24256 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Executive Summary management activities, notably livestock Why we need to publish a rule. Under grazing, and also the anticipated Fish and Wildlife Service the Endangered Species Act, a species hydrologic effects upon habitat from may warrant protection through listing climate change. We also find that the 50 CFR Part 17 if it is endangered or threatened Yosemite toad is likely to become [Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2012–0100; throughout all or a significant portion of endangered through the direct effects of 4500030113] its range. Listing a species as an climate change impacting small remnant populations, likely compounded with RIN 1018–AZ21 endangered or threatened species can be only completed by issuing a rule. the cumulative effect of other threat Endangered and Threatened Wildlife This rule will finalize the listing of the factors (such as disease). and Plants; Endangered Species Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog (Rana Peer review and public comment. We Status for Sierra Nevada Yellow- sierrae) as an endangered species, the sought comments from independent Legged Frog and Northern Distinct northern DPS of the mountain yellow- specialists to ensure that our Population Segment of the Mountain legged frog (Rana muscosa) as an designations are based on scientifically Yellow-Legged Frog, and Threatened endangered species, and the Yosemite sound data, assumptions, and analyses. Species Status for Yosemite Toad toad (Anaxyrus canorus) as a threatened We invited these peer reviewers to species. comment on our listing proposal. We AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, The basis for our action. Under the also considered all comments and Interior. Endangered Species Act, we can information received during the ACTION: Final rule. determine that a species is an comment period. endangered or threatened species based SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Previous Federal Actions on any of five factors: (A) The present Wildlife Service (Service), determine Please refer to the proposed listing endangered species status under the or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) rule for the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), frog, the northern DPS of the mountain as amended, for the Sierra Nevada Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational yellow-legged frog, and the Yosemite yellow-legged frog and the northern toad (78 FR 24472, April 25, 2013) for distinct population segment (DPS) of the purposes; (C) Disease or predation; (D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory a detailed description of previous mountain yellow-legged frog (mountain Federal actions concerning these yellow-legged frog populations that mechanisms; or (E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued species. occur north of the Tehachapi We will also be finalizing critical Mountains), and determine threatened existence. We have determined that both the habitat designations for the Sierra species status under the Act for the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog and Nevada yellow-legged frog, the northern Yosemite toad. The effect of this the northern DPS of the mountain DPS of the mountain yellow-legged, and regulation will be to add these species yellow-legged frog are presently in the Yosemite toad under the Act in the to the List of Endangered and danger of extinction throughout their near future. Threatened Wildlife. entire ranges, based on the immediacy, Summary of Biological Status and DATES: This rule becomes effective June severity, and scope of the threats to their 30, 2014. Threats for the Sierra Nevada Yellow- continued existence. These include Legged Frog and the Northern DPS of ADDRESSES: This final rule is available habitat degradation and fragmentation, the Mountain Yellow-Legged Frog on the Internet at http:// predation and disease, climate change, www.regulations.gov and at the inadequate regulatory protections, and Background Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office. the interaction of these various stressors Please refer to the proposed listing Comments and materials we received, as impacting small remnant populations. A rule for the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged well as supporting documentation used rangewide reduction in abundance and frog and the northern DPS of the in preparing this rule, are available for geographic extent of surviving mountain yellow-legged frog under the public inspection at http:// populations of frogs has occurred Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) for www.regulations.gov. All of the following decades of fish stocking, additional species information. In the comments, materials, and habitat fragmentation, and most recently proposed rule, we described two documentation that we considered in a disease epidemic. Surviving separate species of yellow-legged frogs, this rulemaking are available by populations are smaller and more Rana sierrae and Rana muscosa, that appointment, during normal business isolated, and recruitment in diseased resulted from the recent taxonomic split hours at: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, populations is much reduced relative to (see Taxonomy section below) of the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, historic norms. This combination of previously known Rana muscosa, 2800 Cottage Way, Room W–2605, population stressors makes persistence which we referred to in our proposed Sacramento, CA 95825; 916–414–6600 of these species precarious throughout rule as the mountain yellow-legged frog (telephone); 916–414–6712 (facsimile). the currently occupied range in the ‘‘species complex.’’ For clarity and in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sierra Nevada. order to maintain consistency with our Jennifer Norris, Field Supervisor, U.S. We have also determined that the previous treatment of the southern DPS Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento Yosemite toad is likely to become of the mountain yellow legged frog in Fish and Wildlife Office, 2800 Cottage endangered throughout its range within southern California (67 FR 44382, July Way, Room W–2605, Sacramento, CA the foreseeable future, based on the 2, 2002) as well as with our proposed 95825; 916–414–6600 (telephone); 916– immediacy, severity, and scope of the rule, and for the purposes of this 414–6712 (facsimile). Persons who use a threats to its continued existence. These document, we retain the common name telecommunications device for the deaf include habitat loss associated with of mountain yellow-legged frog for Rana (TDD) may call the Federal Information degradation of meadow hydrology muscosa, as opposed to the new Relay Service (FIRS) at 800–877–8339. following stream incision consequent to common name, southern mountain SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: the cumulative effects of historical land yellow-legged frog, as published by

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:54 Apr 28, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\29APR3.SGM 29APR3 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 24257

Crother et al. (2008, p. 11). We also note east slope of the Sierra Nevada south Nevada yellow-legged frog, and we refer that the California Department of Fish into Inyo County at the southern extent to the Sierra Nevada populations of R. and Game (CDFG) was recently renamed of its range, and in the Glass Mountains muscosa as the northern DPS of the the California Department of Fish and just south of Mono Lake; and that R. mountain yellow-legged frog. In Wildlife (CDFW). We refer to the muscosa occurs in the southern portion California and Nevada, the Sierra California Department of Fish and of the Sierra Nevada within and south Nevada yellow-legged frogs occupy the Wildlife in all cases when discussing of the South Fork Kings River watershed western Sierra Nevada north of the the agency in the text. Where citations to the west of the Sierra Nevada crest Monarch Divide (in Fresno County) and are from CDFG documents, we include (along with those populations the eastern slope of the Sierra Nevada CDFW in parentheses for clarification. inhabiting southern California) (east of the crest) from Inyo County (Vredenburg et al. 2007, pp. 370–371). through Mono County (including the Taxonomy The Monarch Divide separates these Glass Mountains), to areas north of Lake Please refer to the proposed listing species in the western Sierra Nevada, Tahoe. The northern DPS of the rule for the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged while they are separated by the Cirque mountain yellow-legged frog occurs frog and the northern DPS of the Crest to the east (Knapp 2013, only in California in the western Sierra mountain yellow-legged frog under the unpaginated). Nevada and extends from south of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) for detailed For purposes of this rule, we Monarch Divide in Fresno County species information on taxonomy (78 FR recognize the species differentiation as through portions of the Kern River 24472, April 25, 2013). presented in Vredenburg et al. (2007, p. drainage. Figure 1 shows the Vredenburg et al. (2007, p. 371) 371) and adopted by the official approximate species boundaries within determined that Rana sierrae occurs in societies mentioned above (Crother et their historical ranges as determined by the Sierra Nevada north of the South al. 2008, p. 11), and in this final rule we Knapp (unpubl. data). Fork Kings River watershed, along the refer to Rana sierrae as the Sierra BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:54 Apr 28, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\29APR3.SGM 29APR3 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES 24258 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C Species Description Stebbins 1951, pp. 330–335; Zweifel Many studies cited in the rest of this 1955, p. 235; Zweifel 1968, p. 65.1). document include articles and reports Please refer to the proposed listing Dorsal (upper) coloration in adults is that were published prior to the official rule for the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged variable, exhibiting a mix of brown and species reclassification, where the frog and the northern DPS of the yellow, but also can be grey, red, or researchers may reference either one or mountain yellow-legged frog under the green-brown, and is usually patterned both species. Where possible and Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) for with dark spots (Jennings and Hayes appropriate, information will be additional information about species 1994, p. 74; Stebbins 2003, p. 233). referenced specifically (either as Sierra descriptions (78 FR 24472, April 25, These spots may be large (6 mm (0.25 Nevada yellow-legged frog or the 2013). The body lengths (snout to vent) in)) and few, smaller and more northern DPS of the mountain yellow- of the mountain yellow-legged frogs numerous, or a mixture of both (Zweifel range from 40 to 80 millimeters (mm) legged frog) to reflect the split of the 1955, p. 230). Irregular lichen- or moss- (1.5 to 3.25 inches (in)) (Jennings and species. Where information applies to like patches (to which the name Hayes 1994, p. 74). Females average both species, the two species will be muscosa refers) may also be present on referred to collectively as mountain slightly larger than males, and males the dorsal surface (Zweifel 1955, pp. yellow-legged frog or mountain yellow- have a swollen, darkened thumb base 230, 235; Stebbins 2003, p. 233). legged frog species complex. (Wright and Wright 1949, pp. 424–430;

VerDate Mar<15>2010 20:52 Apr 28, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\29APR3.SGM 29APR3 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES ER29AP14.001 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 24259

