatened.Opposition to the listing was expressedby two mosquito abatement or vectorcontrol districts and seven otherinterested parties. Of the 26 respondentsindicating no position on the listing,several expressed concern regarding theimpact of listing.

Written comments and oralstatements obtained during the publichearing and comment periods arecombined in the following discussion.Opposing comments and othercomments questioning the rule can beplaced in 10 general groups based oncontent. These categories of comment,and the Service’s response to each, arelisted below.

Issue 1: Insufficiency of Scientific DataComment: Several commenters stated

that insufficient data are available towarrant listing of the California red-legged frog. They suggested that thedistribution of the California red-leggedfrog is more widespread and that manymore sites may exist than were reportedin the proposed rule because surveyingwithin the historic range of the taxonhas not been complete. One commentersuggested that only easily accessibleareas on the coast seemed to have beensurveyed and if a watershed approachhad been taken, the range of the specieswould be greater than 30 percent of itshistorical range. Another commentersuggested that many surveys were donein drought years, which would bias thedata.

Service Response: The Servicemapped the current range of theCalifornia red-legged frog based onsurvey results. Wherever a watershedwas known to support California red-legged frogs, the entire watershed wasincluded as being within the species’current range. The only watersheds thatwere not included in their entirety arethose in the Sierra Nevada where theupper reaches are too high in elevationto provide habitat for the California red-legged frog, and portions of watershedslocated on the Central Valley floor. Inthe Coast Ranges, watersheds lackinginformation on California red-leggedfrogs were included within the currentrange of the California red-legged frogfrom Marin County south to VenturaCounty.

Over the last 15 years, the petitionershave conducted multiple surveys,visiting each survey site a minimum ofthree times, to determine the status ofthe California red-legged frogthroughout its entire range. Thepetitioners rechecked 75 percent of the

historic sites in the coastal region of therange of the California red-legged frogand all suitable habitat within thespecies historic range in the CentralValley and Sierra Nevada foothillsincluding all but one of the historicsites. This site was surveyed by anotherherpetologist, Dave Martin (Jennings,pers. comm., 1995). In surveyingsuitable habitat, access to some areaswas denied by private landowners. Evenso, surveyors were able to obtain accessto all major drainages within theirsurvey area (Jennings, pers. comm.,1995). Many of the surveys wereconducted between 1986 and 1990,which were considered drought years.However, in the majority of casesreasons other than drought wereconsidered responsible for the absenceof frogs (Jennings, pers. comm., 1995).Where drought was thought to be thecase, repeat surveys were performed insubsequent wet years (Jennings, pers.comm., 1995). Approximately half of thesites surveyed were along roadsides andeasily accessible. The remaining siteswere difficult to access, often requiringstrenuous hikes (Jennings, pers. comm.,1995). Surveying by the petitioners andothers is ongoing in many portions ofthe State.

Surveys conducted by otherresearchers support the conclusions ofthe petitioners. Extensive surveying hasbeen conducted in years with andwithout drought conditions in Sierrannational forests by David Martin(University of California, Santa Barbara,,pers. comm., 1994); Santa Clara Countyand the foothills of the western SierraNevada between Modesto and Fresno bythe Coyote Creek Riparian Station (inlitt., 1993); the Sacramento Valley, SanJoaquin Valley and inner Coast Rangesby the University of California at Davis(H. Bradley Shaffer, University ofCalifornia, Davis, in litt., 1994); SantaCruz County by the University ofCalifornia at Santa Cruz (Nauman 1992);Santa Cruz and San Mateo counties(Mike Westphal, Coyote Creek RiparianStation, 1995), and the Point ReyesPeninsula by the National Park Service(Gary Fellers, National BiologicalService, in litt., 1994).

As a result of these surveys andadditional information received duringthe public comment period followingpublication of the proposed rule, 54new localities of California red-leggedfrogs were identified. The majority ofthese sightings, however, are within thecurrent range of the California red-legged frog as identified in the proposedrule. The exceptions are the discovery ofCalifornia red-legged frogs in the Sierranfoothills (Butte County, Pinkard Creek),the Transverse mountain range (Los

Angeles county near Palmdale), SulphurSprings Creek in Solano County, andMine Creek in Fresno County; the lattertwo representing minor rangeextensions to the east. The Service isconfident that the Central Valley floor,Sierra Nevada foothills, and southernCalifornia (south of the TehachapiMountains) have been surveyedsufficiently to draw the conclusion thatCalifornia red-legged frogs have beenextirpated or nearly extirpated fromthese regions. These three regionscomprise over 70 percent of theCalifornia red-legged frog’s historicrange.

Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act requiresthat a listing determination be based onthe best scientific and commercial dataavailable. The Service bases this listingdetermination on data collected over aperiod of 15 years by the petitioners andnumerous other qualified herpetologists.All data indicate a downward trend inthe range of the California red-leggedfrog and a preponderance of small,fragmented aggregations of frogs. Theviability of the remaining California red-legged frog aggregations is threatened bynumerous factors which are discussedin detail in this rule. The Servicemaintains, therefore, that sufficient dataare available to warrant listing theCalifornia red-legged frog. However,because the Service received significantadditional information on locations ofCalifornia red-legged frog aggregationswithin their current range during thecomment period, listing the taxon asthreatened rather than endangered isdeemed more appropriate.

Comment: Another commenter statedthat the conclusion in the proposed rulethat 75 percent of the species’ remainingrange is threatened by one or morefactors has no basis in scientific fact andis not supported by any substantialscientific evidence.

Service Response: The proposed rulestated that the California red-legged froghas been extirpated from 75 percent ofthe historic range of the taxon. Becauseof the inclusion of 54 additional streamsor drainages known to supportCalifornia red-legged frogs, the final rulehas been revised to state that extirpationhas occurred in 70 percent of thehistoric range. The commentermisinterpreted the information in theproposed rule. The estimate ofextirpated range is based on informationpublished in the literature andpresented to the Service by thepetitioners and other herpetologists,survey biologists, and consultants.

Comment: One commenter stated thatan article in the March 1, 1994, SanRamon Valley Times reported that theEast Bay Regional Park District had not


surveyed for frogs on its properties.Given that the District comprises over75,000 acres, the commenter believedthat this lack of information was asignificant data gap.

Service Response: East Bay RegionalPark District biologists and privateconsultants in 1990, 1993, and 1994surveyed an estimated 95 percent ofDistrict properties that could containCalifornia red-legged frog habitat(Joseph DiDonato, East Bay RegionalPark District, pers. comm. and in litt.,1994; Karen Swaim, LSA Associates,Inc., in litt., 1994). California red-leggedfrogs were found in 5 of 53 Districtparks. Included in the survey resultswere 8 streams or drainages notpreviously known to be inhabited byCalifornia red-legged frogs.

Comment: One commenter stated thatthe information on California red-leggedfrog locations in Alameda County isprobably not complete. The commentercontended that California red-leggedfrogs are probably not as rare inAlameda County as purported in theproposed rule.

Service Response: California red-legged frogs are known from 21drainages in the county. Many otherdrainages in the county that have beensurveyed by the East Bay Regional ParkDistrict and LSA Associates, Inc. harboronly bullfrogs. Of the 22 countiesknown to support aggregations ofCalifornia red-legged frogs, AlamedaCounty ranks ninth in total number ofdrainages supporting the taxon. Overhalf of the known frog aggregations inthe county, however, are threatened byvarious factors including exoticpredators, urban development, off-roadvehicles, and grazing. While it ispossible that some California red-leggedfrog locations have yet to be discovered,the Service believes it is unlikely thatCalifornia red-legged frogs inhabit morethan the 21 known drainages inAlameda County.

Comment: One commenter stated thatthe Service’s data on locations ofCalifornia red-legged frogs does notmatch information contained in theCalifornia Department of Fish and GameNatural Diversity Database (NDDB).

Service Response: The researcherswho petitioned the Service to list thisspecies and the Service have reviewedall data available from the NDDBregarding locations of California red-legged frogs. The NDDB currentlycontains approximately 122 records ofCalifornia red-legged frogs. Thepetitioners have determined current andhistoric range of the taxon from 1,205museum records and 250 records fromother sources coupled with extensivefield checking of records. All locations

identified in the NDDB prior to 1992were field checked by the petitioners.All new locations identified in theNDDB from 1992 to the present havebeen added to the Service’s analysis ofthe current range of the California red-legged frog. These additional recordshave not appreciably extended thecurrently known range of the taxon.

Comment: Several commenters notedthat the proposed rule indicateduncertainty in biology, life cycle, habitatrequirements, and predators of theCalifornia red-legged frog, includingidentifying where frogs overwinter,where post-metamorphic frogs feed,what larvae eat, and site specificpredators. The commenters believedthat listing of the taxon was notwarranted until these data gaps werefilled.

Service Response: The Service hasrelied on the best available scientificand commercial data in making thislisting determination. The Serviceconcurs that many aspects of thebiology, predator-prey interactions, andmicrohabitat requirements of theCalifornia red-legged frog are notcompletely understood. This is true formost species of wildlife, includingcommon species that have been studiedextensively. Sufficient knowledge of thebiology and habitat requirements of theCalifornia red-legged frog exists toidentify suitable habitats for the taxon,and document population sizes, threats,and its status over time. It is this latterinformation along with the scientificand commercial information that is usedin determining whether or not to list aspecies under section 4(a) of the Act. Acomplete understanding of the biologyand microhabitat requirements of alisted species are most important in therecovery process. However, a significantdelay in listing a species due to large,long-term biological or ecologicalresearch efforts could compromise thesurvival of the California red-leggedfrog.

Comment: Several commenters statedthat the proposed rule cites livestockgrazing as a major factor in the declineof the California red-legged frog, butfails to offer site-specific examples ofhabitat degradation and ‘‘take’’ of thespecies as a result of grazing. Onecommenter thought that the Service,therefore, could not restrict grazingpractices in any way if the species islisted.

Service Response: The proposed ruleincludes livestock grazing as one ofmany factors affecting the Californiared-legged frog, and ranks it as acontributing factor, rather than as amajor factor. No site specific studieshave been done that document the

decline and disappearance of Californiared-legged frogs once grazing isintroduced into an area. Most evidenceon the effects of grazing on theCalifornia red-legged frog iscircumstantial. However, extensiveresearch has been done on the effects oflivestock grazing on the aquaticenvironment. As stated in the proposedrule, the petitioners found that grazingoccurred at all historic sites known tosupport California red-legged frogs inthe Central Valley hydrologic basin.Combining this information withinformation about the habitatpreferences of the California red-leggedfrog leads to the logical conclusion thatgrazing, where it has dramaticallyaltered California red-legged froghabitat, has played a role in the declineof this taxon.

Comment: One commenter stated thatthe petition to list the California red-legged frog relies heavily on personalobservations, personal communications,and unpublished data. Although theService is required to base listings onthe ‘‘best available data’’, thecommenter believed that suchinformation did not meet the definitionof scientific data because they would beimpossible to verify. Three commentersrecommended that the proposed listingaction be halted and a comprehensive,unbiased scientific review of the statusof the California red-legged frog beinitiated and published.

Service Response: The researcherswho petitioned the Service to list theCalifornia red-legged frog areacknowledged experts on this taxon asevidenced by numerous peer reviewedpublications on the subject. Themajority of the personal observationscited in the petition refer to specificaspects of California red-legged frogbiology, which is relevant to the species’management, but less important indetermining species’ status. Many of thereferences to unpublished data in thepetition refer to distribution and statusinformation that had been collected bythe petitioners as part of their ongoingresearch to follow the status of theCalifornia red-legged frog. Much of theirstatus information is supported bysurveys conducted by numerous otherqualified herpetologists. The Service,therefore, finds that the data presentedby the petitioners are credible and havebeen verified by other experts in thefield.

Comment: Several commentersrequested that prior to listing theCalifornia red-legged frog, the Servicequantify impacts to the various lifestages of the frog caused by stormdamage repair, flood control efforts,reservoir creation, diking and ditching,


regular road maintenance, disease,livestock grazing, off-road vehicle use,timber harvest, predation by native andnon-native predators, competition,ultraviolet radiation, water quality,agricultural practices, recreation,reproductive interference, drought,wildfires, flooding, and naturalpopulation fluctuations.

Service Response: Section 4(a)(1) ofthe Act requires the Service to evaluatethreats to the species. The Service isunable to quantify how each of theabove individual threats has impactedthe California red-legged frog. Manythreats work synergistically to causepopulation declines. Thus, the effect ofeach threat cannot be quantifiedseparately. The above factors arebelieved to contribute to significantpopulation declines. Completingresearch in all these areas prior to listingthe California red-legged frog couldseriously compromise its survivalbecause of lengthy time periods neededto quantify impacts. Further research inthese areas, however, would aid theService in future recovery actions forthis species.

Comment: One commenterrecommended that the Service delineatethe current range and habitat locationsof the California red-legged frog in SanJoaquin County prior to listing.

Service Response: The Service hasdelineated the current range andspecific habitat locations of Californiared-legged frogs in San Joaquin County.Two locations of the California red-legged frog occur in San JoaquinCounty, both in western portions of thecounty. The distribution map for theCalifornia red-legged frog includes allportions of western San Joaquin Countythat lie on the east slope of the coastrange, west of Highway 580.

Comment: One commenterrecommended that the Service quantifyCalifornia red-legged frog populationnumbers in lotic and lentic habitat andestablish management and recoveryprograms for each habitat type prior tolisting the taxon.

Service Response: A recovery planwill be prepared for the California red-legged frog after the taxon is listed.Completion of the above recommendedresearch would be most appropriateduring the recovery process for theCalifornia red-legged frog.

Issue 2: Causes for California Red-Legged Frog Decline

Comment: Several commenterssuggested that ultraviolet-B (UV–B)radiation or estrogen mimics, whichhave been implicated in the currentobserved worldwide decline inamphibians, may be significant causes

of observed declines in the range andnumbers of California red-legged frogs.

Service Response: The Service hasreviewed the paper by Blaustein et al.(1994) regarding the possible effect ofUV–B radiation on the eggs of threeamphibian species, the Pacific treefrog(Pseudacris regilla), western toad (Bufoboreas), and Cascade frog (Ranacascadae). Our review focused onresults reported for the Cascade frog,because this species is most closelyrelated to the California red-legged frog.Results of tests on Cascade frog eggsfrom two sites showed mixed results.One site showed that hatching successof R. cascadae was greater undersunlight lacking UV–B than underunfiltered sunlight. At the second site,however, the hatching success underUV–B blocking filters was notsignificantly different from successunder unfiltered sunlight. Thus, thesedata do not present sufficient evidenceof a correlation between UV–B radiationand hatching success in the relatedCascade frog.

Because UV–B radiation would havegreater adverse effects at higherelevations, the Cascade frog, which is ahigher elevation species than theCalifornia red-legged frog, would beexpected to be more severely affected byUV–B radiation, if indeed this is animportant factor. Also, because theCalifornia red-legged frog attaches itsegg masses to aquatic vegetation andprefers aquatic habitats withoverhanging vegetation, the effects ofUV–B radiation would be expected to beless than for the Cascade frog, whoseeggs are typically laid in shallow openwater (Nussbaum et al. 1983). Inaddition, the majority of the observeddecline in the California red-legged frogoccurred prior to the late 1970’s, whichis when noticeable declines inamphibian species began in westernNorth America (M. Jennings, pers.comm, 1994).

A number of recent studies addresscertain contaminants that disruptbiological processes by mimicking theeffects of naturally produced hormones,such as the female hormone estrogen(Raloff 1994). This phenomenon hasbeen implicated in the recentworldwide decline in amphibians.Several studies have been done onreptiles, including the Americanalligator (Alligator mississippiensis) andred-eared slider turtle (Pseudemysscripta elegans). To our knowledge, nostudies have been done on amphibians.The potential effects of estrogen mimicson California red-legged frogs areunknown. In addition, the majority ofthe observed decline in the Californiared-legged frog occurred prior to the late

1970’s, which is when noticeabledeclines in amphibian species began inwestern North America (M. Jennings,pers. comm, 1994).

Comment: Several commenters statedthat evidence suggesting mosquitofish(Gambusia affinis) are significantpredators of California red-legged froglarvae is not strong. The commentersstated that infrequent co-occurrence offish and frogs does not explain potentialcausation. Other factors may beinvolved in population declineincluding microhabitat features ofwetlands, which cannot be successfullyduplicated in a laboratory setting. Alsoin a natural setting, the vulnerable stagefor California red-legged frog tadpoles(February through April) normally doesnot coincide with the time of year whenmosquitofish numbers are high.Microhabitat usage may not overlap.The commenters pointed out that thereare sites where mosquitofish andCalifornia red-legged frogs coexist. Onecommenter objected to the mosquitofishbeing included as a verified predator ofCalifornia red-legged frogs andespecially as an organism more harmfulthan introduced centrarchid fishes orbullfrogs.

Service Response: The Service isaware of only one study that hasindicated that in laboratory settingsmosquitofish prey on the larvae ofCalifornia red-legged frogs (Schmiederand Nauman 1994). However, there is astrong correlation between the absenceof California red-legged frogs and thepresence of mosquitofish in the field.The Service is aware of several siteswhere mosquitofish and California red-legged frogs are currently coexisting.This evidence suggests that therelationship between mosquitofish andCalifornia red-legged frogs is complex.Additional research clearly is needed tomore fully understand how these twospecies interact. The final rule has beenrevised to reflect current knowledge onthis issue. The Service cannot determinewhether mosquitofish are harmful toCalifornia red-legged frogs.

Comment: Several commentersdisagreed that mosquitofish could besignificant predators of California red-legged frogs. They cited observations inmosquitofish ponds of mosquitofishnumbers decreasing as a result ofinfestations by bullfrogs. Thesecommenters noted that no predation ofbullfrog tadpoles by mosquitofish wasobserved.

Service Response: Mosquitofishwould not be expected to prey on larvalbullfrogs because of the apparentolfactory rejection (unpalatability) ofbullfrog larvae by predatory fish (Kruseand Francis 1977). California red-legged


frogs lack this olfactory rejection effect,and, therefore, cannot be compared tobullfrogs (Schmieder and Nauman1994).

Comment: One commenter pointedout that widespread, large scale use ofmosquitofish in California began in themid to late 1970’s, and therefore, couldnot be responsible for the extirpation ofCalifornia red-legged frogs from theCentral Valley floor because frogs wereextirpated from this region before 1960.

Service Response: The Serviceconcurs that mosquitofish were not amajor factor in the decline anddisappearance of California red-leggedfrogs from the Central Valley floor. Theproposed and final rules point tooverharvest combined with the loss ofover 3,800,000 acres of wetlands as themajor reasons for extirpation ofCalifornia red-legged frogs from thevalley floor (Frayer, et al. 1989).However, significant introductions ofmosquitofish began in the CentralValley as early as 1922 (Moyle 1976).Thus it is possible that mosquitofishplayed a role in the decline of Californiared-legged frogs on the Central Valleyfloor.

Comment: Two commenters statedthat mosquitofish are not significantpredators of California red-legged frogsbecause the two species coexist inwetlands in Shasta and Colusa counties.

Service Response: California red-legged frogs were extirpated from Shastaand Colusa counties before 1960(Jennings et al. 1992).

Comment: Several commentersprovided more specific or additionalinformation on threats to California red-legged frogs within their current range.Several commenters providedinformation regarding potential threats,including road kills, current harvestingof California red-legged frogs for food,construction activities, and poormanagement of flood control basins.

Service Response: These commentshave been noted and included in thisfinal rule.

Comment: One commenter stated thatmassive predation by introducedpredators, not grazing, is in large partresponsible for any observed populationdeclines in the California red-leggedfrog. Similarly, another commenterstated that the decline anddisappearance of California red-leggedfrogs in the foothill portions of Madera,Fresno, and Mariposa counties were dueto dispersal of bullfrogs into stockponds, and not due to grazing. Thecommenter stated that California red-legged frogs coexisted with grazing untilabout 1940, when bullfrogs wereintroduced into the San Joaquin Valley.

Service Response: Of the identifiedthreats facing the California red-leggedfrog, introduced predators, includingbullfrogs, are considered to be asignificant and widespread threat. Over50 percent of streams and drainagesinhabited by California red-legged frogsare known to support bullfrogs or otherexotic predators in some portion of thatdrainage. Grazing, however, canthreaten the California red-legged frogwhere grazing pressure results indramatic changes in riparian andwetland habitat. As discussed in thisfinal rule, California red-legged frogsgenerally prefer densely-shaded wetlandhabitats, whereas bullfrogs prefer moreopen wetland habitats. Overgrazing inriparian areas, therefore, exacerbates thethreat of bullfrog expansion by creatinghabitat bullfrogs prefer.

Comment: One commenter stated thatprofitable livestock operations and highquality riparian habitat areas are notmutually exclusive. The commenterpoints to Point Reyes National Seashoreas an example of where cattle grazingand California red-legged frogssuccessfully coexist. The commenterstressed that livestock grazing is theonly economic activity in the region thatprovides large contiguous areas of openspace.

Service Response: The Serviceconcurs that properly managed livestockgrazing can be compatible withpreservation of California red-leggedfrog populations. California red-leggedfrogs and cattle grazing are able tocoexist at Point Reyes National Seashorebecause the National Park Servicemaintains tight control over grazingpressure (Gary Fellers, NationalBiological Service, pers. comm., 1994).The Service acknowledges thatpreservation and proper management ofopen space, especially in riparian areas,is a fundamental requirement in thesurvival and recovery of the Californiared-legged frog.

Comment: One commenter stated thatthe single most devastating change inwildlife habitat in California in the last200 years has been urbanization. Thecommenter thought that the proposedrule had not given this factor properrecognition, but instead condemnedactivities such as livestock grazing.

Service Response: The proposed ruleand this final rule do not single outlivestock grazing as the greatest threat tothe California red-legged frog, butinstead discusses all factors known orlikely to threaten California red-leggedfrog populations. The proposed andfinal rules list numerous proposeddevelopments that threaten remainingpopulations of California red-leggedfrogs. The Service believes urbanization,

as well as agriculture, have causedsubstantial changes in wildlife habitatin California. This is especially the casein the Central Valley, which historicallywas the stronghold of the California red-legged frog.

Comment: Several commenters statedthat climatic conditions (i.e., droughtand above average rainfall events) weremore to blame for California red-leggedfrog declines than human activities,including timber harvest and historiccommercial harvest of the Californiared-legged frog itself. One commenternoted that dramatic declines in historicfrog harvest information could indicatethat the species is subject to widevariation in population numbers due toclimatic conditions rather than anindication of overharvest. Thecommenter requested that an historicalsurvey of the variations in populationnumbers due to climatic changes beundertaken prior to publication of afinal rule.

Service Response: The rule includes adiscussion of natural factors, such asdrought and heavy rainfall events, thatare known to adversely affect Californiared-legged frog populations. It isdifficult to separate the effects of naturalevents from human activities whenattempting to determine the cause for apopulation’s decline in a particular area.A single factor is seldom the cause ofthe decline of a species. Many of thefactors discussed in the proposed ruleand this final rule work synergistically.Regardless of which factors resulted inhistoric population declines, Californiared-legged frog populations in theCentral Valley and Sierra Nevada, inparticular, could not rebound from thisdecline because at the same time theirwetland and riparian habitat was beingconverted to agricultural land and urbanareas.

Populations of most species are cyclicin nature, responding to such naturalfactors as weather events, disease, andpredation. Natural events, however,including long-term drought or extremerainfall, have less of a negative effectoverall on a species when that speciesis widely and continuously distributed.Where populations are small,fragmented, or isolated by varioushuman-related factors including habitatloss, water development, and waterdiversion, these populations are morevulnerable to extirpation by stochasticor random events and cumulativeeffects.

It is likely that over time, Californiared-legged frogs experienced widevariations in population size as a resultof climatic events. A historical surveydating back to the early 1900’s focusingon the variation in frog population


numbers due to climatic changes is notpossible because no range widepopulation information was collectedon the California red-legged frog datingback that far. If such data existed,conclusions drawn from such anhistorical survey would be tenuous. Themany adverse human factors that havecontributed to California red-legged frogpopulation declines since 1900 wouldcloud any analysis of the effects ofdrought or high rainfall events.

Comment: One commenter disagreedwith the conclusion that pre-1900overharvesting of the California red-legged frog in the Central Valley led totheir decline. The commenter stated thatother known historical factors were notcited in the proposed rule.

Service Response: No studies wereconducted in the late 1800’s or early1900’s documenting the cause or causesof declines in California red-legged frogpopulations in the Central Valley.Extremely high numbers of Californiared-legged frogs reported in the SanFrancisco markets followed by acollapse of the market around the turnof the century strongly suggests thatcommercial harvesting had a significanteffect on California red-legged frognumbers. The Central Valley, andparticularly the San Joaquin Valley,were reported at the time to be primehabitat for the California red-legged frog.The proposed rule and this final rulereported all known historical factorsthat may have contributed to the declineof California red-legged frogs in theCentral Valley. Overharvesting wascertainly not the only factor impactingCalifornia red-legged frog populations.Conversion of over 3,800,000 acres ofwetland and riparian habitats in theCentral Valley to agricultural land andurban areas began during the sameperiod, resulting in the elimination ofCalifornia red-legged frogs from thevalley floor before 1960.

Comment: Several commenters statedthat many of the urban developmentprojects referred to in the proposed rulein the Central Coast region may or maynot be constructed during the next 5 or10 years.

Service Response: The Servicerecognizes that all projects proposed arenot necessarily completed. This may bedue to lack of proper permits necessaryfor construction, or interruption ofplanning efforts. The fact that projectshave been proposed presents a futurethreat to California red-legged frogaggregations in the central coast region,especially if these projects result indirect or indirect riparian habitatdegradation.

Comment: One commenter stated theproposed rule incorrectly includes the

Cambria Meadows drainage as an areawhere California red-legged frog habitathas been directly degraded throughstream reductions to accommodate newurban growth.

Service Response: This final rulestates that proposed urban and/orrecreational development could degradeor eliminate California red-legged froghabitat in Cambria Meadows Creek.

Comment: One commenter thoughtthat support of the proposed listingappeared to rely heavily on conditionsreported for the north coast of San LuisObispo County.

Service Response: Neither theproposed rule nor this final rule relyheavily on conditions reported for thenorth coast of San Luis Obispo Countyin determining the need to list theCalifornia red-legged frog. San LuisObispo County contains the thirdhighest number of drainages known tosupport California red-legged frogs.Although California red-legged frogaggregations in streams in the countyare threatened by a variety of factors,many other counties have comparablethreats that are reported in the proposedand final rule.