The belly and undersurfaces of the musculature is wide (about 2.5 cm (1 in) (Mullally and Cunningham 1956a, p. hind limbs are yellow or orange, and or more) before tapering into a rounded 191; Jennings and Hayes 1994, p. 77). this pigmentation may extend forward tip (Wright and Wright 1949, p. 431). At lower elevations within their from the abdomen to the forelimbs The mouth has a maximum of eight historical range, these species have been (Wright and Wright 1949, pp. 424–429; labial (lip) tooth rows (two to four upper associated with rocky streambeds and Stebbins 2003, p. 233). Mountain and four lower) (Stebbins 2003, p. 460). wet meadows surrounded by coniferous yellow-legged frogs may produce a Tadpoles may take more than 1 year forest (Zweifel 1955, p. 237; Zeiner et al. distinctive mink or garlic-like odor (Wright and Wright 1949, p. 431), and 1988, p. 88), although, in general, little when disturbed (Wright and Wright often require 2 to 4 years, to reach is known about the ecology of mountain 1949, p. 432; Stebbins 2003, p. 233). metamorphosis (transformation from yellow-legged frogs in Sierra Nevada Although these species lack vocal sacs, tadpoles to frogs) (Cory 1962b, p. 515; stream habitats (Brown 2013, they can vocalize in or out of water, Bradford 1983, pp. 1171, 1182; Bradford unpaginated). Zweifel (1955, p. 237) producing what has been described as a et al. 1993, p. 883; Knapp and Matthews found that streams utilized by adults faint clicking sound (Zweifel 1955, p. 2000, p. 435), depending on local varied from streams having high 234; Ziesmer 1997, pp. 46–47; Stebbins climate conditions and site-specific gradients and numerous pools, rapids, 2003, p. 233). Mountain yellow-legged variables. and small waterfalls, to streams with frogs have smoother skin, generally with The time required to reach low gradients and slow flows, marshy heavier spotting and mottling dorsally, reproductive maturity in mountain edges, and sod banks, while aquatic darker toe tips (Zweifel 1955, p. 234), yellow-legged frogs is thought to vary substrates varied from bedrock to fine and more opaque ventral coloration between 3 and 4 years post sand, rubble (rock fragments), and (Stebbins 2003, p. 233) than the foothill metamorphosis (Zweifel 1955, p. 254). boulders. Jennings and Hayes (1994, p. yellow-legged frog. This information, in combination with 77) have indicated that mountain The Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog the extended amount of time as a yellow-legged frogs appear absent from the smallest creeks, and suggest that it and the northern DPS of the mountain tadpole before metamorphosis, means yellow-legged frog are similar is probably because these creeks have that it may take 5 to 8 years for morphologically and behaviorally insufficient depth for adequate refuge mountain yellow-legged frogs to begin (hence their shared taxonomic and overwintering habitat. However, reproducing. While the typical lifespan designation until recently). However, Brown (2013, unpaginated) reports that of mountain yellow-legged frogs is these two species can be distinguished the frogs are found in small creeks, largely unknown, Matthews and Miaud from each other physically by the ratio although she notes that the extent to (2007, p. 991) estimated that the total of the lower leg (fibulotibia) length to which these are remnant populations lifespan (including tadpole and adult snout vent length. The northern DPS of now excluded from preferred habitat is life stages) ranges up to 14 years, with the mountain yellow-legged frog has not known. In the northern portion of other documented estimates of up to 16 longer limbs (Vredenburg et al. 2007, p. the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog 368). Typically, this ratio is greater than years of age for the Sierra Nevada range, the remnant populations or equal to 0.55 in the northern DPS of yellow-legged frog (Fellers et al. 2013, p. primarily occur in stream habitats. the mountain yellow-legged frog and 155), suggesting that mountain yellow- At higher elevations, these species less than 0.55 in the Sierra Nevada legged frogs are long-lived amphibians. occupy lakes, ponds, tarns (small steep- yellow-legged frog. Habitat and Life History banked mountain lakes or pools, Mountain yellow-legged frogs deposit generally of glacial origin), and streams their eggs in globular clumps, which are Mountain yellow-legged frogs (Zweifel 1955, p. 237; Mullally and often somewhat flattened and roughly currently exist in montane regions of the Cunningham 1956a, p. 191). Mountain 2.5 to 5 centimeters (cm) (1 to 2 in) in Sierra Nevada of California. Throughout yellow-legged frogs in the Sierra Nevada diameter (Stebbins 2003, p. 444). When their range, these species historically are most abundant in high-elevation eggs are close to hatching, egg mass inhabited lakes, ponds, marshes, lakes and slow-moving portions of volume averages 198 cubic cm (78 cubic meadows, and streams at elevations streams (Zweifel 1955, p. 237; Mullally in) (Pope 1999, p. 30). Eggs have three typically ranging from 1,370 to 3,660 and Cunningham 1956a, p. 191). The firm, jelly-like, transparent envelopes meters (m) (4,500 to 12,000 feet (ft)) borders of alpine (above the tree line) surrounding a grey-tan or black vitelline ((CDFG (CDFW)) 2011, pp. A–1–A–5), lakes and mountain meadow streams (egg yolk) capsule (Wright and Wright but can occur as low as 1,067 m (3,500 used by mountain yellow-legged frogs 1949, pp. 431–433). Clutch size varies ft) in the northern portions of their are frequently grassy or muddy, from 15 to 350 eggs per egg mass range (USFS 2011, geospatial data; although many are bordered by exposed (Livezey and Wright 1945, p. 703; USFS 2013, p. 4). Mountain yellow- glaciated bedrock. Zweifel (1955, pp. Vredenburg et al. 2005, p. 565). Egg legged frogs are highly aquatic; they are 237–238) suggested that alpine development is temperature dependent. generally not found more than 1 m (3.3 lakeshores differ from the sandy or In laboratory breeding experiments, egg ft) from water (Stebbins 1951, p. 340; rocky shores inhabited by mountain hatching time ranged from 18 to 21 days Mullally and Cunningham 1956a, p. yellow-legged frogs in lower elevation at temperatures of 5 to 13.5 degrees 191; Bradford et al. 1993, p. 886). streams. Celsius (°C) (41 to 56 degrees Fahrenheit Mullally and Cunningham (1956a, p. Adult mountain yellow-legged frogs (°F)) (Zweifel 1955, pp. 262–264). Field 191) found adults sitting on rocks along breed in a variety of habitats including observations show similar results (Pope the shoreline, where there was little or the shallows of stillwater habitat (lakes 1999, p. 31). no vegetation. Although mountain or ponds) and flowing inlet streams The tadpoles of mountain yellow- yellow-legged frogs may use a variety of (Zweifel 1955, p. 243; Pope 1999, p. 30). legged frogs generally are mottled brown shoreline habitats, both tadpoles and Adults emerge from overwintering sites on the dorsal side with a faintly yellow adults are observed less frequently at immediately following snowmelt, and venter (underside) (Zweifel 1955, p. shorelines that drop abruptly to a depth will even move over ice to reach 231; Stebbins 2003, p. 460). Total of 60 cm (2 ft) than at open shorelines breeding sites (Pope 1999, pp. 46–47; tadpole length reaches 72 mm (2.8 in), that gently slope up to shallow waters Vredenburg et al. 2005, p. 565). the body is flattened, and the tail of only 5 to 8 cm (2 to 3 in) in depth Mountain yellow-legged frogs deposit

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:54 Apr 28, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\29APR3.SGM 29APR3 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES 24260 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

their eggs underwater in clusters, which warmer water below the thermocline Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog of up they attach to rocks, gravel, or (the transition layer between thermally to 3.3 kilometers (km) (2.05 miles (mi)) vegetation, or which they deposit under stratified water). After spring overturn along streams. Along stream habitats, banks (Wright and Wright 1949, p. 431; (thaw and thermal mixing of the water), adults have been observed greater than Stebbins 1951, p. 341; Zweifel 1955, p. they behaviorally modulate their body 22 m (71 ft) from the water during the 243; Pope 1999, p. 30). temperature by moving to shallow, near- overwintering period (Wengert 2008, p. Lake depth is an important attribute shore water when warmer days raise 20). Additionally, during the duration of defining habitat suitability for mountain surface water temperatures. During the the study, Wengert (2008, p. 13) found yellow-legged frogs. At high elevations, late afternoon and evening, mountain that 14 percent of the documented frog both frogs and tadpoles overwinter yellow-legged frogs retreat to offshore locations occurred greater than 0.2 m under ice in lakes and streams. As waters that are less subject to night (0.66 ft) from the stream edge. While tadpoles must overwinter multiple years cooling (Bradford 1984, p. 974). recent information suggests that the before metamorphosis, successful Available evidence suggests that adult frogs in the Wengert study may have breeding sites are located in (or mountain yellow-legged frogs display actually been foothill yellow-legged frog connected to) lakes and ponds that do strong site fidelity and return to the (Rana boylii) (Poorten et al., 2013, p. 4), not dry out in the summer, and also are same overwintering and summer we expect that the movement distances deep enough that they do not habitats from year to year (Pope 1999, p. recorded are applicable to the Sierra completely freeze or become oxygen- 45; Matthews and Preisler 2010, p. 252). Nevada yellow-legged frog within a depleted (anoxic) in winter. Both adults Matthews and Pope (1999, pp. 618–623) stream-based system, as the ecology is and tadpole mountain yellow-legged observed that the frogs’ movement comparable between the two sister taxa frogs overwinter for up to 9 months in patterns and habitat associations shifted in regard to stream systems. the bottoms of lakes that are at least 1.7 seasonally. Frogs were well-distributed Almost no data exist on the dispersal m (5.6 ft) deep; however, overwinter in most lakes, ponds, and creeks during of juvenile mountain yellow-legged survival may be greater in lakes that are August, but moved to only a few lakes frogs away from breeding sites; at least 2.5 m (8.2 ft) deep (Bradford by October. Matthews and Pope (1999, however, juveniles that may be 1983, p. 1179; Vredenburg et al. 2005, pp. 618–623) established home-range dispersing have been observed in small p. 565). areas for 10 frogs and found that frogs intermittent streams (Bradford 1991, p. Bradford (1983, pp. 1173, 1178–1179) remained through August in the lake or 176). Regionally, mountain yellow- found that, in years with exceptional creek where they’d been captured, with legged frogs are thought to exhibit a precipitation (61 percent above average) movement confined to areas ranging metapopulation structure (Bradford et and greater than normal ice-depths, from 19.4 to 1,028 square meters (m2) al. 1993, p. 886; Drost and Fellers 1996, mountain yellow-legged frog die-offs (23.20 to 1,229 square yards (y2)). In p. 424). Metapopulations are spatially sometimes result from oxygen depletion September, movements increased, with separated population subunits within during winter in lakes less than 4 m (13 home-ranges varying from 53 to 9,807 migratory distance of one another such ft) in depth, finding that in ice-covered m2 in size (63.4 to 11,729 y2); six of nine that individuals may interbreed among lakes, oxygen depletion occurs most frogs tagged in September moved from subunits and populations may become rapidly in shallow lakes relative to that lake by the end of the month, reestablished if they are extirpated deeper lakes. However, tadpoles may suggesting a pattern in which adult (Hanski and Simberloff 1997, p. 6). survive for months in nearly anoxic mountain yellow-legged frogs move Historical Range and Distribution conditions when shallow lakes are among overwintering, breeding, and frozen to the bottom. More recent work feeding sites during the year, with Mountain yellow-legged frogs were reported populations of mountain narrow distributions in early spring and historically abundant and ubiquitous yellow-legged frogs overwintering in late fall due to restricted overwintering across many of the higher elevations lakes less than 1.5 m (5 ft) deep that habitat (Pope and Matthews 2001, p. within the Sierra Nevada. Grinnell and were assumed to have frozen to the 791). Although terrestrial movements of Storer (1924, p. 664) reported the Sierra bottom, and yet healthy frogs emerged more than two or three hops from water Nevada yellow-legged frog to be the the following July (Matthews and Pope were previously undocumented, most common amphibian surveyed in 1999, pp. 622–623; Pope 1999, pp. 42– overland movements exceeding 66 m the Yosemite area. It is difficult to know 43). Matthews and Pope 1999, p. 619) (217 ft) were observed in 17 percent of the precise historical ranges of the used radio telemetry to find that, when tagged frogs, demonstrating that Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog and lakes had begun to freeze over, the frogs mountain yellow-legged frogs move the northern DPS of the mountain were utilizing rock crevices, holes, and overland as well as along aquatic yellow-legged frog, because projections ledges near shore, where water depths pathways (Pope and Matthews 2001, p. must be inferred from museum ranged from 0.2 m (0.7 ft) to 1.5 m (5 791). Pope and Matthews (2001, p. 791) collections that do not reflect systematic ft). Vredenburg et al. (2005, p. 565) also recorded a movement distance of surveys, and survey information noted that such behavior may be a over 1 km (including a minimum of 420 predating significant rangewide response to presence of introduced fish. m (0.26 miles) overland movement and reduction is very limited. However, Matthews and Pope (1999, p. 622) movement through a stream course). projections of historical ranges are suggested that the granite surrounding The farthest reported distance of a available using predictive habitat these overwintering habitats probably mountain yellow-legged frog from water modeling based on recent research insulates mountain yellow-legged frogs is 400 m (1,300 ft) (Vredenburg 2002, p. (Knapp, unpubl. data). from extreme winter temperatures, and 4). Historically, the range of the Sierra that they can survive, provided there is Within stream systems, Sierra Nevada Nevada yellow-legged frog extended in an adequate supply of oxygen. yellow-legged frogs have been California from north of the Feather Mountain yellow-legged frog tadpoles documented to move 1,032 m (3,385 ft) River, in Butte and Plumas Counties, maintain a relatively high body over a 29-day period (Fellers et al. 2013, south to the Monarch Divide on the temperature by selecting warmer p. 159). Wengert (2008, p. 18) conducted west side of the Sierra Nevada crest in microhabitats (Bradford 1984, p. 973). a telemetry study that documented Fresno County. East of the Sierra During winter, tadpoles remain in single-season movement distances for Nevada crest in California, the historical