Comment: Several commenters wereconcerned about the accuracy of theconclusions drawn by Rathbun et al.(1991) as cited in the proposed ruleregarding the combined effects of waterextraction and drought on populationsof California red-legged frogs in lowerSanta Rosa Creek. Numerouscommenters presented data both tosupport and refute the hypothesis thatwater extractions from Santa Rosa Creekhave significantly changed itshydrology.

Service Response: The Servicerecognizes that controversy existsregarding the environmental effects ofwater extraction from Santa Rosa Creek.The information and data presented bythe many commenters on this subjectwill be thoroughly reviewed by Servicefield biologists during recoveryplanning efforts and when consulting onany proposed projects that couldadversely affect California red-leggedfrogs in Santa Rosa Creek.

Ground water and surface watersupplies in Santa Rosa Creek are finite.Unchecked water extraction may exceedinput and significantly reduce theavailability of riparian and aquatichabitat for California red-legged frogs inthe future. Drought accentuates theeffect, and if not considered in waterplanning, overallocation of stream flowsand overdraft of groundwater resourcescombined with long-term drought couldresult in permanent elimination ofCalifornia red-legged frogs from all or alarge part of the drainage.

Comment: Several commenterspointed out that although California red-legged frogs were absent from lowerSanta Rosa Creek during the drought(Rathbun et al. 1991), red-legged frogshave been sighted in recent years in thelower reaches of the creek, presumablybecause of the above average rainfall inthe winter of 1992–1993. California red-legged frogs, which were known toinhabit upper reaches of the creekduring the drought years, werepresumed to have traveled downstreamto reoccupy former habitat. Onecommenter suggested that the Serviceshould study an entire watershed priorto concluding that the California red-legged frog is threatened in thatwatershed.

Service Response: The Service isaware that California red-legged frogsoccur in the upper reaches of Santa RosaCreek. Santa Rosa Creek is one of 32drainages in San Luis Obispo Countyknown to provide habitat for theCalifornia red-legged frog. Neither theService nor Rathbun et al. (1991) haveconcluded that California red-leggedfrogs have disappeared from Santa RosaCreek. Rathbun et al. (1991) refers onlyto conditions in the lower portions ofthe creek and lagoon.

The Service recognizes that theCalifornia red-legged frog is capable ofrepopulating former habitat whenrainfall returns. However, other factors,including overallocation of water, mayexacerbate the effects of droughtthrough loss of riparian habitat orincreased salinity in coastal lagoons.Where appropriate riparian or wetlandhabitat is degraded over the long-termby these hydrologic modifications,repopulation by California red-leggedfrogs in altered portions of the drainageis not possible regardless of whetherred-legged frogs occur in upstreamreaches. As portions of the drainagebecome unsuitable habitat for Californiared-legged frogs, isolated aggregations offrogs become more susceptible tostochastic extinction. The Service is notbasing this listing determination on thestatus of the California red-legged frogin any one specific watershed, butrather on the continuing populationdecline and threats to the remainder ofits range.

Comment: One commenter noted thatCalifornia red-legged frogs persist inupstream portions of Carmel Riverdespite the fact that bullfrogs are foundin the lower river and two reservoirs.The commenter felt that this evidencerefuted the assertion that California red-legged frog populations usuallydisappear from a drainage within 5years after a reservoir is built.


Service Response: The proposed ruleand this final rule state that Californiared-legged frogs generally are extirpatedfrom downstream portions of a drainage1 to 5 years after filling of a reservoir.Hayes and Jennings (1988), which iscited as the source of this information,does not present this cause and effectrelationship as an absolute. The authorsstate that this relationship depends onthe size of the drainage. In largerdrainages, isolated populations canpersist upstream. This final rule hasbeen revised to clarify this point.

Comment: One commenter thoughtthat too much emphasis was given tothe negative impacts of salinity levels incoastal lagoons. Natural overwash of saltwater into coastal lagoons makes theseareas unreliable habitat for Californiared-legged frogs.

Service Response: The Serviceacknowledges that coastal lagoonsprovide unreliable habitat for Californiared-legged frogs because of naturalsalinity changes caused by waveoverwash. However, large populationsof California red-legged frogs do occurin coastal lagoons, with PescaderoMarsh supporting one of the largestremaining populations. Therefore, thelarger lagoon systems should not bediscounted. Overallocation of streamwater resources intensifies the effect ofdrought on coastal lagoon populations,which over the long-term could result inchanges in lagoon vegetation andhydrology that are unfavorable toCalifornia red-legged frogs.

Comment: One commenter suggestedthat competition with tree frogs andfoothill yellow-legged frogs (Ranaboylii) may be a contributing factor inthe decline of California red-legged frog.

Service Response: No evidence existsin the literature to support the theorythat competition between California red-legged frogs and Pacific tree frogs orfoothill yellow-legged frogs resulted inCalifornia red-legged frog declines.

Issue 3: Economic and EnvironmentalEffects of Listing

Comment: Several commenters statedthat listing of the California red-leggedfrog may act to limit or curtail existinguses of private property, and therefore,a takings implication assessment shouldbe made prior to taking any final action.

Service Response: RegardingExecutive Order 12630, GovernmentalActions and Interference withConstitutionally Protected PropertyRights, the Attorney General has issuedguidelines to the Department of theInterior (Department) onimplementation of the Executive Order.Under these guidelines, a special ruleapplies when an agency within the

Department is required by law to actwithout exercising its usual discretion—that is, to act solely upon specifiedcriteria that leave the agency nodiscretion.

In this context, the Service might besubject to legal challenge if itconsidered or acted upon economicdata. In these cases, the AttorneyGeneral’s guidelines state that TakingsImplications Assessments (TIAs) shallbe prepared after, rather than before, theagency makes the decision upon whichits discretion is restricted. The purposeof TIAs in these special circumstancesis to inform policy makers of areaswhere unavoidable taking exposuresexist. Such TIAs shall not be consideredin the making of administrativedecisions that must, by law, be madewithout regard to their economicimpact. In enacting the Act, Congressrequired the Department to list speciesbased solely upon scientific andcommercial data indicating whether ornot they are in danger of extinction. TheAct does not allow the Service towithhold a listing based on concernsregarding economic impact. Theprovisions of the guidelines relating tonondiscretionary actions clearly areapplicable to the determination ofthreatened status for the California red-legged frog.

Comment: Several commentersexpressed concern about an adverseeffect of listing the California red-leggedfrog on the economy. Anothercommenter stated that the economicimpact of listing the California red-legged frog would be devastating to analready sluggish State economy.

Service Response: Under section4(b)(1)(A) of the Act, a listingdetermination must be based solely onthe best scientific and commercial dataavailable. The legislative history of thisprovision clearly states the intent ofCongress to ‘‘ensure’’ that listingdecisions are ‘‘* * * based solely onbiological criteria and to preventnonbiological considerations fromaffecting such decisions * * *’’ H. R.Rep. No. 97–835, 97th Cong., 2d Sess.19 (1982). As further stated in thelegislative history, ‘‘* * * economicconsiderations have no relevance todeterminations regarding the status ofspecies * * *’’ Id. at 20. Because theService is specifically precluded fromconsidering economic impacts, eitherpositive or negative, in a final decisionon a proposed listing, the Service neednot evaluate or consider the economicimpacts of listing this species.

Comment: One commenter suggestedthat the researchers who petitioned theService to list this species were usingthe Endangered Species Act as a method

of furthering their personal agenda toremove livestock from public andprivate rangeland.

Service Response: The Service isunaware that the researchers whopetitioned the Service to list theCalifornia red-legged frog have apersonal agenda to remove livestockfrom public and private rangeland.Management of livestock on rangelandsis one of many possible alternativesavailable to address adverse effects ofgrazing on California red-legged frogpopulations. For example, minoralterations in management practices andfencing of key riparian areas are twoalternatives that preserve grazingopportunities while protectingCalifornia red-legged frogs.

Comment: Numerous commentersstated that the Service should considerthe human health implications ofeliminating the use of mosquitofish,draining of wetlands, and insecticides tocontrol mosquitos.

Service Response: California red-legged frogs require still or slow-movingwater with dense emergent andoverhanging riparian vegetation forsurvival. Sites with these habitatattributes are often at great distancesfrom urban areas and are not regularlystocked with mosquitofish or otherwisemanaged to control mosquitos.Therefore, at the majority of remainingsites inhabited by California red-leggedfrogs, mosquito control is not likely tobe an issue. Where mosquitos are anissue, other biological control methodsare available and may be moreappropriate in California red-legged froghabitat. These methods includeapplication of several species of bacteria(Bacillus sp.), and more recently,application of a fungus (Lagenidiumgiganteum), which apparently attacksand kills only mosquitos. The Service iswilling to work with mosquito andvector control districts to minimizeconflicts between public health and theCalifornia red-legged frog.

The Service concludes that listing theCalifornia red-legged frog as athreatened species is not likely tohinder efforts of any Mosquito andVector Control Districts to controlmosquitos in California.

Comment: One commenter stated thatcessation or curtailment of waterreleases from reservoirs to accommodatethe California red-legged frog couldadversely impact other species,including several species of anadromousfish.

Service Response: If changes inreservoir release schedules are needed,the Service, in conjunction with theCalifornia Department of Fish andGame, will consider the needs of all


species that could be affected asrecommendations are made.

Issue 4: Designation of Critical Habitat

Comment: Several commentersrecommended that the Service designatecritical habitat for the California red-legged frog so that it would be easier forinterested parties to locate known andadditional populations of the species,and thus, contribute to an accuratedetermination of the need forprotection. One commenterrecommended designation of criticalhabitat as an additional way to protectCalifornia red-legged frogs on privateland. One commenter stated that aneconomic analysis should be conductedprior to designating critical habitat.

Service Response: The Service hasdetermined that designation of criticalhabitat for the California red-legged frogwould be more detrimental thanbeneficial to the species. Concern for thepotential ‘‘take’’ of the species (asdefined in the Act) through acts ofvandalism has been expressed by thepetitioners and other parties (see furtherdiscussion in ‘‘Summary of FactorsAffecting the Species’’ (Factor B) and‘‘Critical Habitat’’ sections, below).Revealing of the precise locations ofCalifornia red-legged frog habitat, asrequired through critical habitatdesignation, would make the speciesmore vulnerable to vandalism andunauthorized takings. The Service hasdetermined that designation of criticalhabitat is not prudent for the Californiared-legged frog, therefore, preparation ofan economic analysis is not required.However, the Service has identifiedrecovery units for the species.

Designation of critical habitat wouldnot necessarily provide additionalprotection for California red-legged frogaggregations on private land. Criticalhabitat legally applies only to Federallands or activities on non-federal landsregulated, sponsored, or funded by aFederal agency. For example,designation of critical habitat on privategrazing lands would not provide addedprotection against the impacts of grazingon California red-legged frog habitatbecause there is no federal nexus.Conversely, activities on private landsthat are authorized, funded or carriedout by a Federal agency, such as permitactions authorized under section 404 ofthe Clean Water Act, would requireconsultation with the Service if theactivity was expected to adversely affecta Federally listed endangered orthreatened species. This would applyregardless of whether critical habitatwas designated or not.

Issue 5: National Environmental PolicyAct

Comment: Several commenters statedthat the proposal to list the Californiared-legged frog requires preparation ofan Environmental Impact Statement(EIS) under the National EnvironmentalPolicy Act (NEPA). Another commenterstated that an EnvironmentalAssessment may be necessary todetermine the effects of the listing onother native species, disease-producingorganisms, and humans.

Service Response: The Service neednot prepare environmental assessmentsor environmental impacts statementspursuant to the National EnvironmentalPolicy Act (NEPA) for reasons outlinedin the Federal Register on October 25,1983 (48 FR 49244). Basically the listingof a species is exempt as a matter of lawfrom NEPA review. Listing decisions arebased on biological, not sociological oreconomic considerations. This view wasupheld in the court case Pacific LegalFoundation v. Andrus, 657 F. 2d 829(1981).

Issue 6: Alternate Listing StatusRecommended

Comment: Several commentersrecommended that the California red-legged frog be listed as a threatenedrather than an endangered species invarious watersheds because measuresare already being taken through Federal,State, and/or private efforts to protectCalifornia red-legged frog habitat, orbecause the numbers of California red-legged frogs in these watersheds aregreater and the threats less than in otherwatersheds within the California red-legged frog’s distribution. Onecommenter provided examples ofspecific streams including—(1) SespeCreek, where 31 miles within the ForestService’s Sespe Wilderness Area havebeen designated as Wild and Scenic,and a portion of Sespe Creek is includedwithin the Sespe Condor Sanctuary; and(2) Piru Creek, where flow releases havebeen modified to protect the Arroyosouthwestern toad (Bufo microscaphuscalifornicus), an endangered species.

Service Response: Additionalinformation received during the publiccomment period regarding newlocations of California red-legged frogsconfirmed that the taxon is morewidespread within its current rangethan previously thought. The existenceof 54 new drainage localities, and somedrainages with non-imminent threats,indicates that listing as a threatenedrather than an endangered species ispresently more appropriate for theCalifornia red-legged frog. The species isnot now in danger of extinction

throughout all or a significant portion ofits range in the near future, however,evidence does indicate that it maybecome endangered.