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:54 Apr 28, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\29APR3.SGM 29APR3 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 24261

range of the Sierra Nevada yellow- Park, Kings Canyon National Park, and Davidson et al. (2002, p. 1591) legged frog extends from areas north of Sequoia National Park. reviewed 255 previously documented Lake Tahoe, through Mono County The most pronounced declines within mountain yellow-legged frog locations (including the Glass Mountains) to Inyo the mountain yellow-legged frog (based on Jennings and Hayes 1994, pp. County. Historical records indicate that complex have occurred north of Lake 74–78) throughout the historical range the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog Tahoe in the northernmost 125-km (78- and concluded that 83 percent of these also occurred at locations within the mi) portion of the range (Sierra Nevada sites no longer support frog populations. Carson Range of Nevada, including yellow-legged frog) and south of Kings Vredenburg et al. (2007, pp. 369–371) Mount Rose in Washoe County, and also Canyon National Park in Tulare County compared recent survey records (1995– occurred in the vicinity of Lake Tahoe (the northern DPS of the mountain 2004) with museum records from 1899– in Douglas County, Nevada (Linsdale yellow-legged frog). In the southernmost 1994 and reported that 92.5 percent of 1940, pp. 208–210; Zweifel 1955, p. 231; 50-km (31-mi) portion of the range, only historical Sierra Nevada yellow-legged Jennings 1984, p. 52; Knapp 2013, a few populations of the northern DPS frog populations and 92.3 percent of unpaginated). of the mountain yellow-legged frog populations of the northern DPS of Historically, the northern DPS of the remain (Fellers 1994, p. 5; Jennings and mountain yellow-legged frog are now mountain yellow-legged frog ranged Hayes 1994, pp. 74–78); except for a few extirpated. from the Monarch Divide in Fresno small populations in the Kern River CDFW (CDFG (CDFW) 2011, pp. 17– County as far southward as drainage, the northern DPS of the 20) used historical localities from Breckenridge Mountain, in Kern County mountain yellow-legged frog is entirely museum records covering the same time (Vredenburg et al. 2007, p. 371). The extirpated from all of Sequoia National interval (1899–1994), but updated historical ranges of the two frog species Park (Knapp 2013, unpaginated). As of recent locality information with within the mountain yellow-legged 2000, mountain yellow-legged frog additional survey data (1995–2010) to complex, therefore, meet each other populations were known to have significantly increase proportional roughly along the Monarch Divide to the persisted in greater density in the coverage from the Vredenburg et al. north, and along the crest of the Sierra National Parks of the Sierra Nevada as (2007) study. These more recent surveys Nevada to the east. Because we have compared to the surrounding U.S. failed to detect any extant frog determined that the historic range of R. Forest Service (USFS) lands, and the populations (within 1 km (0.63 mi), a muscosa is entirely within the State of populations that did occur in the metric used to capture interbreeding California, in this final rule we correct National Parks generally exhibited individuals within metapopulations) at the listing for the southern DPS of the higher abundances than those on USFS 220 of 318 historical Sierra Nevada mountain yellow-legged frog to remove lands (Bradford et al. 1994, p. 323; yellow-legged frog localities and 94 of Nevada from its historic range. Knapp and Matthews 2000, p. 430). 109 historical northern DPS of the Current Range and Distribution Population Estimates and Status mountain yellow-legged frog localities Since the time of the mountain Monitoring efforts and research (in the Sierran portion of their range). yellow-legged frog observations of studies have documented substantial This calculates to an estimated loss of Grinnell and Storer (1924, pp. 664–665), declines of mountain yellow-legged frog 69 percent of Sierra Nevada yellow- a number of researchers have reported populations in the Sierra Nevada. The legged frog metapopulations and 86 disappearances of these species from a number of extant populations has percent of northern DPS of the large fraction of their historical ranges declined greatly over the last few mountain yellow-legged frog in the Sierra Nevada (Hayes and decades. Remaining populations are metapopulations from historical Jennings 1986, p. 490; Bradford 1989, p. patchily scattered throughout the occurrences. 775; Bradford et al. 1994, pp. 323–327; historical range (Jennings and Hayes In addition to comparisons based on Jennings and Hayes 1994, p. 78; 1994, pp. 74–78; Jennings 1995, p. 133; individual localities, CDFW (CDFG Jennings 1995, p. 133; Stebbins and Jennings 1996, p. 936). In the 2011, pp. 20–25) compared historical Cohen 1995, pp. 225–226; Drost and northernmost portion of the range (Butte and recent population status at the Fellers 1996, p. 414; Jennings 1996, pp. and Plumas Counties), only a few Sierra watershed scale. This is a rough index 934–935; Knapp and Matthews 2000, p. Nevada yellow-legged frog populations of the geographic extent of the species 428; Vredenburg et al. 2005, p. 564). have been documented since 1970 through their respective ranges. Within The current distributions of the Sierra (Jennings and Hayes 1994, pp. 74–78; the Sierra Nevada, 44 percent of Nevada yellow-legged frog and the CDFG (CDFW) et al., unpubl. data). watersheds historically utilized by northern DPS of the mountain yellow- Declines of both species have also been Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frogs, and legged frog are restricted primarily to noted in the central and southern Sierra 59 percent of watersheds historically publicly managed lands at high Nevada (Drost and Fellers 1996, p. 420; utilized by northern DPS mountain elevations, including streams, lakes, Knapp and Matthews 2001, pp. 433– yellow-legged frogs, no longer support ponds, and meadow wetlands located 437; Knapp 2013, unpaginated). In the extant populations. However, this within National Forests and National southern Sierra Nevada (Sierra, Sequoia, watershed-level survey methodology is Parks. National Forests with extant and Inyo National Forests; and Kings not a good indicator of population (surviving) populations of mountain Canyon and Yosemite National Parks), changes because a watershed is counted yellow-legged frogs include the Plumas modest to relatively large populations as recently occupied if a single National Forest, Tahoe National Forest, (for example, breeding populations of individual (at any life stage) is observed Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, approximately 40 to more than 200 within the entire watershed even though Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit, adults) of mountain yellow-legged frogs several individual populations may Eldorado National Forest, Stanislaus do remain; however, in recent years have been lost (CDFG (CDFW) 2011b, p. National Forest, Sierra National Forest, some large populations have been 20). Therefore, these surveys likely Sequoia National Forest, and Inyo extirpated in this area (Bradford 1991, p. underestimate population declines. National Forest. National Parks with 176; Bradford et al. 1994, pp. 325–326; Many watersheds support only a single extant populations of mountain yellow- Knapp 2002a, p. 10, Wake and extant metapopulation, which occupies legged frogs include Yosemite National Vredenburg 2009, pp. 11467–11470). one to several adjacent water bodies

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:54 Apr 28, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\29APR3.SGM 29APR3 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES 24262 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