The Service acknowledges that aportion of Sespe Creek is designated as‘‘Wild and Scenic’’ under the Wild andScenic River Act, 16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.,and that activities such as reservoirdevelopment or channelization, may beprohibited in this area. The Service alsorecognizes that the portion of the creekwithin the Sespe Condor Sanctuary maybe protected in certain ways. However,designation as such does not eliminateall potential threats to the Californiared-legged frog. For example,designation as Wild and Scenic does notprotect against invasion of bullfrogs orother exotic predators, which are knownto occur in other portions of SespeCreek. Planned reservoir developmentdownstream of the Wild and Scenicportion of Sespe Creek increases thelikelihood that bullfrogs and introducedfishes could disperse into upstreamprotected portions of the creek. Also,the Wild and Scenic designation doesnot eliminate recreational uses of thecreek, including such activities asfishing, camping, mountain biking, andhorseback riding. The Sespe Creekportion of the Sespe Condor Sanctuaryis not closed to recreational use by thepublic.

On Piru Creek, studies suggest thatmodified water releases from LakePyramid over the last four years haveresulted in increased Arroyosouthwestern toad populations (CatBrown, Fish and Wildlife Service, pers.comm., 1994). No research has beenconducted to document the effect ofthese flow releases on California red-legged frogs.

Although the status of the Californiared-legged frog is not uniformthroughout its range, the overall pictureis one of a threatened species. Recoveryplanning and consultations undersection 7 of the Act will take intoaccount the status of the California red-legged frog within recovery units of itsrange (see ‘‘Available ConservationMeasures’’ section).

Comment: One commenter from SantaBarbara County recommended that theCalifornia red-legged frog be listed as athreatened species because the currentrange of the California red-legged frog isbroad and includes most of its historicrange. Another commenter thought thatthe current range of the California red-legged frog, which is 300 miles north tosouth, did not fit the definition of anendangered species.

Service Response: Section 3(20) of theAct defines a threatened species as onewhich is likely to become an


endangered species within theforeseeable future throughout all or asignificant portion of its range.Although the current range of theCalifornia red-legged frog encompassesless than 30 percent of its historicdistribution, new information receivedduring the public comment periodsuggests that California red-legged frogsare more widespread within theircurrent range than previously believed.For this reason and the fact that 17percent of the remaining drainagesoccupied by frogs are not known to beimminently threatened, the Service hasconcluded that the California red-leggedfrog more appropriately meets thedefinition of a threatened species.

Comment: Several commentersrequested that California red-leggedfrogs in specific drainages of the CentralCoast or the entire Central Coast beexempt from endangered species statusbecause California red-legged frogs seemto be adequately managed in this area,have not shown population declines, orhave fewer exotic species problems.

Service Response: Section 3(16) theAct defines the term ‘‘species’’ toinclude any subspecies of fish, wildlife,or plants, and any distinct populationsegment of any species of vertebrate fishor wildlife that interbreeds whenmature. California red-legged frogaggregations in certain drainages of thecentral coast of California or in theentire central coast region do notconstitute distinct vertebrate populationsegments. The Service cannot excludethese areas and intends to list the taxonas threatened throughout its range.

Issue 7: Research and Education NeedsComment: Several commenters

recommended the following researchtopics be explored in relation toconservation of the California red-leggedfrog: (1) Seasonal utilization of patchyhabitats for breeding, refugia andestivation; (2) migration timing; (3)estivation timing; (4) surveyingmethodology in marginal habitat; and(5) the effects of pesticide and herbiciderunoff.

Service Response: These commentshave been noted and will be consideredduring preparation of a recovery planfor the California red-legged frog.

Comment: One commenter committedto assisting the Service with cooperativeresearch on mosquitofish/California red-legged frog interactions.

Service Response: The Serviceconcurs fully with the need for furtherresearch in this area and acknowledgesthe commenter’s commitment to thiseffort.

Comment: One commenter asked if aprogram could be developed that would

allow for variable treatment/management of California red-leggedfrog habitat that was found to producesignificant numbers of mosquitoes.

Service Response: Because Californiared-legged frog habitat is variable, it islikely that management programs formosquitoes will also be variable anddepend on the situation under review.Research into the effects of variousmethods of mosquito control onCalifornia red-legged frogs should aidthe Service in any recovery planningundertaken for the taxon.

Comment: One commenterrecommended a number of ways toeducate the general public regardinglisted species and elicit their support,including publishing information intrade journals, posting signs at stormdrains to discourage dumping ofcontaminants, reevaluating the need forchannelized creeks, educating thepublic regarding the effects of bullfrogson native amphibians, teaching classesin grade schools, starting riparianrevegetation projects, and encouragingparticipation of landowners byproviding incentives.

Service Response: The commentshave been noted. The Service welcomesrecommendations from the public onhow to further the purposes of theEndangered Species Act. The Servicehas implemented many of theserecommendations in regard to otherlisted species and will give them dueconsideration in public educationprograms related to recovery of theCalifornia red-legged frog.

Issue 8: Systematic RelationshipsBetween Red-legged Frog Subspecies

Comment: Several commentersquestioned the Service’s exclusion ofthe intergrade zone between thenorthern red-legged frog (Rana auroraaurora) and the California red-leggedfrog (Rana aurora draytonii) innorthwestern California. They arguedthat this segment of the subspecies’range does not constitute a distinctpopulation segment and, therefore,cannot be excluded from the listingpackage. One commenter suggested thatthe Service excluded this segment of thesubspecies’ range to make thesubspecies distribution seem smallerand in greater need of protection.

Another commenter suggested thatthe two subspecies are actually differentpopulations of the same speciesdisplaying morphological differencesdue to climatic and habitat variations. Inthis case, the population numbers anddistribution of the species would bemuch greater and the need for listingnonexistent.

Service Response: The California red-legged frog is a recognized subspecies ofthe red-legged frog (Storer 1925,Cochran 1961, Stebbins 1985). Asdiscussed in the background section ofthis rule, the range of the California red-legged frog is the vicinity of Point ReyesNational Seashore, Marin County,California, coastally and from thevicinity of Redding, Shasta County,California, inland southward tonorthwestern Baja California, Mexico(Jennings and Hayes 1985, Hayes andKrempels 1986). Red-legged frogs foundin the intergrade zone from northernMarin County to southern Del NorteCounty are not considered a populationsegment of the California red-leggedfrog. At this time, researchers have notassigned the intergrade zone to eithersubspecies.

Among other differences, red-leggedfrogs within the intergrade zone aredistinct morphologically from eithersubspecies of Rana aurora. TheCalifornia red-legged frog possessespaired vocal sacs whereas the northernred-legged frog lacks vocal sacs. Mostred-legged frogs found in the intergradezone from northern Marin County tosouthern Del Norte County possess onlyone vocal sac. Based on this pronouncedmorphological difference in red-leggedfrogs in the intergrade zone, someresearchers have concluded that theCalifornia and northern red-legged frogsmay be two distinct species, and thatthe intergrade zone represents a zone ofsecondary contact or hybridizationbetween the two species (Hayes andKrempels 1986). Genetic research hasbeen proposed to clarify systematicrelationships (i.e., to determine if R. a.aurora and R. a. draytonii should beclassified as two species or shouldremain as subspecies) and allow a moreprecise identification of the northernlimits of the geographic distribution ofthe California red-legged frog (Jenningset al. 1992). In addition, habitat withinthe majority of the intergrade zone(moist evergreen/hardwood forest) ismore indicative of habitat preferred bythe northern red-legged frog. Thus, if theService were to assign the intergradezone to either subspecies based onhabitat preference alone, the intergradezone would be more appropriatelyplaced within the range of the northernred-legged frog.

Comment: One commenter noted thatthe California Academy of Sciences has66 specimens identified as Rana auroradraytonii that were collected fromRedwood National Park in HumboldtCounty between 1911 and 1940. Thecommenter stated that more specificidentification of herpetologicalsubspecies would be needed to


determine the boundary of Californiared-legged frogs as far north as Del NorteCounty.

Service Response: The specimensreferred to by the commenter wereidentified as R. a. draytonii in the 1940’sbased on size, skin characteristics, andprominence of dorsolateral folds asdescribed by Camp (1917). More recentresearch (see Hayes and Miyamoto 1984,Hayes and Krempels 1986), hasidentified vocal sac condition as adistinct morphological characteristicdifferentiating the two subspecies.Using these new findings, theresearchers who petitioned the Serviceto list the species have reviewed thespecimens in question and found thatthey should have been identified asintergrades between R. a. aurora and R.a. draytonii. As discussed above,research currently underway is designedto further refine the northern boundaryof the California subspecies’ range.

Comment: Another commentersuggested that the listing packageshould only consider red-legged frogs atthe species level, and, therefore, if red-legged frogs were temporarilyeliminated from some part of their rangein California, frogs from other areaswould recolonize suitable habitat.

Service Response: Section 3(15) of theEndangered Species Act defines aspecies to include ‘‘any subspecies offish or wildlife or plants* * *’’.Therefore, listing of a recognizedsubspecies is authorized in the Act.

The ability of red-legged frogs tomigrate from one drainage to anotherwould be dependent upon the distance,topography and habitat type throughwhich the frogs would be required tomigrate. Considering the Mediterraneanclimate in California, with its seasonaldryness, it is unlikely that red-leggedfrogs could very successfully migratelong distances to repopulate formerlyoccupied habitat.

Issue 9: Existing RegulatoryMechanisms

Comment: Several commentersbelieved that existing regulations (i.e.,Clean Water Act, CaliforniaEnvironmental Quality Act) andmonitoring by several Federal agenciesare providing adequate protection forthe California red-legged frog, and,therefore, listing is not needed.

Service Response: The Servicebelieves that existing regulatorymechanisms do not currently provideadequate protection for the Californiared-legged frog. A discussion of existingregulations can be found below inFactor D of the ‘‘Summary of FactorsAffecting the Species’’ section and the

‘‘Available Conservation Measures’’section.

Issue 10: MiscellaneousComment: One commenter pointed

out that the Cambria CommunityServices District acts responsibly inprotecting Santa Rosa and San SimeonCreek, including reductions in pumpingduring drought periods, promotingretrofit programs to reduce water usage,research into desalination alternativesand reverse osmosis treatment ofwastewater, and approval of riparianhabitat improvements.

Service Response: The Serviceacknowledges the District’s efforts toprotect stream flows and the naturalenvironment of Santa Rosa and SanSimeon Creeks. However, the Servicehas identified threats in these drainagesand other drainages as well.

Comment: One commenter indicatedthat mosquito abatement districts havemodified their mosquitofish planningprotocol to carefully consider theintroduction of mosquitofish in areasinhabited by listed species.

Service Response: The Serviceacknowledges the programmodifications made by many mosquitoabatement districts to protect listedspecies and their habitat.

Summary of Factors Affecting theSpecies

After a thorough review andconsideration of all informationavailable, the Service has determinedthat the California red-legged frogshould be listed as a threatened species.Procedures found at section 4 of the Act(16 U.S.C. 1533 et seq.) and regulations(50 CFR Part 424) promulgated toimplement the listing provisions of theAct were followed. A species may bedetermined to be an endangered orthreatened species due to one or moreof the five factors described in section4(a)(1). These factors and theirapplication to the California red-leggedfrog (Rana aurora draytonii) are asfollows:

A. The present or threateneddestruction, modification, orcurtailment of its habitat or range.Herpetologists have noted the decline orextirpation of California red-legged frogsfrom the San Francisco Bay area (SeanJ. Barry, University of California, Davis,in litt., 1992; Robert C. Stebbins,University of California, Berkeley, inlitt., 1993; John S. Applegarth,herpetologist, in litt., 1993; Ed Ely,herpetologist, in litt., 1993), the SalinasRiver drainage (Lawrence E. Hunt,University of California, Santa Barbara,in litt., 1993), the San Luis Obispo,Santa Barbara, and Ventura County area

(Aryan I. Roest, California PolytechnicState University, San Luis Obispo, inlitt., 1993; Samuel S. Sweet, Universityof California, Santa Barbara, in litt.,1993), southern California (PatrickMcMonagle, herpetologist, in litt., 1993;John D. Goodman, zoologist, in litt.,1992; Robert B. Sanders, San BernardinoCounty Museum, in litt., 1992; JohnStephenson, U.S. Forest Service, in litt.,1993; Michael C. Long, Eaton CanyonPark Nature Center, in litt., 1992; JosephF. Copp, herpetologist, in litt., 1993;Glenn R. Stewart, California PolytechnicUniversity, Pomona, in litt., 1993;Robert Fisher, University of California,Davis, in litt., 1993), central California(Martin R. Brittan, California StateUniversity, Sacramento, in litt., 1993),and the northern and southern SierraNevada foothills (Jay Wright, FeatherRiver College, Quincy, in litt., 1993;Alan M. McCready, California StateUniversity, Sacramento, in litt., 1992).

These observations fromherpetologists and data provided by theresearchers who petitioned the Serviceto list the species indicate that theCalifornia red-legged frog has sustaineda reduction of over 70 percent in itshistoric geographic range in California.Large aggregations of greater than 350adults have been documented from onlyfour areas. These areas includedPescadero Marsh Natural Preserve incoastal San Mateo County, Point ReyesNational Seashore in Marin County,canals west of San FranciscoInternational Airport in the SanFrancisco Bay area (Jennings et al.1992), and Rancho San Carlos inMonterey County (Jeff Froke, RanchoSan Carlos, in litt., 1994). Theaggregation west of San FranciscoInternational Airport is now thought tobe extirpated (U.S. Fish and WildlifeService, 1995; David Mullen, privateconsultant, pers. comm., 1994).

Habitat loss and alteration are theprimary factors that have negativelyaffected the California red-legged frogthroughout its range. For example, inthe Central Valley of California, over 90percent of historic wetlands have beendiked, drained, or filled primarily foragricultural development andsecondarily for urban development (U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service, 1978).Wetland alterations, clearing ofvegetation, and water diversions thatoften accompany agriculturaldevelopment make aquatic sitesunsuitable for California red-leggedfrogs. Urbanization with its associatedroadway, stream channelization, andlarge reservoir construction projects hassignificantly altered or eliminatedCalifornia red-legged frog habitat, withthe greatest impact occurring in


southern California. The majority ofextant localities are isolated andfragmented remnants of larger historicalpopulations.

Current and future urbanization posesa significant threat to the California red-legged frog. Sixty-five drainages (27percent of the known occurrences) areassociated with urbanization threats(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1995).Proposed urban developments includethe East County Area Plan in AlamedaCounty, which involves development ofup to 52,000 acres, and projectscurrently proposed in the Ruby Hills/Arroyo Del Valle watershed and southLivermore Valley; Reservoir Canyonponds in Santa Clara County; Alamo,Shadow, and Brookside Creeks inContra Costa County; the Carmel Riverin Monterey County; and the Santa YnezRiver in Santa Barbara County. In SantaCruz County, a proposed commuter railproject linking Santa Cruz toWatsonville could increase urbandevelopment in southern portions of thecounty (Patricia O’Keefe, R.A.I.L.S., inlitt., 1994). In San Luis Obispo County,one of three counties with numerousdrainages supporting California red-legged frogs, proposed residential and/or recreational development adjacent toSan Simeon, Santa Rosa, San Juan, andCambria Meadows Creeks and Estrellaand Salinas Rivers could degrade oreliminate California red-legged froghabitat. Updates to area plans for theNorth Coast, San Luis Obispo, and PasoRobles/Atascadero areas in San LuisObispo County propose rezoning of over240,000 acres primarily for urbandevelopment. Between the cities ofVentura and San Luis Obispo,development already has eliminatedCalifornia red-legged frogs from at leasteight drainages along the coast (G.Rathbun and M. Jennings, in litt., 1993).

Loss of habitat and decreases inhabitat quality will occur as a result ofon-site degradation of the streamenvironment and/or riparian corridor, orthrough modification of instream flow.Where streams or wetlands occur inurban areas, the quality of Californiared-legged frog habitat is degraded by avariety of factors. Among these factorsare introduction of exotic predators,elimination of streambank vegetation,collecting, and loss of upland habitat.

Water projects, which accompanyurban and agricultural growth, have hada negative effect on California red-legged frogs and their habitat. Theconstruction of large reservoirs, such asLake Oroville, Whiskeytown Reservoir,Don Pedro Reservoir, Lake Berryessa,San Luis Reservoir, Lake Silverwood,Lake Piru, Pyramid Lake, and LowerOtay Lake, have eliminated California

red-legged frog habitat or fragmentedremaining aggregations (Jennings et al,.1992).

The timing and duration of waterreleases from reservoirs, particularly onthe central California coast, can rendera stream unsuitable for California red-legged frog reproduction (M. Jennings,in litt., 1993) and maintain populationsof exotic predators in downstream areasthat would normally be dry in summer(S. Sweet, in litt., 1993). Reservoirs aretypically stocked with predatory speciesof fish and bullfrogs. These speciesoften disperse into surroundingCalifornia red-legged frog habitatdisrupting natural communitydynamics. Hayes and Jennings (1988)found that California red-legged frogsgenerally were extirpated fromdownstream portions of a drainage 1 to5 years after filling of a reservoir. Insome larger drainages, however, isolatedCalifornia red-legged frog populationshave persisted upstream. A discussionof exotic predators appears below inFactor C: ‘‘Disease or predation.’’

A variety of proposed water projectsthreaten remaining California red-leggedfrog aggregations. Construction of majorreservoirs is proposed on Los BanosCreek (Merced County), with OrestimbaCreek (Stanislaus County) as analternative reservoir site (CaliforniaDepartment of Water Resources and theU.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 1990), andon Kellogg Creek (Contra Costa County)(Contra Costa Water District, 1993).These drainages represent three of 14sites remaining in the Central Valleyhydrographic basin with known orpotential localities of California red-legged frogs. On the Salinas River alongthe central coast, raising the height ofSalinas Dam (Santa Margarita Lake) isproposed in San Luis Obispo County.Reservoir construction at this site mayallow exotic predators access toformerly secure aggregations ofCalifornia red-legged frogs isolated inupper portions of the watershed (L.Hunt, in litt., 1993). Other largereservoir projects proposed in Californiared-legged frog habitat include theUpper Nacimiento River Project andArroyo Seco Dam Project in MontereyCounty. In Santa Barbara and Venturacounties, proposed dams on the SantaYnez River, Sisquoc River, and SespeCreek also would eliminate or degradeCalifornia red-legged frog habitat (SamSweet, pers. comm., 1993).

Water diversions, groundwater welldevelopment, and stock pond or smallreservoir construction projects degradeor eliminate habitat. Diverting waterfrom natural habitats to these projectsdisrupts the natural hydrologic regime.During periods of drought, reduced

availability of water within naturaldrainages combined with drawdownfrom the impoundments, disruptsreproduction, foraging, estivation anddispersal (U.S. Fish and WildlifeService, 1995) (see Factor E, ‘‘Othernatural or man-made factors affecting itscontinued existence’’ below foradditional discussion of the effects ofdrought). Proposed or existing waterdiversions on the central coastpotentially affect the followingdrainages: San Simeon, Santa Rosa, VanGordon, Villa, San Luis Obispo, Pico,and Little Pico Creeks, Arroyo delPuerta, and Arroyo Laguna in San LuisObispo County; the Carmel and SalinasRivers in Monterey County; and Canadadel Refugio in Santa Barbara County.Most waterways on the south coast ofSanta Barbara County are diverted toagriculture and other uses, leaving somecompletely desiccated (Brian Trautwein,Santa Barbara Urban Creeks Council, inlitt., 1994). Stock ponds and smallreservoirs also support populations ofexotic fishes and bullfrogs (G. Rathbunand M. Jennings, in litt., 1993). Theproposed coastal branch of the StateWater Project is likely to result in anumber of adverse effects to Californiared-legged frogs in many of the 24 areasreceiving State water. These effectsinclude, (1) altered water regimes inexisting and any proposed deliveryfacilities of individual water districts,(2) spills, leaks, malfunctions, andoperational errors that lead tointroduction of exotic predators intoisolated stream segments currentlyoccupied by California red-legged frogs,and (3) indirect effects associated withexpanded urbanization.

Storm damage repair and floodcontrol maintenance on streams arecurrent threats to California red-leggedfrogs. Routine flood controlmaintenance includes vegetationremoval, herbicide spraying, shaping ofbanks to control erosion, and desiltingof the creek, all of which degradeCalifornia red-legged frog habitat. In SanLuis Obispo and Santa Barbara counties,maintenance work is planned for 14 and11 drainages, respectively. All 25drainages are known to be inhabited byCalifornia red-legged frogs and represent35 percent of the occupied drainages inthese two counties (U.S. Fish andWildlife Service 1995). In Santa BarbaraCounty, a larger channel maintenanceproject is proposed for a 4.5-mile stretchof the Santa Ynez River near Lompocand a 10-mile segment of San AntonioCreek, both of which support Californiared-legged frog habitat.

Management of water bodies for floodcontrol also has the potential toadversely impact California red-legged


frog localities. In San Mateo County,poorly timed releases of storm waterfrom Horse Stable Pond at Sharp Park inFebruary 1992, resulted in exposure anddesiccation of 62 California red-leggedfrog egg masses (Todd Steiner, EarthIsland Institute, in litt., 1994). Channelmaintenance at San FranciscoInternational Airport may havecontributed to extirpation of one of thefour largest remaining aggregations ofthe California red-legged frog.

Routine road maintenance, traildevelopment, and facilities constructionactivities associated with parks in oradjacent to California red-legged froghabitat can result in increased siltationin the stream. If this siltation occursduring the breeding season,asphyxiation of eggs and smallCalifornia red-legged frog larvae canresult. On the upper Santa Ynez Riverand Sespe Creek in Los Padres NationalForest, Sweet (pers. comm., 1993)observed California red-legged frog eggmasses smothered with silt.Construction activities in or adjacent tostreams at Butano and Portola StateParks in San Mateo County; Big Basin,Wilder Ranch, and Henry Cowell StateParks in Santa Cruz County; and Mt.Diablo State Park in Contra CostaCounty have the potential to adverselyaffect California red-legged frogsinhabiting downstream reaches (CoyoteCreek Riparian Station, in litt., 1993).

Placer mining may threaten Californiared-legged frog habitat. Jennings (pers.comm., 1994) observed heavy siltationin late spring and summer in portionsof Piru Creek known to supportCalifornia red-legged frogs. The siltationresulted from upstream gold mining.Deep holes in streams created byinstream placer mining also mayprovide habitat for exotic predatory fish(Jennings, pers. comm., 1994). Creeks,streams and rivers are open to suctiondredging throughout the year in 13 of 22counties within the current range of theCalifornia red-legged frog (State ofCalifornia 1994).

Road-killed California red-leggedfrogs have been documented at severallocations in San Mateo and Santa CruzCounties (Coyote Creek RiparianStation, in litt., 1993; Mike Westphal,Coyote Creek Riparian Station, in litt.,1995). Road kills may deplete frogaggregations in borderline habitat andotherwise protected areas. Where roadscross or lie adjacent to California red-legged frog habitat, they may act asbarriers to seasonal movement anddispersal.

Livestock grazing is another form ofhabitat alteration that is contributing todeclines in the California red-leggedfrog. Numerous studies, summarized in

Behnke and Raleigh (1978) andKauffman and Krueger (1984), haveshown that livestock grazing negativelyaffects riparian habitat. Cattle have anadverse affect on riparian and otherwetland habitats because they tend toconcentrate in these areas, particularlyduring the dry season (Marlow andPogacnik 1985). Cattle trample and eatemergent and riparian vegetation, ofteneliminating or severely reducing plantcover (Gunderson 1968, Duff 1979). Lossof riparian vegetation results inincreased water temperatures (VanVelson 1979), which encourage bullfrogreproduction. Riparian vegetation lossdue to cattle grazing includes the loss ofwillows (Duff 1979), which areassociated with the highest densities ofCalifornia red-legged frogs (Hayes andJennings 1988, Jennings 1988b). Cattlegrazing also results in increased erosionin the watershed (Lusby 1970, Winegar1977), which accelerates thesedimentation of deep pools (Gunderson1968) used by California red-leggedfrogs and adversely affects aquaticinvertebrates (Cordone and Kelley1961). Aquatic invertebrates arecommon prey items of California red-legged frogs.

Behnke and Zarn (1976) identifiedlivestock grazing as the greatest threat tothe integrity of stream habitat in thewestern United States. Numeroussymposia and publications havedocumented the detrimental effects oflivestock grazing on streams andriparian habitats (Johnson and Jones1977; Meehan and Platts 1978; Behnkeand Raleigh 1979; Bowers et al. 1979;Cope 1979; Platts 1981; Ohmart andAnderson 1982 and 1986; Peek andDalke 1982; Kauffman et al. 1983;Menke 1983; Kauffman and Krueger1984; Johnson et al. 1985; GAO 1988;Clary and Webster 1989; Gresswell et al.1989; Kinch 1989; Minshall et al. 1989;Chaney et al. 1990 and 1993). Theseeffects include nutrient loading,reduction of shade and cover withresultant increases in watertemperature, increased intermittentflows, changes in stream channelmorphology, and the addition ofsediment due to bank degradation andoff-site soil erosion. Indirect effects ofincreased water temperatures can belethal to aquatic species and include:creating a more favorable environmentfor introduced species, changing thefood chain, degrading water qualitythrough decreased dissolved oxygen,increased production of algae, andincreased pH and ammonia.

Various studies have shown thatwater temperatures have been reducedwhen streambank vegetative cover isprotected from grazing. Storch (1979)

found that daily fluctuations of watertemperatures in late August and earlySeptember averaged 27° F outside anexclosure on Camp Creek, Oregon thatwas ungrazed for 10 years, compared to13° F inside the exclosure. Also,maximum water temperatures outsidethe exclosure averaged 11° F higher thaninside the exclosure. Van Velson (1979)reported that average watertemperatures in Otter Creek, Nebraska,decreased 3° F after livestock wereexcluded for 1 year.

Grazing effects are not limited toriparian areas. Improper grazing ofupland vegetation can expose soils toerosive impacts of rain drops, reducewater infiltration, and accelerate runoff.This can erode topsoil and cut rills andgullies, concentrating runoff, deepeninggullies, lowering water tables, andincreasing sediment production (Chaneyet al. 1993). Sediment introduced intostreams can alter primary productivityand food supply, fill interstitial spacesin stream bed material, impeding waterflow, reducing dissolved oxygen levels,and restricting waste removal (Chapman1988). Suspended sediments reducelight penetration to plants and reduceoxygen carrying capacity of the water(Ohmart and Anderson 1982).Reduction in photosynthesis andprimary production decreasesproductivity of the entire ecosystem(Minshall et al. 1989).

Livestock grazing can cause a nutrientloading problem (due to urination anddefecation) in areas where cattle areconcentrated near the water (Doran et al.1981), but in other areas it can reducenutrients through removal of riparianvegetation (Fisher 1972). Riparianvegetation provides organic material forapproximately 50 percent of a stream’snutrient energy (Cummins 1974).Detritus from such plants is a principalsource of food for aquatic invertebrates(Minshall 1967; Meehan et al. 1977).Streamside vegetation also provideshabitat for terrestrial insects, anotherimportant dietary component for otheraquatic or riparian associated species.