(CDFG (CDFW) 2011, p. 20). Remaining they previously had been confirmed, Distinct Vertebrate Population Segment populations are generally very small. while the mountain yellow-legged frog Analysis Rangewide, declines of mountain (rangewide, including southern yellow-legged frog populations were California) was no longer detectable at Under the Act, we must consider for estimated at around one-half of 81 percent of historically occupied sites. listing any species, subspecies, or, for historical populations by the end of the vertebrates, any DPS of these taxa if 1980s (Bradford et al. 1994, p. 323). The USFS has been conducting a there is sufficient information to Between 1988 and 1991, Bradford et al. rangewide, long-term monitoring indicate that such action may be (1994a, pp. 323–327) resurveyed sites program for the Sierra Nevada yellow- warranted. To implement the measures known historically (1955 through 1979 legged frog and the northern DPS of the prescribed by the Act, we, along with surveys) to support mountain yellow- mountain yellow-legged frog on the National Marine Fisheries Service legged frogs. They did not detect frogs National Forest lands in the Sierra (National Oceanic and Atmospheric at 27 historical sites on the Kaweah Nevada, known as the Sierra Nevada Administration–Fisheries), developed a River, and they detected frogs at 52 Amphibian Monitoring Program joint policy that addresses the percent of historical sites within (SNAMPH). This monitoring effort recognition of DPSs for potential listing Sequoia and Kings Canyon National provides unbiased estimates by using an actions (61 FR 4722). The policy allows Parks and 12.5 percent of historical sites integrated unequal probability design, for a more refined application of the Act outside of Sequoia and Kings Canyon and it provides numbers for robust that better reflects the biological needs National Parks. Because this work was statistical comparisons across 5-year of the taxon being considered and completed before the taxonomic monitoring cycles spanning 208 avoids the inclusion of entities that do division of mountain yellow-legged watersheds (Brown et al. 2011, pp. 3–4). not require the Act’s protective frogs, we have not differentiated The results of this assessment indicate measures. between the two species here. When that the species have declined in both Under our DPS policy, three elements both species are combined, this resurvey distribution and abundance. Based on are considered in a decision regarding effort detected mountain yellow-legged surveys conducted from 2002 through the status of a possible DPS as frogs at 19.4 percent of historical sites 2009, breeding activity was found in endangered or threatened under the Act. (Bradford et al. 1994, pp. 324–325). about half (48 percent) of the Available information discussed The elements are: (1) Discreteness of the watersheds where the species were below indicates that the rates of population segment in relation to the found in the decade prior to SNAMPH population decline have not abated, and remainder of the species to which it they have likely accelerated during the monitoring (1990 and 2001) (Brown et belongs; (2) the significance of the 1990s into the 2000s. Drost and Fellers al. 2011, p. 4). Breeding was found in population segment to the species to (1996, p. 417) repeated Grinnell and 3 percent of watersheds where species which it belongs; and (3) the population Storer’s early 20th century surveys in had been found prior to 1990. segment’s conservation status in relation Yosemite National Park, and reported Rangewide, breeding was found in 4 to the Act’s standards for listing. In frog presence at 2 of 14 historical sites percent of watersheds. Moreover, other words, if we determine that a where what is now known as Sierra relative abundances were low; an population segment of a vertebrate Nevada yellow-legged frogs occurred. estimated 9 percent of populations were species being considered for listing is The two positive sightings consisted of large (numbering more than 100 frogs or both discrete and significant, we would a single tadpole at one site and a single 500 tadpoles); about 90 percent of the conclude that it represents a DPS, and adult female at another. They identified watersheds had fewer than 10 adults, thus a ‘‘species’’ under section 3(16) of 17 additional sites with suitable while 80 percent had fewer than 10 the Act, whereupon we would evaluate mountain yellow-legged frog habitat, subadults and 100 tadpoles (Brown et the level of threat to the DPS based on and in those surveys, they detected 3 al. 2011, p. 24). the five listing factors established under additional populations. In 2002, Knapp To summarize population trends over section 4(a)(1) of the Act to determine (2002a, p. 10) resurveyed 302 water the available historical record, estimates whether listing the DPS as an bodies known to be occupied by range from losses between 69 to 93 ‘‘endangered species’’ or a ‘‘threatened mountain yellow-legged frogs between percent of Sierra Nevada yellow-legged species’’ is warranted. 1995 and 1997, and 744 sites where frog populations and 86 to 92 percent of frogs were not previously detected. Please refer to the proposed listing the northern DPS of the mountain Knapp found frogs at 59 percent of the rule for detailed information about the yellow-legged frog. Rangewide previously occupied sites, whereas 8 distinct vertebrate population segment reduction has diminished the number of percent of previously unoccupied sites analysis for the northern DPS of the were colonized. These data suggest an watersheds that support mountain mountain yellow-legged frog (78 FR extirpation rate five to six times higher yellow-legged frogs somewhere between 24472, April 25, 2013). We previously than the colonization rate within this the conservative estimates of 44 percent confirmed the status of the southern study area. The documented in the case of Sierra Nevada yellow- California population of the mountain extirpations appeared to occur non- legged frogs and at least 59 percent in yellow-legged frog as a DPS at the time randomly across the landscape, were the case of the northern DPS of the that it was listed as endangered under typically spatially clumped, and mountain yellow-legged frogs, to as high the Act (67 FR 44382, pp. 44384– involved the disappearance of all or as 97 percent of watersheds for the 44385). We summarize below the nearly all of the mountain yellow-legged mountain yellow-legged frog complex analysis for discreteness and frog populations in a watershed (Knapp across the Sierra Nevada. Remaining significance for the northern California 2002a, p. 9). CDFW (CDFG 2011, p. 20) populations are much smaller than population of the mountain yellow- assessed data from sites where multiple historical norms, and the density of legged frog (in the Sierra Nevada); this surveys were completed after 1995 (at populations per watershed has declined summary includes changes from the least 5 years apart). They found that the substantially; as a result, many proposed rule to address comments Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog was watersheds currently support single received from the public (78 FR 24472, not detected at 45 percent of sites where metapopulations at low abundances. April 25, 2013).

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:54 Apr 28, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\29APR3.SGM 29APR3 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 24263

Discreteness the taxon, (2) evidence that loss of the would constitute a significant gap in the Under our DPS Policy, a population discrete population segment would range of the species. One of the most striking differences segment of a vertebrate species may be result in a significant gap in the range between the northern population considered discrete if it satisfies either of the taxon, (3) evidence that the segment and the southern population of the following two conditions: (1) It is population segment represents the only segment of the mountain yellow-legged markedly separated from other surviving natural occurrence of a taxon frogs is the difference in the ecological populations of the same taxon as a that may be more abundant elsewhere as setting in which they each persist. consequence of physical, physiological, an introduced population outside its Zweifel (1955, pp. 237–241) observed ecological, or behavioral factors historic range, or (4) evidence that the discrete population segment differs that the frogs in southern California are (quantitative measures of genetic or markedly from the remainder of the typically found in steep-gradient morphological discontinuity may species in its genetic characteristics. streams in the chaparral belt at low provide evidence of this separation); or We have found substantial evidence elevations (370 m (1,220 ft)), even (2) it is delimited by international that three of the four significance though they may range into small governmental boundaries within which criteria are met by the discrete northern meadow streams at higher elevations up significant differences in control of population segment of the mountain to 2,290 m (7,560 ft). In contrast, frogs exploitation, management of habitat, yellow-legged frog that occurs in the from the northern population segment conservation, status, or regulatory Sierra Nevada. These include its of mountain yellow-legged frogs are mechanisms exist. persistence in an ecological setting that most abundant in high-elevation lakes The analysis of the northern is unique for the taxon, evidence that its and slow-moving portions of streams population segment of the mountain loss would result in a significant gap in where winter conditions are extreme. yellow-legged frog (Rana muscosa) (in the range of the taxon, and its genetic David Bradford’s (1989) southern Sierra the Sierra Nevada) is based on the uniqueness (reflecting significant Nevada study of mountain yellow- marked separation from other reproductive isolation over time). To legged frogs, for example, was populations. The range of the mountain establish the significance of the discrete conducted in Sequoia and Kings Canyon yellow-legged frog is divided by a northern population segment, we rely National Parks at high elevations natural geographic barrier, the on the effect that the loss of this between 2,910 and 3,430 m (9,600 to Tehachapi Mountains, which physically population segment would have on the 11,319 ft). The rugged canyons of the isolates the populations in the southern range of the taxon, and supplement that arid mountain ranges of southern Sierra Nevada from those in the with evidence that the population California, where waters seldom freeze, mountains of southern California. The segment persists in an ecological setting bear little resemblance to the alpine distance of the geographic separation is unusual or unique for the taxon and also lakes and streams of the Sierra Nevada about 225 km (140 mi). The geographic differs from other population segments where adult frogs and tadpoles must separation of the Sierra Nevada and in its genetic characteristics. There are overwinter at the bottoms of ice and southern California frogs was no introduced populations of the snow-covered lakes for up to 9 months recognized in the earliest description of northern DPS of the mountain yellow- of the year. The significantly different the species by Camp (1917), who treated legged frog outside of the species’ ecological settings between mountain frogs from the two areas as separate historical range. yellow-legged frogs in southern subspecies within the R. boylii group Evidence indicates that loss of the California and those in the northern (see more on classification of the northern population segment of the population segment (in the Sierra mountain yellow-legged frogs in mountain yellow-legged frog (in the Nevada) distinguish these populations Taxonomy). There is no contiguous Sierra Nevada) would result in a from each other. habitat that provides connectivity significant gap in the range of the taxon. Finally, the northern population between the two populations that is The Sierran mountain yellow-legged segment of the mountain yellow-legged sufficient for the migration, growth, frogs comprise the entire distribution of frog is biologically significant based on rearing, or reproduction of dispersing the species in approximately the genetic differences. Vredenburg et al. frogs. Genetic differences well- northern half of the species’ range, and (2007, p. 361) identified that two of supported in the scientific literature loss of the distinct population segment three distinct genetic clades (groups of also provide evidence of this separation in the northern portion of the range distinct lineage) constitute the northern (see Taxonomy). Therefore, we find that could have significant conservation range of the mountain yellow-legged the northern population segment of the implications for the species. frog found in the Sierra Nevada, with mountain yellow-legged frog (Rana Furthermore, loss of the northern the remaining clade represented by the muscosa) (in the Sierra Nevada) is population segment of the mountain endangered southern California DPS of discrete from the remainder of the yellow-legged frog (in the Sierra the mountain yellow-legged frog. Macey species. Nevada) would reduce the species to the et al. (2001, p. 141) estimated the remaining small, isolated sites in the genetic divergence between the northern Significance streams of southern California (USFWS, population of mountain yellow-legged Under our DPS Policy, once we have Jul 2012, pp. 11–12). Loss of the frogs (in the Sierra Nevada) and the determined that a population segment is northern population segment of the southern population of mountain discrete, we consider its biological and mountain yellow-legged frog would yellow-legged frogs (in southern ecological significance to the larger leave an area of the southern Sierra California) to have occurred 1.4 million taxon to which it belongs. Our DPS Nevada over 150 km (93 mi) in length years before present (mybp), thereby policy provides several potential without any ranid (frogs in the genus indicating functional isolation. considerations that may demonstrate the Ranidae) frogs, which were once The loss of the northern population of significance of a population segment to abundant and widespread in the higher the mountain yellow-legged frog would the remainder of its taxon, including: (1) elevation Sierra Nevada (Cory 1962b, p. result in a significant gap in the range Evidence of the persistence of the 515; Fellers 1994, p. 5). The potential of the mountain yellow-legged frog discrete population segment in an loss of the northern population segment species. The differences between the ecological setting unusual or unique for of the mountain yellow-legged frog ecological settings for the southern