Jennings et al. (1992) found livestockgrazing to occur at all known historiclocations of the California red-leggedfrog in the Central Valley hydrographicbasin. Livestock grazing also has beenimplicated as a contributing factor inthe decline and disappearance ofCalifornia red-legged frogs from thelower Salinas River (L. Hunt, in litt.,1993) and the San Francisco peninsula(S. Barry, in litt., 1992). Two of the 14remaining aggregations of Californiared-legged frogs in the Central Valleyhydrographic basin (Corral HollowEcological Reserve and Frank RainesRegional Park) are threatened by


sedimentation of aquatic habitats eitherdirectly or indirectly caused bylivestock grazing and off-road vehicleuse (Jennings et al. 1992). GalenRathbun (National Biological Service,pers. comm., 1993) reports that grazingis adversely altering California red-legged frog habitat on Pico, Van Gordon,San Simeon, Santa Rosa, CambriaMeadows, and Cayucos Creeks in SanLuis Obispo County. Grazing practicescan, however, be modified to minimizeimpacts to California red-legged frogs.Five-fold increases in California red-legged frog populations on Rancho SanCarlos in Monterey County may beattributable in part to modifications ofgrazing programs (J. Froke, in litt.,1994).

In addition to cattle, feral pigs (Susscrofa) also disturb the riparian zonethrough their rooting, wallowing andforaging behavior in the shallowmargins of water bodies. Feral pigsdisturb and destroy vegetative cover,trample plants and seedlings, and causeerosion. At Pinnacles NationalMonument, soil compaction andpossible disturbance of frog eggs causedby feral pigs have been noted inCalifornia red-legged frog habitat(Stanley Albright, National Park Service,in litt., 1994).

Off-road vehicle use adversely affectsCalifornia red-legged frogs in wayssimilar to livestock grazing and feral pigdisturbance. Off-road vehicles damageriparian vegetation, increase siltation inpools, disturb the water in streamchannels and crush eggs, larvae,juveniles, and adults. California red-legged frogs were eliminated in part byoff-road vehicle activities at the MojaveRiver above Hesperia, at Rincon Stationon the west fork of the San GabrielRiver, and in Piru Creek above PyramidLake (M. Jennings, pers. comm., 1993).

Heavy recreational use of parks (e.g.,fishing, hiking, exploring) also candegrade habitat for the California red-legged frog. At Big Basin Redwood Parkin Santa Cruz County, heavyrecreational use may have contributedto the disappearance of California red-legged frogs from Opal Creek (CoyoteCreek Riparian Station, in litt., 1993).

Timber harvest threatens Californiared-legged frogs through loss of riparianvegetation and increased erosion in thewatershed, which fills pools withsediment and smothers egg masses. InSanta Cruz County, timber harvest isproposed adjacent to Adams Creek(Celia Scott, private citizen, pers.comm., 1993), Whitehouse Creek (U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service 1995) andoccurs periodically on a tributary ofBlooms Creek (Coyote Creek RiparianStation, in litt., 1993). The proposed

timber harvests would occur in three of18 streams in the County that supportCalifornia red-legged frogs. In PescaderoCreek at Portola State Park (San MateoCounty), erosion and siltation caused bysevere winter storms and upstreamlogging operations may have been thecause of the disappearance of Californiared-legged frogs from this portion of thestream (Coyote Creek Riparian Station,in litt., 1993).

B. Overutilization for commercial,recreational, scientific, or educationalpurposes. Records of harvestingCalifornia red-legged frogs for humanconsumption date back to an account byLockington (1879) of the commercialharvest of this species for San Franciscofish markets. From 1890 to 1900, theCalifornia red-legged frog supported asignificant commercial harvest (Smith1895) of about 80,000 frogs annually(Jennings and Hayes 1984). Countiessurrounding San Francisco Bayprovided the bulk of the frog harvest inthe early to mid 1890s, with theSacramento and San Joaquin Valleysincreasing in importance by the end ofthe decade (Chamberlain 1898, Jenningsand Hayes 1985). By 1900, harvestfigures for California red-legged frogsfell dramatically, indicating thatoverharvesting may have occurred.Jennings and Hayes (1985) hypothesizedthat this rapid decline in the Californiared-legged frog population was theresult of selective harvesting of thelarger females. Introduction of thebullfrog in California in 1896 wasprobably in response to the dwindlingCalifornia red-legged frog population(Jennings and Hayes 1985). Continuedharvesting of California red-legged frogsfor food by local individuals has beenreported for the Central Coast region(Coyote Creek Riparian Station, in litt.,1993). California red-legged frogsreportedly taste better than bullfrogs, astatement first made by Dickerson(1906).

Prior to 1950, California red-leggedfrogs were used sporadically forresearch in high schools anduniversities. At present, the Californiared-legged frog is availablecommercially from suppliers locatedoutside California in the pet trade.Because the State of California prohibitspossession of wild California red-leggedfrogs without a permit, frogs sold in thepet trade presumably are reared incaptivity (M. Jennings, pers. comm.,1993).

C. Disease or predation. There havebeen no documented instances ofdisease adversely affecting theCalifornia red-legged frog.

Few data are available on the effect ofnative predators on the California red-

legged frog. Bitterns (Botauruslentiginosus) and black-crowned nightherons (Nycticorax nycticorax) arelikely predators of adult frogs (Jenningsand Hayes 1990). Juvenile Californiared-legged frogs, which are more activediurnally and less wary than adults,may be more susceptible to predation bydiurnal predators, such as the great blueheron (Ardea herodias) and severalspecies of garter snakes (Thamnophisspp.) (Fitch 1940, Fox 1952), includingthe endangered San Francisco gartersnake (Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia)(Barry 1978, Wharton et al. 1986).Recent postmetamorphs also may beparticularly vulnerable to predation bygarter snakes, as was found in otherspecies of ranid frogs by Arnold andWassersug (1978). Raccoons (Procyonlotor), which are abundant in urbansettings, were the likely predator ofeight radio-tagged California red-leggedfrogs in the riparian corridor of Pico andSan Simeon Creeks in San Luis ObispoCounty (Rathbun, in litt., 1994). Otherpossible, but undocumentedmammalian predators include stripedskunks (Mephitis mephitis), spottedskunks (Spilogale putorius), and red fox(Vulpes fulva). Larvae may be preyedupon by aquatic beetles and damsel flynaiads (Karl Malamud-Roam, ContraCosta County Mosquito and VectorControl District, in litt., 1994).

Introduced predators of particularconcern are the bullfrog, red swampcrayfish (Procambarus clarkii), signalcrayfish (Pacifastacus leniusculus), andseveral species of fish, including bass,catfish (Ictalurus spp.), sunfish, andmosquitofish (Moyle 1973; Hayes andJennings 1986, 1988). All species wereintroduced into California in the late1800s and early 1900s, and throughrange expansions, reintroductions, andtransplants have become establishedthroughout most of the State (Riegel1959, Bury and Luckenbach 1976,Moyle 1976).

Several researchers in centralCalifornia have noted the decline andeventual disappearance of Californiared-legged frogs once bullfrogs becomeestablished at the same site (L. Hunt, inlitt, 1993; S. Barry, in litt., 1992; S.Sweet, in litt., 1993). Joseph DiDonato(East Bay Regional Park District, pers.comm., 1994) has observed thedisappearance of California red-leggedfrogs from Pleasanton Ridge in AlamedaCounty within the last ten years. Today,all former California red-legged froghabitat on Pleasanton Ridge is occupiedby bullfrogs. Moyle (1973) attributed thedisappearance of California red-leggedfrogs from the San Joaquin Valley andSierran foothill region primarily to acombination of bullfrog predation and


competition. All sites in the SierraNevada foothills that supportedCalifornia red-legged frogs in the 1970snow are inhabited by bullfrogs (M.Jennings, in litt., 1993). Over the lastdecade, Jennings (in litt., 1993) hasobserved bullfrogs moving upstreamand/or downstream into formerlypristine California red-legged froghabitat in a number of drainages,including streams in Ventura, SantaBarbara, San Luis Obispo, Merced,Stanislaus, and San Mateo counties.Bullfrogs are introduced into drainagesby stocking of reservoirs and stockponds, dispersal and colonization,conveyance of project water from otherstreams inhabited by these exotics, andreleases by individuals. At The NatureConservancy’s Santa Rosa PlateauReserve in Riverside County (the onlysite south of the Santa Clara Riverdrainage supporting California red-legged frogs), a docent found a schoolteacher attempting to introduce bullfrogtadpoles into the preserve in the 1980s(M. Jennings, in litt., 1993). Additionalbullfrogs were removed from thepreserve in 1989 after apparentintroductions from a nearby frogjumping contest (M. Jennings, in litt.,1994). Once established, it is extremelydifficult to eliminate bullfrogs (M.Jennings, in litt., 1993; Cecil Schwalbe,National Park Service, Tuscon, Arizona,pers. comm., 1993; Frank Slavens,Woodland Park Zoological Gardens,Seattle, Washington, pers. comm.,1993). Over 60 percent of the streams ordrainages currently known to supportCalifornia red-legged frogs also areinhabited by bullfrogs, either inassociation with California red-leggedfrogs or in other portions of the drainage(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1995).Based on documented rates of localextinction, the Service concludes thateventually California red-legged frogswill be locally extirpated from these 149streams.

Bullfrogs prey on California red-legged frogs (S. Sweet, in litt., 1993),other ranid frogs (Twedt 1993) and otheramphibians and aquatic reptiles(Schwalbe and Rosen 1988). Twedt(1993) documented four juvenilenorthern red-legged frogs among thecontents of 22 adult bullfrog stomachs.He also found a subadult bullfrog in oneof the adult bullfrog stomachs. This preyitem was between the size of an adultmale (approximately 80 mm (3.1 in.))and adult female (approximately 85 mm(3.3 in.)) red-legged frog, indicating thatbullfrogs could prey on subadult red-legged frogs. Stuart and Painter (1993)found evidence of cannibalisticbehavior in bullfrogs. A stomach

content analysis revealed 87 percent oftotal volume by weight was composedof newly-metamorphosed and larvalRana. Bullfrogs may have a competitiveadvantage over California red-leggedfrogs because of their (1) larger size, (2)generalized food habits (Bury andWhelan 1984), (3) extended breedingseason (Storer 1933), which allows forproduction of two clutches of up to20,000 eggs during a breeding season(Emlen 1977), and (4) larvae beingunpalatable to predatory fish (Kruse andFrancis 1977). Bullfrogs also interferewith red-legged frog reproduction.Several researchers have noted malered-legged frogs in amplexus with(mounted on) both male and femalebullfrogs (Jennings and Hayes 1990;Twedt 1993; M. Jennings, in litt., 1993;Stebbins in litt., 1993). However, theextent to which bullfrog predation,competition, and reproductiveinterference adversely affects red-leggedfrogs has not been studied in the field(Hayes and Jennings 1986). Habitatalterations, including removal ofriparian or aquatic vegetation, reducedstream flows, and sedimentation ofpools, often provide conditionsdetrimental to red-legged frogs butfavorable to bullfrogs (Hayes andJennings 1986; Jennings 1988b;Jennings, pers. comm., 1993).

Hayes and Jennings (1986, 1988)found a negative correlation betweenthe abundance of introduced fishspecies and California red-legged frogs.These authors noted that aquatic siteswhere introduced fishes were abundantrarely had native ranids, and whenpresent, ranid populations were small.A similar negative correlation wasreported by Hunt (in litt., 1993) forCalifornia red-legged frogs in the SalinasRiver drainage, by DiDonato (in litt.,1994) on East Bay Regional Park Districtproperties in the San Francisco Bayarea, by Shaffer (in litt., 1994) for theinner coast range, and by Moyle (1973)for the foothill yellow-legged frog. Thesereferences suggest that the observednegative correlation between Californiared-legged frogs and non-native fish is ageneral principal. Of 32 streamsexamined by Hayes and Jennings (1988),introduced fishes were found in 44percent.

Results of a recent study in artificialponds showed that mosquitofish andbluegill (Lepomis macrochirus) weresignificant predators of California red-legged frog larvae (Schmieder andNauman 1994). However, California red-legged frogs have been found inassociation with mosquitofish in CorralHollow Creek (Alameda and SanJoaquin counties) (T. Strange, pers.comm., 1994) and in three waterbodies

on East Bay Regional Park properties inContra Costa County (K. Swaim, in litt.,1994). Malamud-Roam (in litt, 1994)reported that mosquitofish occur in atleast four streams in Contra CostaCounty known to support Californiared-legged frogs. Mosquitofish also maycompete with California red-legged frogsby consuming aquatic insects that arepotential food sources forpostmetamorphic frogs. Mosquitofishhave become established statewide andare stocked routinely by mosquitoabatement districts as a mosquitocontrol measure (Moyle 1976).

D. The inadequacy of existingregulatory mechanisms. Although theCalifornia red-legged frog is classified asa ‘‘Species of Special Concern’’ by theState of California (Steinhart 1990) andmay not be taken without an approvedscientific collecting permit, thisdesignation provides no special, legallymandated protection of the species andits habitat. In 1972, the California Fishand Game Commission amended itssport fishing regulations to prohibit takeor possession of California red-leggedfrogs (Bury and Stewart 1973). However,because of the rarity of the Californiared-legged frog and similarity to themore common bullfrog, protection ofthis taxon by State wardens and rangersmay be compromised (Coyote CreekRiparian Station, in litt., 1993).