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:54 Apr 28, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\29APR3.SGM 29APR3 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES 24264 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

population of mountain yellow-legged adding additional information where potential effects of such activities. We frogs (steep-gradient streams that needed. In the Summary of Factors clarified the threat magnitude for roads seldom freeze) and the northern Affecting the Species section, we have and timber harvest from minor population of mountain yellow-legged re-ordered threats in Factor A so that the prevalence rangewide to not a threat to frogs (high-elevation lakes and slow- primary activity that has modified the extant populations across much of the moving portions of streams where frogs habitat of the mountain yellow-legged species’ ranges (although they may pose overwinter under ice and snow for up frog complex is addressed first, while important habitat-related effects to the to 75 percent of the year) are significant. activities with potential only for species in localized areas). We reviewed Additionally, the genetic distinction localized effects are addressed later. information provided by the U.S. Forest between these two populations reflects Based on peer review, and Federal, Service (USFS), the National Park isolation for over a million years. State, county, and public comments, we Service (NPS), CDFW, and others on Therefore based on the information have added information where needed recreation activities, and we changed discussed above, we find that northern and clarified our findings on the role of our conclusion on the recreation threat population of the mountain yellow- current activities, such as grazing, magnitude from low significance to the legged frog (in the Sierra Nevada recreation, packstock use, etc., in species overall to not considered a mountains) meets the significance species declines. We reviewed the threat to populations over much of their criteria under our Policy Regarding the analysis of dams and diversions that we range. However, we recognize that there Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate presented in the proposed rule and may be localized effects, especially Population Segments (61 FR 4722). determined that most large reservoir outside of backcountry areas where use facilities are below the current range of is high or where motorized and DPS Conclusion the mountain yellow-legged frogs. We mechanical use occurs in extant frog Based on the best scientific and revised the dams and water diversions habitat. commercial data available on threat magnitude from moderate We added a brief discussion of distribution as well as ecological setting prevalent in the proposed rule to minor bullfrogs (Lithobates catesbeiana) under and genetic characteristics of the localized where such structures occur in Factor C for mountain yellow-legged species, we have determined that the this final rule. frogs noting that bullfrog predation and northern population segment of the In the proposed rule, we stated that competition is expected to have mountain yellow-legged frog (in the grazing presented a minor prevalent population-level effects to mountain Sierra Nevada) is both discrete and threat. We reworded this final rule to yellow-legged frog populations in those significant per our DPS policy. more accurately reflect the contribution low elevation areas, or in the Lake Therefore, we conclude that the of legacy effects of past grazing levels to Tahoe Basin, where the two species may northern discrete population segment of this threat assessment. We found that co-occur. We slightly revised our the mountain yellow-legged frog is a current livestock grazing that complies characterization of the recent DPS, and thus a ‘‘species’’ under section with forest standards and guidelines is population declines of the mountain 3(16) of the Act. Our determination of not expected to negatively affect yellow-legged frogs due to biological and ecological significance is mountain yellow-legged frog Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis (Bd), appropriate because the population populations in most cases, although identifying the fungus as one of the segment has a geographical distribution limited exceptions could occur (where primary drivers of recent declines, and that is biologically meaningful. extant habitat is limited and legacy adding information provided by peer Summary of Changes From the effects to meadows still require reviewers and agencies. We also added Proposed Rule for the Sierra Nevada restoration, where habitat is limited information to our discussion under Yellow-Legged Frog and the Northern such as in stream riparian zones or Factor D, including information about DPS of the Mountain Yellow-Legged small meadows, or where grazing the National Park Service Organic Act, Frog standards are exceeded). Rangewide, information on the provision in the livestock grazing is not a substantial Wilderness Act about withdrawing Based on peer review, Federal and threat to the species. minerals, and information on the status State, and public comments (see In response to information provided of the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog comments in the Summary of during the public comment period, we and the mountain yellow-legged frog Comments and Recommendations added a discussion of mining activities under the California Endangered section below), we have clarified in the Factor A discussion. In this final Species Act (CESA). We also moved information in the sections provided for rule, we determine that, while most discussion of current CDFW fisheries the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog mining activities take place below the management to the ‘‘Habitat and the northern DPS of the mountain extant ranges of the species, where some Modification Due to Introduction of yellow-legged frog to better characterize types of mining activities occur, Trout to Historically Fishless Areas’’ our knowledge of the species’ habitat localized habitat-related effects may section under Factor A. requirements, correcting some result. We removed the discussion of information based on peer review We added new information available contaminants under Factor E and refer (vocalizations (Species Description), on packstock grazing, retaining our readers to the proposed rule. Although species ranges (Taxonomy and Historic finding that packstock grazing is only we received additional information that and Current Ranges and Distribution likely to be a threat to mountain yellow- clarified some text and provided sections), current distribution in legged frogs in limited situations. We additional references regarding Sequoia National Park (Historic and also added more information on roads contaminants, the clarifications Current Ranges and Distribution), and and timber harvests, and we clarified supported our conclusions in the clarifying the basis for our that these activities primarily do not proposed rule that the best available determination of significance for the occur where there are extant information indicates that contaminants northern population of the mountain populations (except where frogs occur do not pose a current or continuing yellow-legged frog in response to public in the northern or lower elevation threat to the species. We also added comments (Distinct Vertebrate portions of the range), and that USFS additional information either available Population Segment)), occasionally standards are generally designed to limit in our files, or provided by commenters,

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:54 Apr 28, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\29APR3.SGM 29APR3 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 24265

to clarify and support our finding on the habitat-related activities as potentially Sierra Club, local sportsmen’s clubs, threat of climate change. We revised the relevant to the conservation status of the private citizens, and the U.S. military explanation in the determinations for mountain yellow-legged frog complex: (Knapp 1996, p. 8; Pister 2001, p. 280). each species to reflect the above Fish introductions (see also Factor C, As more hatcheries were built and the changes. below), dams and water diversions, management of the trout fishery became livestock grazing, timber management, better organized, fish planting Summary of Factors Affecting the road construction and maintenance, continued for the purpose of increased Species packstock use, recreational activities, angler opportunities and success (Pister Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), and fire management activities. Such 2001, p. 281). After World War II, the and its implementing regulations at 50 activities may have degraded habitat in method of transporting trout to high- CFR part 424, set forth the procedures ways that have reduced its capacity to elevation areas changed from packstock for adding species to the Federal Lists sustain viable populations and may to aircraft, which allowed stocking in of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife have fragmented and isolated mountain more remote lakes and in greater and Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of the yellow-legged frog populations from numbers. With the advent of aerial Act, we may list a species based on any each other. stocking, trout planting expanded to of the following five factors: (A) The new areas, with higher efficiency. present or threatened destruction, Habitat Modification Due to Brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis), modification, or curtailment of its Introduction of Trout to Historically brown trout (Salmo trutta), rainbow habitat or range; (B) overutilization for Fishless Areas trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), and other commercial, recreational, scientific, or One habitat feature that is trout species assemblages have been educational purposes; (C) disease or documented to have a significant planted in most streams and lakes of the predation; (D) the inadequacy of detrimental impact to mountain yellow- Sierra Nevada (Knapp 1996, p. 8; Moyle existing regulatory mechanisms; and (E) legged frog populations is the presence 2002, p. 25). Since the advent of aerial other natural or manmade factors of introduced trout resulting from stocking, backcountry areas not affecting its continued existence. Listing stocking programs for the creation and accessible by truck are stocked by air actions may be warranted based on any maintenance of a recreational fishery. (Pert 2002, pers. comm.), which limits of the above threat factors, singly or in To further angling success and stocking to lakes. National Forests in the combination. Each of these factors is opportunity, trout stocking programs in Sierra Nevada have a higher proportion discussed below, and changes from the the Sierra Nevada started in the late of lakes with fish occupancy than do proposed rule (78 FR 24472, April 25, 19th century (Bahls 1992, p. 185; Pister National Parks (Knapp 1996, p. 3), 2013) are reflected in these discussions. 2001, p. 280). This anthropogenic primarily because the National Park The following analysis is applicable to activity has community-level effects and Service (NPS) began phasing out fish both the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged is one of the primary threats to stocking within their jurisdictional frog (Rana sierrae) and the northern mountain yellow-legged frog habitat and boundaries in 1969, with limited distinct population segment of the species viability. stocking occurring until it was mountain yellow-legged frog (Rana Prior to extensive trout planting terminated altogether in Sierra Nevada muscosa). programs, almost all streams and lakes National Parks in 1991 (Knapp 1996, p. in the Sierra Nevada at elevations above Factor A. The Present or Threatened 9). California Department of Fish and 1,800 m (6,000 ft) were fishless. Several Wildlife (CDFW) continues to stock Destruction, Modification, or native fish species occur naturally in Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range trout in National Forest water bodies, aquatic habitats below this elevation in but in 2001 reduced the number of A number of hypotheses, including the Sierra Nevada (Knapp 1996, pp. 12– stocked water bodies to reduce impacts habitat modification (including loss of 14; Moyle et al. 1996, p. 354; Moyle to native amphibians (ICF Jones & vegetation, loss of wetlands, habitat 2002, p. 25), but natural barriers Stokes 2010, pp. ES–1–ES–16). Current modification for urban development, prevented fish from colonizing the stocking decisions are based on criteria and degradation of upland habitats) higher-elevation waters of the Sierra outlined in the Environmental Impact have been proposed for recent global Nevada watershed (Moyle et al. 1996, p. Report for the Hatchery and Stocking amphibian declines (Bradford et al. 354). The upper reaches of the Kern Program (ICF Jones & Stokes 2010, 1993, p. 883; Corn 1994, p. 62; Alford River, where native fish such as the Appendix K). and Richards 1999, p. 134). However, Little Kern golden trout (Oncorhynchus Fish stocking as a practice has been physical habitat modification has not mykiss whitei) and California golden widespread throughout the range of been associated with the rangewide trout (O. m. aguabonita) evolved, both species of mountain yellow-legged decline of mountain yellow-legged represent the only major exception to frogs. Knapp and Matthews (2000, p. frogs. Mountain yellow-legged frogs the 1,800-m (6,000-ft) elevation limit for 428) indicated that 65 percent of the occur primarily at high elevations in the fishes within the range of the mountain water bodies that were 1 ha (2.5 ac) or Sierra Nevada, which have not had the yellow-legged frog in the Sierra Nevada larger in National Forests they studied types or extent of large-scale habitat (Moyle 2002, p. 25). Additionally, prior were stocked with fish on a regular conversion and physical disturbance to extensive planting, native Paiute basis. Over 90 percent of the total water that have occurred at lower elevations cutthroat (O. clarki seleneris) and body surface area in the John Muir (Knapp and Matthews 2000, p. 429). Lahontan cutthroat (O. c. henshawi) Wilderness was occupied by nonnative Thus, direct habitat destruction or were limited in their distribution to trout (Knapp and Matthews 2000, p. modification associated with intensive several rivers, streams, and limited large 434). human activities has not been lakes in the eastern Sierra Nevada Another detrimental feature of fish implicated in the decline of this species (Knapp 1996, p. 369; Moyle 1996 et al., stocking is that, in the Sierra Nevada, (Davidson et al. 2002, p. 1597). pp. 954–958), indicating some overlap fish often persist in water bodies even However, other human activities may with the range of the Sierra Nevada after stocking ceases. Thirty-five to 50 have played a role in the modification yellow-legged frog. percent of lakes larger than 1 ha (2.5 ac) of mountain yellow-legged frog habitat. Some of the first practitioners of trout within Sierra Nevada National Parks are We have identified the following stocking in the Sierra Nevada were the occupied by nonnative fish, which is

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:54 Apr 28, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\29APR3.SGM 29APR3 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES 24266 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

only a 29 to 44 percent decrease in fish and several others). With the exception Park, and found that mountain yellow- occupancy since fish stocking was of one 1999 record from Faggs Reservoir legged frogs were five times less likely terminated around 2 decades before the on the Plumas National Forest, all of to be detected in waters where trout estimate was made (Knapp 1996, p. 1). several dozen records of the species were present. Even though stocking Though data on fish occupancy in from reservoirs are pre-1975, and at within the National Park ceased in 1991, streams are lacking throughout the least half pre-date the water more than 50 percent of water bodies Sierra Nevada, Knapp (1996, pp. 9–11) development projects at those locations deeper than 4 m (13 ft) and 75 percent estimated that 60 percent of the streams (Brown et al. 2009, p. 78). All of these deeper than 16 m (52 ft) still contained in Yosemite National Park were still reservoirs now harbor introduced fish trout populations in 2000–2002 (Knapp occupied by introduced trout because species, and at least two also harbor 2005a, p. 270). Both trout and mountain trout readily move out of lakes to bullfrogs, suggesting that subsequent yellow-legged frogs utilize deeper water colonize both inlet and outlet streams. introductions may have played a role in bodies. Based on the results from Knapp The presence of trout in these once past declines in those areas (see Brown (2005a), the reduced detection of frogs fishless waters has modified the habitat et al. 2009, p. 78). in trout-occupied waters indicates that at a landscape scale. The body of scientific research has trout are excluding mountain yellow- Thus, the frog’s habitat has been demonstrated that introduced trout have legged frogs from some of the best modified due to the introduction of a negatively impacted mountain yellow- aquatic habitat. nonnative predator that both competes legged frogs over much of the Sierra Several aspects of the mountain Nevada (Grinnell and Storer 1924, p. for limited food resources and directly yellow-legged frog’s life history are 664; Bradford 1989, pp. 775–778; preys on mountain yellow-legged frog thought to exacerbate its vulnerability to Bradford et al. 1993, pp. 882–888; tadpoles and adults (see Factor C extirpation by trout (Bradford 1989, pp. Knapp 1994, p. 3; Drost and Fellers below). Presence of nonnative trout in 777–778; Bradford et al. 1993, pp. 886– 1996, p. 422; Knapp 1996, pp. 13–15; naturally fishless ecosystems has had 888; Knapp 1996, p. 14; Knapp and Bradford et al. 1998, pp. 2482, 2489; profound effects on the structure and Matthews 2000, p. 435). Mountain Knapp and Matthews 2000, p. 428; composition of faunal assemblages, yellow-legged frogs are highly aquatic Knapp et al. 2001, p. 401). Fish stocking severely reducing not only amphibians, and are found primarily in lakes, most programs have negative ecological but also zooplankton and large of which now contain trout (Knapp implications because fish eat aquatic 1996, p. 14). In comparison to other invertebrate species (see Knapp 1996, p. fauna, including amphibians and 6; Bradford et al. 1998, p. 2489; Finlay invertebrates (Bahls 1992, p. 191; Erman Sierran frogs, mountain yellow-legged and Vredenburg 2007, pp. 2194–2197). 1996, p. 992; Jennings 1996, p. 939; frog tadpoles generally need at least 2 Within the frog’s historical range, past Knapp 1996, pp. 373–379; Matthews et years to reach metamorphosis, which trout introductions and the continuing al. 2001, pp. 1135–1136; Pilliod and restricts breeding to waters that are deep presence of fish in most lakes resulted Peterson 2001, p. 329; Schindler et al. enough to avoid depletion of oxygen in the elimination of frogs from most 2001, p. 309; Moyle 2002, p. 58; when ice-covered (Knapp 1996, p.14). waters that were suitable for fish. Across Epanchin et al. 2010, p. 2406). Finlay Overwintering adults must also avoid the range of these species in the Sierra and Vredenburg (2007, p. 2187) oxygen depletion when the water is Nevada, the presence of fish in most of documented that the same benthic covered by ice, generally limiting the deeper lakes has altered the aquatic (bottom-dwelling) invertebrate resource overwintering to deeper waters that do habitat that mountain yellow-legged base sustains the growth of both frogs not become anoxic (Mullally and frogs rely on for overwintering and and trout, suggesting that competition Cunningham 1956a, p. 194; Bradford breeding, and has also reduced with trout for prey is an important factor 1983, p. 1179; Knapp and Matthews connectivity among frog populations. that may contribute to the decline of the 2000, pp. 435–436). At high elevations, Fish now populate the deeper lakes and mountain yellow-legged frog. both tadpoles and adults overwinter connecting streams and largely separate Introductions of salmonids to fishless under ice for up to 9 months (Bradford and increase the distance between the lakes have also been associated with 1983, p. 1171). These habitat current sites inhabited by the highly- alteration of nutrient cycles and primary requirements appear to restrict aquatic frogs (the connectivity of productivity in mountain lakes, successful breeding and overwintering occupied sites in present versus former including those in the Sierra Nevada to the deeper water bodies where the fishless conditions differs by (Schindler et al. 2001, pp. 308, 313– chances of summer drying and winter approximately 10-fold) (Bradford et al. 319). freezing are reduced, the same water 1993, pp. 884–887; Knapp 1996, pp. Knapp and Matthews (2000, p. 428) bodies that are most suitable for fishes; 373–379). Where reservoirs harbor surveyed more than 1,700 water bodies, fishes also need deeper water bodies introduced fish, successful reproduction and concluded that a strong negative where the chances of summer drying of mountain yellow-legged frogs may be correlation exists between introduced and winter freezing are reduced reduced if there are no shallow side trout and mountain yellow-legged frogs (Bradford 1983, pp. 1172–1179; Knapp channels or separate pools (Jennings (Knapp and Matthews 2000, p. 435). 1996, p. 14; Knapp and Matthews 2000, 1996, p. 939). Most reservoirs do not Consistent with this finding are the pp. 429, 435–436). Past fish-stocking overlap significantly with the current results of an analysis of the distribution practices targeted the deeper lakes, so extant range of the species (CDFW 2013, of mountain yellow-legged frog the percentage of water bodies p. 3) (see Dams and Water Diversions tadpoles, which indicate that the containing fish has increased with water below); however, a number of reservoirs presence and abundance of this life depth, resulting in elimination of were constructed in the mid-1900s at stage are reduced dramatically in fish- mountain yellow-legged frogs from once mid-elevations within lower edges of stocked lakes (Knapp et al. 2001, p. suitable habitats in which they were the species’ historic range (for example, 408). Knapp (2005a, pp. 265–279) also historically most common, and thereby Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frogs were compared the distribution of nonnative generally isolating populations to the taken from Bear River Reservoir trout with the distributions of several shallower, marginal habitats that do not (Eldorado National Forest), Union amphibian and reptile species in 2,239 have fish (Bradford 1983, pp. 1172– Reservoir (Stanislaus National Forest), lakes and ponds in Yosemite National 1179; Bradford et al. 1993, pp. 884, 886–

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:54 Apr 28, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\29APR3.SGM 29APR3 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 24267