Section 1603 of the California Fishand Game Code authorizes theDepartment of Fish and Game (CDFG) toregulate streambed alteration. TheDepartment must be notified andapprove any work that substantiallydiverts, alters, or obstructs the naturalflow or substantially changes the bed,channel or banks of any river, stream, orlake. If an existing fish or wildliferesource may be substantially adverselyaffected by a project, CDFG must submitproposals to protect the species within30 days. However, if the Departmentdoes not respond within 30 days ofnotification, the applicant may proceedwith the work.

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act isthe primary Federal law that potentiallyprovides some protection for aquatichabitats of the California red-leggedfrog, if the habitats are determined bythe U.S. Army Corps of Engineers(Corps) to be jurisdictional areas (i.e.,waters of the United States). Undersection 404, nationwide permits, whichundergo minimal public and agencyreview, can be issued for projectsinvolving less than 10 acres of wetlandsabove the headwaters (i.e., streams withless than five cubic feet per second (cfs)mean annual flow) or for isolatedwaters, unless a listed species may beadversely affected. Many aggregations of


California red-legged frogs occur inisolated wetlands and coastal streamsthat may have mean annual flows lessthan five cfs. Individual permits, whichare subject to more extensive review,could be required for projects that havemore than minimal impacts to waters ofthe United States. The Clean Water Actdoes not afford any special protectionfor candidate species. However, whenthe California red-legged frog is listed,the Corps will be required by section 7of the Act to consult and obtain theconcurrence of the Service prior to theauthorization of any section 404 permitaffecting California red-legged froghabitat.

Additionally and equally important,the upland habitats adjacent to riparianzones are not provided any protectionby Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.Upland areas provide estivation anddispersal habitats for this species.

Federal lands, including those of theForest Service, National Park Service,Bureau of Land Management, Bureau ofReclamation, and Department ofDefense, encompass approximately 10percent of the current known range ofthe California red-legged frog. Multipleland use management, as currentlypracticed by the Forest Service, Bureauof Land Management, and National ParkService, does not provide long-termprotection for the California red-leggedfrog. State, County, and Regional Parklands provide some protection fromsome threats, however, these parks aremanaged for multiple uses.

The National Environmental PolicyAct (NEPA) and CaliforniaEnvironmental Quality Act (CEQA)require an intensive environmentalreview of projects that may adverselyaffect a Federally listed species.However, project proponents are notrequired to avoid impacts to non-listedspecies, and proposed mitigationmeasures are frequently not adequatelyimplemented. As with section 404permits, the Service’s commentsthrough these environmental reviewprocesses are only advisory. The Serviceis aware of a proposed recreationaldevelopment in Santa Cruz Countyundergoing environmental review thatis expected to extirpate an estimated 10percent of the total remaining numbersof the California red-legged frog(Westphal in litt. 1995).

The California Coastal Act regulatesthe approval of developments withinthe costal zone. Although a significantslowing in wetland losses has occurred,the continued loss and degradation ofcoastal wetlands since the CaliforniaCoastal Act was enacted in 1974 atteststo the limitations of this legislation.

E. Other natural or man-made factorsaffecting its continued existence. Sixconsecutive years of drought (1986–1992) in California severely affectedremaining California red-legged frogs inthe Sierran foothills. Many sites inintermittent streams that held Californiared-legged frogs before the drought werecompletely dry during field surveysconducted between 1985 to 1992(Jennings et al. 1992). Sites still holdingpools of water had water levels so lowthat access by predators was enhanced.Livestock grazing at many sitesexacerbated effects of the drought bylimiting or preventing riparian habitatregeneration (Jennings et al. 1992).Long-term survival of California red-legged frogs may be compromised by theelimination of refuge areas during timesof the year when the stream is dry(Rathbun, in litt., 1994). However,California red-legged frog populationsare undoubtedly capable of recoveringfrom drought, provided other factorshave not irreparably degraded theirhabitat, or California red-legged frogshave not been completely extirpatedfrom the drainage.

Drought also may play a role indecreased California red-legged frogreproduction where frogs occur incoastal lagoons. High salinities in thePescadero Marsh (San Mateo County)have been attributed to droughtconditions in the watershed. At thePescadero Marsh Natural Preserve,Jennings and Hayes (1990) found manydead egg masses in a portion of themarsh that were killed by excessive(>4.5 parts per thousand) salinity levels.Rathbun et al. (1991) speculated that theabsence of California red-legged frogs inlower Santa Rosa Creek and lagoon inSan Luis Obispo County was due tolong-term drought exacerbated byinstream flow withdrawals. Since theend of the drought California red-leggedfrog numbers reportedly have increasedin lower Santa Rosa Creek (Rathbun inlitt. 1994; G. Schmitt, United ResidentialLot Owners of Cambria, Inc. in litt.1994) probably as a result of increasedrainfall in the winter of 1992–1993.Increased salinities were recorded inseveral other coastal lagoons during thedrought years (C. Swift and K.Worcester, pers. comm. in Jennings etal. 1992). Increased salinity could alsoresult from periodic overtopping of thebeach bar during high tides or by stormwaves (D. Asquith, private consultant,in litt. 1994). In 1993, Jennings (pers.comm., 1993) reported the loss ofCalifornia red-legged frog egg massesfrom increased salinity and unusualflooding in Arroyo Laguna in San LuisObispo County. Because significant

numbers of California red-legged frogsoccur in coastal lagoons on the centralCalifornia coast, drought has thepotential to severely reduce productionof California red-legged frogs over asignificant portion of their remainingrange.

The overall effect of contaminants onCalifornia red-legged frogs has not beenstudied. Only one incident of Californiared-legged frog mortality is known froma diesel and gasoline spill in a tributaryof Blooms Creek (Santa Cruz County)(Coyote Creek Riparian Station, in litt.,1993).

Periodic wildfires may adverselyaffect California red-legged frogs bycausing direct mortality, destroyingstreamside vegetation, or eliminatingvegetation that protects the watershed.The 1991 Lions Fire on upper SespeCreek in the Los Padres National Forestdestroyed known California red-leggedfrog habitat (S. Sweet, pers. comm.,1993). Following the fire, extensiveerosion in the watershed also negativelyaffected California red-legged frogs andtheir habitat (S. Sweet, pers. comm.,1993).

Extensive flooding has been cited byJennings and Hayes (1994a) as asignificant contributing factor in theextirpation of the California red-leggedfrog from desert drainages of southernCalifornia. For example, in the MojaveRiver drainage, no verifiable records orsightings exist of California red-leggedfrogs after 1968 (Jennings and Hayes1994a). The disappearance of thisspecies from the drainage coincidedwith a catastrophic flood event in theMojave River in the winters of 1968 and1969. Extensive flooding in otherportions of the California red-legged frogrange may have combined with otherfactors to eliminate California red-legged frog aggregations (RichardSeymour, Coyote Creek RiparianStation, in litt., 1993; D. Martin, pers.comm., 1994).

A considerable amount of occupiedCalifornia red-legged habitat exists inthe form of isolated patches alongstream courses. These patches ofsuitable habitat represent mereremnants of a much larger historicalhabitat that once covered wholedrainages. Fragments of formerlyextensive populations of California red-legged frogs are now isolated from otherpopulations. Populations isolated inhabitat fragments are vulnerable toextinction through randomenvironmental events or anthropogeniccatastrophes. With only three of 243known creeks or drainages supportingpopulations of over 350 adults, allremaining occurrences are consideredvulnerable to these threats. Once a local


extinction event occurs in an isolatedhabitat fragment, the opportunity forrecolonization from a source populationis reduced. Thus, local extinctions viastochastic processes, coupled withhabitat fragmentation may represent asubstantial threat to the continuedexistence of the California red-leggedfrog over much of its range.

The Service has carefully assessed thebest scientific and commercial dataavailable regarding the past, present,and future threats faced by theCalifornia red-legged frog indetermining to make this final decision.Based on this evaluation, the preferredaction is to list the California red-leggedfrog (Rana aurora draytonii) asthreatened. This taxon has beenextirpated from 70 percent of its formerrange. Although California red-leggedfrogs are now known to be found inmore locations within their presentrange than previously thought, factorsadversely affecting the California red-legged frog are known to exist in 83percent of the drainages supporting thetaxon (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service1995). These factors include but are notlimited to (1) urban encroachment, (2)construction of large and smallreservoirs, water diversions and welldevelopment, (3) flood controlmaintenance, (4) road maintenance, (5)placer mining, (6) livestock grazing andferal pigs, (7) off-road vehicle use, and(8) introduction or presence of exoticpredators and competitors. Theremaining 17 percent of occupieddrainages, the majority located inMonterey, Santa Barbara, and San LuisObispo counties, currently are notknown to be subject to the above threats.The California red-legged frog, therefore,more appropriately fits the definition ofa threatened species. For the reasonsdiscussed below, critical habitat has notbeen proposed.

Critical HabitatCritical habitat is defined in section 3

of the Act as: (I) the specific areaswithin the geographical area occupiedby a species, at the time it is listed inaccordance with the Act, on which arefound those physical or biologicalfeatures (I) essential to the conservationof the species and (II) that may requirespecial management considerations orprotection; and (ii) specific areasoutside the geographical area occupiedby a species at the time it is listed, upona determination that such areas areessential for the conservation of thespecies. ‘‘Conservation’’ means the useof all methods and procedures neededto bring the species to the point atwhich listing under the Act is no longernecessary.

Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, asamended, and implementing regulations(50 CFR 424.12) require that, to themaximum extent prudent anddeterminable, the Secretary designatecritical habitat at the time a species isdetermined to be endangered orthreatened. The Service finds thatdesignation of critical habitat is notprudent for the California red-leggedfrog at this time. Service regulations (50CFR 424.12(a)(1)) state that designationof critical habitat is not prudent whenone or both of the following situationsexist—(1) The species is threatened bytaking or other human activity, andidentification of critical habitat can beexpected to increase the degree of threatto the species, or (2) such designation ofcritical habitat would not be beneficialto the species.

As discussed under Factor B in the‘‘Summary of Factors Affecting theSpecies’’ section, the California red-legged frog has been and continues to bethreatened by taking, an activitydifficult to control. Listing of the frogmay result in an increase in the threatof vandalism, a concern expressed bythe petitioners and other experts (M.Jennings, S. Sweet, pers. comm., 1993;D. Martin, pers. comm., 1994).California red-legged frogs occur inisolated and fragmented wetland habitaton private property and are at risk fromvandalism. Publication of specificlocalities, which would be required inproposing critical habitat, would revealprecise locality data and thereby makethe species more vulnerable to acts ofvandalism, and increase the difficultiesof enforcement. Martin (pers. comm.,1994) has observed acts of vandalism byprivate landowners once they learned ofthe presence of Yosemite toads (Bufocanorus), on their property. TheYosemite toad is a species of concern tothe Service (former category 2 species,59 FR 58995).

In addition, a significant market existsin California for frog meat, withbullfrogs as the primary species sold. In1993, the California Department of Fishand Game arrested a number ofindividuals involved in illegalcollection and sale of large numbers ofbullfrogs to San Francisco fish markets(California Department of Fish andGame 1993). To the untrained eye, theCalifornia red-legged frog looks verysimilar to a bullfrog and could beaccidentally taken for the market.California red-legged frogs also could betaken intentionally as they are reportedto be more palatable (Coyote CreekRiparian Station, in litt., 1993; Jennings,pers. comm., 1994). The California red-legged frog would be more vulnerable tocollection for market consumption if

precise locality data were published forthis species. Protection of Californiared-legged frog habitat will be addressedin the recovery process and through thesection 7 consultation process.Therefore, due to the serious potentialfor increased, unauthorized take, theService has determined that designationof critical habitat for the California red-legged frog is not prudent.

Available Conservation MeasuresConservation measures provided to

species listed as endangered orthreatened under the EndangeredSpecies Act include recognition,recovery actions, requirements forFederal protection, and prohibitionsagainst certain practices. Recognitionthrough listing results in publicawareness and conservation actions byFederal, State, and local agencies,private organizations, and individuals.The Act provides for possible landacquisition and cooperation with theStates and requires that recovery actionsbe carried out for all listed species. Theprotection required of Federal agenciesand the prohibitions against taking andharm are discussed, in part, below.

Section 7(a) of the Act, as amended,requires Federal agencies to evaluatetheir actions with respect to any speciesthat is proposed or listed as endangeredor threatened and with respect to itscritical habitat, if any is beingdesignated. Regulations implementingthis interagency cooperation provisionof the Act are codified at 50 CFR part402. Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requiresFederal agencies to confer with theService on any action that is likely tojeopardize the continued existence of aspecies proposed for listing or result indestruction or adverse modification ofproposed critical habitat. If a species islisted subsequently, section 7(a)(2)requires Federal agencies to ensure thatactivities they authorize, fund, or carryout are not likely to jeopardize thecontinued existence of the species ordestroy or adversely modify its criticalhabitat. If a Federal action may affect alisted species or its critical habitat, theresponsible Federal agency must enterinto formal consultation with theService.