887; Knapp and Matthews 2000, pp. with known populations of mountain for recreational angling (CDFG (CDFW) 435–436). yellow-legged frogs, nor in lakes that 2001, p. 3). They further note that lakes Mountain yellow-legged frogs and have not yet been surveyed for managed for recreational angling may be trout (native and nonnative) do co-occur mountain yellow-legged frog presence; stocked if CDFW determines that at some sites, but these co-occurrences (2) waters will be stocked only with a stocking the lake will achieve a are generally thought to represent fisheries management justification; and desirable fisheries management mountain yellow-legged frog ‘‘sink’’ (3) the number of stocked lakes will be objective and is not otherwise precluded populations (areas with negative reduced over time. In 2001, the number by stocking decision guidelines and population growth rates in the absence of lakes stocked with fish within the agreements (for stocking decision of immigration) (Bradford et al. 1998, p. range of the mountain yellow-legged documents, see CDFW 2013, pp. 1, 2). 2489; Knapp and Matthews 2000, p. frog in the Sierra Nevada was reduced Since the mid-1990s, various parties, 436). Mountain yellow-legged frogs have by 75 percent (Milliron 2002, pp. 6–7; including researchers, CDFW, NPS, and also been extirpated at some fishless Pert et al. 2002, pers. comm.). Current the USFS, have implemented a variety bodies of water (Bradford 1991, p. 176; CDFW guidelines stipulate that water of projects to actively restore habitat for Drost and Fellers 1996, p. 422). A bodies within the same basin and 2 km the mountain yellow-legged frog via the possible explanation is the isolation and (1.25 mi) from a known mountain removal of nonnative trout (USFS 2011, fragmentation of remaining populations yellow-legged frog population will not pp. 128–130; NPS 2013, pp. 3–5). due to introduced fishes in the streams be stocked with fish unless stocking is Although fish stocking has been that once provided mountain yellow- justified through a management plan curtailed within many occupied basins, legged frogs with dispersal and that considers all the aquatic resources the impacts to frog populations persist recolonization routes; these remote in the basin, or unless there is heavy due to the presence of self-sustaining populations are now non-functional as angler use and no opportunity to fish populations in some of the best metapopulations (Bradford 1991, p. 176; improve the mountain yellow-legged habitat that normally would have Bradford et al. 1993, p. 887). Based on frog habitat (Milliron 2002a, p. 5). The sustained mountain yellow-legged frogs. a survey of 95 basins within Sequoia Hatchery and Stocking Program The fragmentation that persists across and Kings Canyon National Parks, Environmental Impact Report/ the range of these frog species renders Bradford et al. (1993, pp. 885–886) Environmental Impact Statement, them more vulnerable to other estimated that the introduction of fishes finalized in 2010 (ICF Jones & Stokes population stressors, and recovery is into the study area resulted in an 2010, Appendix K), outlines a decision slow, if not impossible, without costly approximately 10-fold increase in approach to mitigate fish stocking and physically difficult direct human habitat fragmentation between effects on Sierra amphibians that intervention (such as physical and chemical trout removal) (see Knapp et populations of mountain yellow-legged prohibits fish stocking in lakes with al. 2007a, pp. 11–19). While most of the frogs. Knapp and Matthews (2000, p. confirmed presence of a limited number impacts occurred historically, the 436) believe that this fragmentation has of designated species, including the impact upon the biogeographic further isolated mountain yellow-legged mountain yellow-legged frogs (see ICF (population/metapopulation) integrity frogs within the already marginal Jones & Stokes 2010, Appendix E) using of the species will be long-lasting. habitat left unused by fishes. recognized survey protocols. Large Fragmentation of mountain yellow- Currently, habitat degradation and reservoirs generally continue to be legged frog habitat renders populations fragmentation by fish is considered a stocked to provide a put-and-take more vulnerable to extirpation from highly significant and prevalent threat fishery for recreational angling. random events (such as disease) (Wilcox to persistence and recovery of the 1980, pp. 114–115; Bradford et al. 1993, As part of the High Mountain Lakes species. p. 887; Hanski and Simberloff 1997, p. Project, CDFW is in the process of Dams and Water Diversions 21; Knapp and Matthews 2000, p. 436). developing management plans for Isolated population locations may have basins within the range of the Sierra While a majority of dams and water higher extinction rates because trout Nevada yellow-legged frog and the diversions within the Sierra Nevada are prevent successful recolonization and northern DPS of mountain yellow- located at lower elevations (USFS 2011, dispersal to and from these sites legged frog (CDFG (CDFW) 2001, p. 1; p. 83), some large reservoirs have been (Bradford et al. 1993, p. 887; Blaustein Lockhart 2011, pers. comm.). CDFW constructed within the historic range of et al. 1994a, p. 7; Knapp and Matthews states that objectives of the basin plans the mountain yellow-legged frog 2000, p. 436). If the distance between specific to the mountain yellow-legged complex. These large reservoirs include, sites is too great, amphibians may not frog include management in a manner but are not limited to Huntington Lake, readily recolonize unoccupied sites that maintains or restores native Florence Lake, Lake Thomas A. Edison, following local extinctions because of biodiversity and habitat quality, Saddlebag Lake, Cherry Lake, Hetch physiological constraints, the tendency supports viable populations of native Hetchy, Upper and Lower Blue Lakes, to move only short distances, and high species, and provides for recreational Lake Aloha, Silver Lake, Hell Hole site fidelity. Finally, frogs that do opportunities that consider historical Reservoir, French Meadow Reservoir, attempt recolonization may emigrate use patterns (CDFG (CDFW) 2001, p. 3). Lake Spaulding, Alpine Lake, Loon into fish-occupied habitat and perish, They state that, under this approach, Lake, and Ice House Reservoir. A rendering sites with such lakes that support mountain yellow- number of these occur at elevations metapopulation dynamics less able to legged populations in breeding, below the current range of the species, sustain frog populations. foraging, or dispersal, and/or present indicating that the network of large In 2001, CDFW revised fish stocking opportunities to restore or expand water and power projects found at lower practices and implemented an informal habitat, are managed for the elevations does not overlap significantly policy on fish stocking in the range of conservation of the species. Lakes that with the current accepted distribution of the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog do not support mountain yellow-legged the mountain yellow-legged frogs in the and northern DPS of the mountain frogs are not viable restoration Sierra Nevada (CDFW 2013, p. 3). yellow-legged frog. This policy directs opportunities, and lakes that support Kondolf et al. (1996, p. 1014) report that: (1) Fish will not be stocked in lakes trout populations are managed primarily that dams can have direct effects to

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:54 Apr 28, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\29APR3.SGM 29APR3 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES 24268 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

riparian habitat through permanent information, we have reviewed the management alone may not be sufficient removal of habitat to construct roads, analysis of dams and diversions that we to restore former riparian conditions penstocks, powerhouses, canals, and presented in the proposed rule. We find (George et al. 2011, p. 227). dams. Impacts of reservoirs include that most large facilities are below the Aquatic habitat can also be degraded flooding of riparian vegetation and current range of the mountain yellow- by grazing. Mass erosion from trampling impediments to establishment of new legged frogs and have revised our and hoof slide causes streambank shoreline vegetation by fluctuating finding. In the proposed rule, we stated collapse and an accelerated rate of soil water levels. Dams can alter the that dams and diversions presented a transport to streams (Meehan and Platts temperature and sediment load of the moderate, prevalent threat to 1978, p. 274). Accelerated rates of rivers they impound (Cole and Landres persistence and recovery of the species. erosion lead to elevated instream 1996, p. 175). Dams, water diversions, In this final rule, we find that dams and sediment loads and depositions, and and their associated structures can also water diversions present a minor, changes in stream-channel morphology alter the natural flow regime with localized threat to persistence and (Meehan and Platts 1978, pp. 275–276; unseasonal and fluctuating releases of recovery of the species where structures Kauffman and Krueger 1984, p. 432). water (Kondolf et al. 1996, p. 1014). We occur. Livestock grazing may lead to expect most such effects to occur in diminished perennial streamflows Livestock Use (Grazing) stream systems below the extant range (Armour et al. 1994, p. 10). Livestock of the mountain yellow-legged frogs, The combined effect of legacy can increase nutrient-loading in water although it is possible that stream conditions from historically excessive bodies due to urination and defecation localities at the northern extent of the grazing use and current livestock in or near the water, and can cause range or at low elevations may be grazing activities has the potential to elevated bacteria levels in areas where affected (see also CDFW 2013, pp. 2–4). impact habitat in the range of the cattle are concentrated (Meehan and The extent of past impacts to mountain yellow-legged frog. The Platts 1978, p. 276; Stephenson and mountain yellow-legged frog following subsections discuss the effects Street 1978, p. 156; Kauffman and populations from habitat loss or of excessive historical grazing, current Krueger 1984, p. 432). With increased modification due to reservoir projects extent of grazing, and current grazing grazing intensity, these adverse effects has not been quantified. CDFW (2013, p. management practices. As discussed to the aquatic ecosystem increase 3) has noted that there are locations below, grazing has the potential to proportionately (Meehan and Platts where the habitat inundated as the reduce the suitability of habitat for 1978, p. 275; Clary and Kinney 2000, p. result of dam construction (for example, mountain yellow-legged frogs by 294). Lake Aloha in the Desolation reducing its capability to sustain frogs Observational data indicate that Wilderness) may have been of higher and facilitate dispersal and migration, livestock can negatively impact quality for mountain yellow-legged frogs especially in stream areas. mountain yellow-legged frogs by than the created impoundment. Grazing of livestock in riparian areas altering riparian habitat (Knapp 1993a, Reservoirs can provide habitat for impacts the function of the aquatic p. 1; 1993b, p. 1; 1994, p. 3; Jennings introduced predators, including fish, system in multiple ways, including soil 1996, p. 938; Carlson 2002, pers. comm.; bullfrogs, and crayfish, and in some compaction, which increases runoff and Knapp 2002a, p. 29). Livestock tend to cases, the past construction of reservoirs decreases water availability to plants; concentrate along streams and wet areas has facilitated the spread of nonnative vegetation removal, which promotes where there is water and herbaceous fish (CDFW 2013, pp. 3, 4). In such increased soil temperatures and vegetation; grazing impacts are, cases, reservoirs may function as evaporation rates at the soil surface; and therefore, most pronounced in these barriers to movement of mountain direct physical damage to the vegetation habitats (Meehan and Platts 1978, p. yellow-legged frogs. However, CDFW (Kauffman and Krueger 1984, pp. 433– 274; U.S. Government Accounting reported observing mountain yellow- 434; Cole and Landres 1996, pp. 171– Office (GAO) 1988, pp. 10–11; legged frogs dispersing through fishless 172; Knapp and Matthews 1996, pp. Fleischner 1994, p. 635; Menke et al. reservoirs (CDFW 2013, p. 4). (For a 816–817). Streamside vegetation 1996, p. 17). This concentration of complete discussion of the impacts of protects and stabilizes streambanks by livestock contributes to the fish stocking see Habitat Modification binding soils to resist erosion and trap destabilization of streambanks, causing Due to Introduction of Trout to sediment (Kauffman et al. 1983, p. 683; undercuts and bank failures (Kauffman Historically Fishless Areas above and Chaney et al. 1990, p. 2). Grazing within et al. 1983, p. 684; Marlow and Pogacnik the discussion under Factor C.). mountain yellow-legged frog habitat has 1985, pp. 282–283; Knapp and Most of the dams constructed within been observed to remove vegetative Matthews 1996, p. 816; Moyle 2002, p. the historic range of the mountain cover, potentially exposing frogs to 55). Grazing activity can contribute to yellow-legged frogs are small predation and increased desiccation the downcutting of streambeds and streamflow-maintenance dams (CDFW (Knapp 1993b, p. 1; Jennings 1996, p. lower the water table. The degree of 2013, p. 13) at the outflows of high- 539), and to lead to erosion which may erosion caused by livestock grazing can elevation lakes. These small dams may silt in ponds and thereby reduce the vary with slope gradient, aspect, soil create additional habitat for the species water depth needed for overwinter condition, vegetation density, and and can act as barriers to fish migration survival (Knapp 1993b, p. 1). However, accessibility to livestock, with soil from downstream tributaries into an appropriately managed grazing disturbance greater in areas overused by fishless habitats, although they do not regime (including timing and intensity) livestock (Meehan and Platts 1978, pp. impede frog movement (CDFW 2013, p. can enhance primary riparian vegetation 275–276; Kauffman et al. 1983, p. 685; 3). CDFW staff (2013, p. 13) have attributes that are strongly correlated to Kauffman and Krueger 1984, p. 432; observed that extant frog populations stream channel and riparian soil Bohn and Buckhouse 1985, p. 378; GAO may have persisted where such dams stability conditions necessary to 1988, p. 11; Armour et al. 1994, pp. 9– have helped to preserve a fishless maintain a functioning riparian system 11; Moyle 2002, p. 55). environment behind the dam. (George et al. 2011, p. 227). Although, Livestock grazing may impact other Based on comments from CDFW and where highly degraded conditions such wetland systems, including ponds that others and the provision of additional as downcut channels exist, grazing can serve as mountain yellow-legged