Federal agencies that may be involvedas a result of this final rule are theBureau of Reclamation, Bureau of LandManagement, National Park Service,Forest Service, and the Departments ofthe Army, Navy and Air Force. Atseveral parks, the National Park Servicehas conducted or is planning to conductstatus surveys for California red-leggedfrogs (Daphne A. Hatch, National ParkService, in litt., 1993; James Sleznick,National Park Service, in litt., 1992;


Gary Fellers, National Park Service,pers. comm., 1993). The Forest Servicehas conducted and has ongoingamphibian surveys in many NationalForests within the historic range of theCalifornia red-legged frog (J.Stephenson, pers. comm., 1993; D.Martin, pers. comm., 1993; MaetonFreel, U.S. Forest Service, pers. comm.,1994). In Los Padres National Forest, theForest Service, in a cooperative effortwith other Federal and State agencies,has altered flow regimes in Piru Creekbetween Lake Pyramid Lake and LakePiru to benefit the endangered arroyosouthwestern toad. Although no specificstudies have been done, these flowregime changes also may benefit theCalifornia red-legged frog (FrederickGientke, United Water ConservationDistrict, in litt., 1994). The ForestService has also designated more than31 miles of Sespe Creek in Los PadresNational Forest as ‘‘Wild and Scenic’’under the National Wild and ScenicRivers Act of 1968.

The Contra Costa Water District isconstructing a large reservoirconstruction project (Los VaquerosReservoir) on Kellogg Creek, ContraCosta County (Contra Costa WaterDistrict 1993). The Bureau ofReclamation’s role in this project is toamend water service contracts andmodify water rights to facilitate projectconstruction (Penny Howard, U.S.Bureau of Reclamation, in litt., 1994). Amitigation and monitoring program isproposed to compensate for Californiared-legged frog habitat losses at LosVaqueros. The mitigation plan includesa bullfrog and exotic fish controlprogram to be carried out for the life ofthe reservoir project (Contra Costa WaterDistrict 1993). The potential for successof the mitigation plan is unknown. Inaddition, Bureau of Reclamationprojects, including small loan projectsin Monterey County, the Cachumaproject in Santa Barbara County, the SanFelipe project in San Benito and SantaClara counties, and the Solano project inSolano County, involve water contractrenewals as well as road maintenanceactivities and grazing leases, all ofwhich may affect California red-leggedfrogs. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineerswould be involved in many of theseprojects through their permittingauthority under section 404 of the CleanWater Act.

Any of the above mentioned Federalagencies would be required to consultwith the Service if any action they fund,authorize, or carry out may affect theCalifornia red-legged frog. To the extentthat their habitats overlap in lagoonareas, efforts made to conserve andrecover the tidewater goby

(Eucyclogobius newberryi), a Federallylisted endangered species, may alsohelp to conserve and recover theCalifornia red-legged frog.

The Service is currently involved inthe development of two HabitatConservation Plans (HCP’s) that couldpotentially protect three localities ofCalifornia red-legged frogs. The KernCounty Valley Floor HCP will protect aminimum of 75 percent of the existingCalifornia red-legged frog habitat in theBitterwater Creek drainage. The SanJoaquin County multispecies HCP mayalso protect two localities, CorralHollow Creek and Lone Tree Creek.Although the development of theseHCP’s will not preclude the need to listthe California red-legged frog, theseplans, if implemented, will protecthabitat for the taxon.

The Ventura Field Office is assistingwith the Santa Clara River Enhancementand Management Plan, which isprogressing but is not finalized at thistime. A similar plan for Rancho SanCarlos (in the Carmel River drainage) isalso underway. Early planning effortsare beginning for the Ventura and SantaYnez rivers. None of these planningefforts preclude the need to list thespecies, but will provide futureprotection of habitat for the species.

One known California red-legged froglocality in Riverside County and anynewly discovered localities in thehistoric range of the species could beprotected by ongoing ecosystem-basedplanning efforts in southern California.In 1991, the State of Californiaestablished the Natural CommunitiesConservation Planning (NCCP) Programto address conservation needs of naturalecosystems throughout the State. Theinitial focus of the program is thecoastal sage scrub community insouthern California, however, riparianhabitats will also be addressed. Severalregional plans, including the Multi-species Conservation Plan (MSCP) andthe Multi-habitat Conservation Plan(MHCP) of San Diego County, theSouthern and Central CoastalSubregional NCCP/Habitat ConservationPlans (Southern/Central/Coastal NCCP)of Orange County, and the RiversideCounty Stephens Kangaroo rat HCP andSan Bernardino County MSCP are underdevelopment by a consortium of countyand municipal governments and otherparties, including the CaliforniaDepartment of Fish and Game and theService. Though no plans have beencompleted to date, protection could beprovided if the California red-leggedfrog occurs in any of the planning areas.The one known extant populationoccurs on the Santa Rosa Plateau

Reserve managed by The NatureConservancy.

The Service establishes the followingrecovery units within the historicalrange of the California red-legged frog:(1) The western foothills and Sierranfoothills to 5,000 feet in elevation in theCentral Valley Hydrographic Basin; (2)the central coast ranges from San Mateoand Santa Clara counties south toVentura and Los Angeles counties; (3)the San Francisco Bay/Suisun Bayhydrologic basin; (4) southernCalifornia, south of the TehachapiMountains; and (5) the northern coastrange in Marin and Sonoma counties.These five units are essential to thesurvival and recovery of the Californiared-legged frog. Designation of recoveryunits assists the Service and otheragencies in identifying priority areas forconservation planning under theconsultation (section 7) and recovery(section 4) programs.

The Act and implementingregulations found at 50 CFR 17.32 setforth a series of general prohibitions andexceptions that apply to all threatenedwildlife not covered by a special rule.With respect to the California red-leggedfrog, these prohibitions, in part, make itillegal for any person subject to thejurisdiction of the United States to take(including harass, harm, pursue, hunt,shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, collect,or attempt any such conduct), import orexport, transport in interstate or foreigncommerce in the course of commercialactivity, or sell or offer for sale ininterstate or foreign commerce anylisted species. It also is illegal topossess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, orship any such wildlife that has beentaken illegally. Certain exceptions applyto agents of the Service and Stateconservation agencies.

Permits may be issued to carry outotherwise prohibited activitiesinvolving threatened wildlife speciesunder certain circumstances.Regulations governing permits are at 50CFR 17.23. Such permits are availablefor scientific purposes, to enhance thepropagation or survival of the species,and/or for incidental take in connectionwith otherwise lawful activities.

It is the policy of the Service,published in the Federal Register onJuly 1, 1994 (59 FR 34272), to identifyto the maximum extent practicable atthe time a species is listed thoseactivities that would or would notconstitute a violation of section 9 of theAct. The intent of this policy is toincrease public awareness of the effectof this listing on proposed and ongoingactivities within the species’ range. TheService believes that, based on the bestavailable information, the following


actions will not result in a violation ofsection 9:

(1) Road-kills or injuries caused byvehicles operated lawfully ondesignated public roads;

(2) Light to moderate carefullymanaged livestock grazing that preventsor minimizes the excessive trampling ofriparian and wetland habitat;

(3) Possession of legally acquiredCalifornia red-legged frogs;

(4) Unintentional hooking of a frog ortadpole during otherwise lawfulengagement in fishing, and;

(5) Federally approved projects thatinvolve activities such as, discharge offill material, draining, ditching, tiling,pond construction streamchannelization or diversion, oralteration of surface or ground waterinto or out of a wetland (i.e., due toroads, impoundments, discharge pipes,storm water detention basins, etc.),when such activity is conducted inaccordance with any reasonable andprudent measures given by the Servicein accordance with section 7 of the Act.

Activities that the Service believescould potentially harm the Californiared-legged frog and result in ‘‘take’’,include, but are not limited to:

(1) Unauthorized collecting orhandling of the species;

(2) Introduction of exotic species suchas fish or other species of frogs directlyinto, or within dispersal distance of,known California red-legged froghabitat;

(3) Unauthorized destruction/alteration of the species’ habitat such asdischarge of fill material, draining,ditching, tiling, pond construction,diversion or alteration of streamchannels or surface or ground waterflow into or out of a wetland (i.e., dueto roads, impoundments, dischargepipes, storm water detention basins,etc.), operation of any vehicles withinthe stream channel;

(4) Violation of discharge permits;

(5) Burning, cutting or mowing ofwetland or riparian vegetation, ifconducted in an untimely orinappropriate manner (e.g., whenCalifornia red-legged frogs would bekilled or injured, or their occupiedhabitat would be degraded or renderedunsuitable);

(6) Pesticide applications in violationof label restrictions;

(7) Discharges or dumping of toxicchemicals, silt, or other pollutants (i.e.,sewage, oil and gasoline) into waters, orriparian and upland habitats supportingthe species;

(8) Interstate and foreign commerce(commerce across State lines andinternational boundaries) and import/export (as discussed earlier in thissection) without prior obtainment of anendangered species permit. Permits toconduct these activities are available forpurposes of scientific research andenhancement of propagation or survivalof the species.

Questions regarding whether specificactivities will constitute a violation ofsection 9 should be directed to the FieldSupervisor of the Service’s SacramentoField Office (see ADDRESSES section).Requests for copies of the regulationsconcerning listed plants and generalinquiries regarding prohibitions andpermits may be addressed to the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service, EcologicalServices, Endangered Species Permits,911 N.E. 11th Avenue, Portland,Oregon, 97232–4181 (telephone 503/231–2063; facsimile 503/231–6243).

National Environmental Policy ActThe Fish and Wildlife Service has

determined that EnvironmentalAssessments and Environmental ImpactStatements, as defined under theauthority of the National EnvironmentalPolicy Act of 1969, need not beprepared in connection with regulationsadopted pursuant to section 4(a) of theEndangered Species Act of 1973, as

amended. A notice outlining theService’s reasons for this determinationwas published in the Federal Registeron October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).

References Cited

A complete list of all references citedherein is available upon request fromthe Field Supervisor, Sacramento FieldOffice (see ADDRESSES section).

Author

The primary authors of this final ruleare Karen J. Miller, Alison Willy, SheilaLarsen, and Steven Morey, SacramentoField Office (see ADDRESSES section),telephone 916/978–4866.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and threatened species,Exports, Imports, Reporting andrecordkeeping requirements, andTransportation.

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

Accordingly, the Service herebyproposes to amend part 17, subchapterB of chapter I, title 50 of the Code ofFederal Regulations, as set forth below:

PART 17—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 17continues 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, 10080 Stat. 3500, unless otherwisenoted.

2. Section 17.11(h) is amended byadding the following, in alphabeticalorder under AMPHIBIANS, to the List ofEndangered and Threatened Wildlife toread as follows:

§ 17.11 Endangered and threatenedwildlife.

* * * * *(h) * * *

Species Historicrange

Vertebrate population where endangeredor threatened Status When

listedCriticalhabitat

SpecialrulesCommon name Scientific name

AMPHIBIANS

* * * * * * *Frog, California red-

legged.Rana aurora draytonii U.S.A.

(CA).Entire (excluding Del Norte, Humboldt,

Trinity, & Mendocino Cos., CA; Glenn,Lake, & Sonoma Cos., CA, west of theCentral Valley Hydrologic Basin;Sonoma & Marin Cos., CA, west & northof San Francisco Bay drainages andWalker Creek drainage; and NV).

T NA NA

* * * * * * *


Dated: May 17, 1996Mollie H. Beattie,Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.[FR Doc. 96–12901 Filed 5–22–96; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration

50 CFR Part 641

[Docket No. 951221305–6038–02; I.D.020296B]

Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf ofMexico; Correction

AGENCY: National Marine FisheriesService (NMFS), National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration (NOAA),Commerce.ACTION: Correction to emergency interimrule.

SUMMARY: This document corrects thedelay of effective date in an emergencyinterim rule published on February 29,1996 (61 FR 7751). The emergencyinterim rule delayed indefinitely theeffective date for implementation of thered snapper Individual TransferableQuota (ITQ) system for the Gulf of

Mexico, previously scheduled to beginApril 1, 1996.

EFFECTIVE DATE: The delay of effectivedate published February 29, 1996 (61 FR7751) for amendments originallypublished on November 29, 1995 (60 FR61202) is corrected as of February 23,1996, to extend through May 29, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Robert A, Sadler, Fishery ManagementSpecialist, Southeast Regional Office,813–570–5305.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

In issuing an emergency interim ruleon February 29, 1996, NMFSinadvertently indicated that thescheduled April 1, 1996, effective datefor the Gulf of Mexico red snapper ITQsystem, implemented under FMPAmendment 8 (60 FR 61200, November29, 1995), would be delayedindefinitely. Because an emergencyinterim rule issued under section 305(c)of the Magnuson Fishery Conservationand Management Act can amend afishery management plan or planamendment and its implementing ruleonly for the emergency period (limitedto 90 days), the indefinite delay was inerror.

Need for Correction

Accordingly, this action corrects theemergency interim rule to specify thecorrect ending date for the delay in theeffective date for the final ruleimplementing the ITQ system. Aspublished, the effective date section andamendatory instruction 2 are incorrectand need to be changed.

Correction of Publication

The publication on February 29, 1995,of the emergency interim rule (I.D.020296B), which was the subject of FRDOC. 96–4432, is corrected as follows:

On page 7751, in the third column,under the preamble caption EFFECTIVEDATES, in the last paragraph, the phrase‘‘are delayed indefinitely.’’ is correctedto read ‘‘is delayed through May 29,1996.’’

On page 7753, in the third column, onthe last line of the introductory text ofthe amendatory instruction 2, the word‘‘indefinitely’’ is corrected to read‘‘through May 29, 1996.’’

Dated: May 15, 1996.Richard H. Schaefer,Acting, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries,National Marine Fisheries Service.[FR Doc. 96–12786 Filed 5–22–96; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 3510–22–F

Documents

Federal Register /Vol. 61, No. 101/Thursday, May 23, 1996 ...€¦ · Federal Register/Vol. 61, No. 101/Thursday, May 23, 1996/Rules and Regulations25813 Example: Bidder X wishes