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:54 Apr 28, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\29APR3.SGM 29APR3 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 24269

frog habitat. Grazing can modify resource management (USFS 2001, pp. at which livestock are permitted to shoreline habitats by removing 399–416). move onto USFS allotments) are set overhanging banks that provide shelter, yearly based on factors such as Effects of Current Grazing and grazing contributes to the siltation elevation, annual precipitation, soil of breeding ponds. Bradford (1983, p. Yosemite, Sequoia, and Kings Canyon moisture, and forage plant phenology, 1179) and Pope (1999, pp. 43–44) have National Parks remain closed to and meadow readiness dates are also set documented the importance of deep livestock grazing. On USFS- for montane meadows. However, lakes to overwinter survival of these administered lands that overlap the animals turned out to graze on low- species. We expect that pond siltation historical ranges of the mountain elevation range (until higher elevation due to grazing may reduce the depth of yellow-legged frog in the Sierra Nevada, meadows are ready) may reach upper breeding ponds and cover underwater there are currently 161 active Rangeland portions of allotments before the crevices in some circumstances where Management Unit Allotments for meadows have reached range readiness grazing is heavy and where soils are livestock grazing. However, based on (Brown et al. 2009, p. 58). highly erodable, thereby making the frog surveys performed since 2005, only Menke et al. (1996) have reported that ponds less suitable, or unsuitable, as 27 of these allotments have extant grazing livestock in numbers that are overwintering habitat for tadpoles and mountain yellow-legged frog consistent with grazing capacity and use adult mountain yellow-legged frogs. populations, while some allotments that of sustainable methods led to better were located in sensitive areas have range management in the Sierra Nevada Effects of Excessive Historical Grazing been closed (USFS 2008, unpubl. data; over the 20 years prior to development CDFW (CDFG) unpubl. data). As of of the report. They also noted that In general, historical livestock grazing 2009, USFS data indicated that grazing moderate livestock grazing has the within the range of the mountain occurs on about 65 percent of National potential to increase native species yellow-legged frog was at a high Forest lands within the range of the diversity in wet and mesic meadows by (although undocumented), unregulated mountain yellow-legged frog; that allowing native plant cover to increase and unsustainable level until the livestock numbers remain greatly on site. Brown et al. (2009, p. 58) expect establishment of National Parks reduced from historical levels; and that proper livestock management, such as (beginning in 1890) and National numerous watershed restoration proper timing, intensity, and duration, Forests (beginning in 1905) (UC 1996a, projects have been implemented, to result in a trend towards increased p. 114; Menke et al. 1996, p. 14). although grazing may still impact many riparian species and a trend towards Historical evidence indicates that heavy meadows above mid-elevation and restored wet and mesic meadows on livestock use in the Sierra Nevada has restoration efforts are far from complete National Forests. To date, the scientific resulted in widespread damage to (Brown et al. 2009, pp. 56, 57). and commercial information available to rangelands and riparian systems due to However, Brown et al. (2009, p. 56) us does not include descriptive or sod destruction in meadows, vegetation report that livestock grazing is more cause-effect research that establishes a destruction, and gully erosion (see likely to occur in certain habitat types causal link between habitat effects of review in Brown et al. 2009, pp. 56–58). used by mountain yellow-legged frogs livestock grazing and mountain yellow- Within the newly established National than others, indicating that populations legged frog populations; however, Parks, grazing by cattle and sheep was found in meadows, stream riparian anecdotal information of specific habitat eliminated, although grazing by zones, and lakes in meadows are more effects suggests that, in specific packstock, such as horses and mules, likely to encounter habitat effects of locations, the current grazing levels may continued. Within the National Forests, grazing than populations found in the have population-level effects (see Knapp the amount of livestock grazing was deeper alpine lakes that the species 1993b, p. 1; Brown et al. 2009, p. 56). gradually reduced, and the types of more likely inhabit (Brown et al. 2009, In addition, where low-elevation animals shifted away from sheep and p. 56). populations occur in meadows, toward cattle and packstock, with cattle USFS standards and guidelines in additional conservation measures may becoming the dominant livestock. forest land and resource management be required for recovery (USFS 2013, p. During World Wars I and II, increased plans have been implemented to protect 5). livestock use occurred on National water quality, sensitive species, In summary, the legacy effects to Forests in the west, causing overuse in vegetation, and stream morphology. habitat from historical grazing levels, the periods 1914–1920 and 1939–1946. Further, USFS standards have been such as increased erosion, stream Between 1950 and 1970 livestock implemented in remaining allotments to downcutting and headcutting, lowered numbers were permanently reduced due protect aquatic habitats (see discussion water tables, and increased siltation, are to allotment closures and uneconomical of the aquatic management strategy a threat to mountain yellow-legged frogs operations, with increased emphasis on under Factor D for examples). USFS in those areas where such conditions resource protection and riparian data from long-term meadow monitoring still occur and may need active enhancement. Further reductions in collected from 1999 to 2006 indicate restoration. In the proposed rule, we livestock use began again in the 1990s, that most meadows appear to be in an stated that grazing presented a minor due in part to USFS reductions in intermediate quality condition class, prevalent threat. Based on USFS and permitted livestock numbers, seasons of with seeming limited change in public comments, we have reevaluated use, implementation of rest-rotation condition class over the first 6 years of our analysis of grazing to clarify effects grazing systems, and to responses to monitoring. In addition, USFS grazing of past versus current grazing. We have drought (Menke et al. 1996, pp. 7, 8). standards and guidelines are based on reworded the finding to more accurately Between 1981 and 1998, livestock current science and are designed to reflect the contribution of legacy effects numbers on National Forests in the improve or maintain range ecological of past grazing levels to this threat Sierra Nevada decreased from 163,000 conditions, and standards for managing assessment, as follows: Current to approximately 97,000 head, habitat for threatened, endangered, and livestock grazing activities may present concurrent with Forest Service sensitive species have also been an ongoing, localized threat to implementation of standards and incorporated (Brown et al. 2009, pp. 56– individual populations in locations guidelines for grazing and other 58). The seasonal turn-out dates (dates where the populations occur in stream

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:54 Apr 28, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\29APR3.SGM 29APR3 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES 24270 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

riparian zones and in small waters thought to occur below the range of the Commercial packstock trips are within meadow systems, where active species. Most operations that are permitted in National Forests and grazing co-occurs with extant frog thought to have the potential to impact National Parks within the Sierra populations. Livestock grazing that the mountain yellow-legged frogs occur Nevada, often providing transport complies with forest standards and in the lower elevation portions of the services into wilderness areas through guidelines is not expected to negatively Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog range the use of horses or mules. Use of affect mountain yellow-legged frog on the Plumas National Forest and in packstock in the Sierra Nevada populations in most cases, although the ranges of both species on the Inyo increased after World War II as road limited exceptions could occur, National Forest (see review in Brown et access, leisure time, and disposable especially where extant habitat is al. 2009, pp. 62–64). income increased (Menke et al. 1996, p. limited. In addition, mountain yellow- Hydraulic mining has exposed 919). Packstock grazing is the only legged frogs may be negatively affected previously concealed rocks that can grazing currently permitted in the where grazing standards are exceeded. increase pollutants such as acid, National Parks of the Sierra Nevada. Rangewide, current livestock grazing is cadmium, mercury, and asbestos, and Since the mid-1970s, National Forests not a substantial threat to the species. its effect on water pollution may still be and National Parks have generally apparent on the Feather River. However, Mining implemented regulations to manage most of the area that was mined in this visitor use and group sizes, including Several types of mining activities way is below the elevation where Sierra measures to reduce packstock impacts have occurred, or may currently occur, Nevada yellow-legged frogs are present, to vegetation and soils in order to on National Forests, including aggregate so effects are likely highly localized (see protect wilderness resources. For mining (the extraction of materials from review in Brown et al. 2009, pp. 63, 64). example, Sequoia and Kings Canyon streams or stream terraces for use in Although placer mining was dominant National Parks have the backcountry construction), hardrock mining (the historically, today it’s almost area with the longest history of research extraction of minerals by drilling or exclusively recreational and is not and management of packstock impacts digging into solid rock), hydraulic expected to have habitat-related effects. (Hendee et al. 1990, p. 461). Hendee et mining (a historical practice using Brown et al. (2009, p. 64) report that al. (1990, p. 461) report that the pressurized water to erode hillsides, suction-dredge mining is also primarily extensive and long-term monitoring for outlawed in 1884), placer mining recreational noting that, because nozzles Sequoia, Kings Canyon, and Yosemite (mining in sand or gravel, or on the are currently restricted to 6 inches or National Parks makes it possible to surface, without resorting to smaller, CDFW (CDFG, 1994) expects quantify impacts of packstock use, mechanically assisted means or disturbed areas to recover quickly showing that the vast majority of Sierra explosives), and suction-dredge mining (although CDFW notes that such Nevada yellow-legged frog and (the extraction of gold from riverine dredging may increase suspended mountain yellow-legged frog materials, in which water, sediment, sediments, change stream populations in the Parks show no to and rocks are vacuumed from portions geomorphology, and bury or suffocate negligible impacts from packstock use of streams and rivers, sorted to obtain larvae). Suction dredge mining occurs (National Park Service 2013, p. 3). In the gold, and the spoils redeposited in the primarily in the foothills of the Sierra Sixty-Lakes Basin of Kings Canyon stream (see review in Brown et al. 2009, Nevada, thus presenting a risk primarily National Park, packstock use is pp. 62–64). to mountain yellow-legged frog regulated in wet meadows to protect Aggregate mining can alter sediment populations at the lower elevations of mountain yellow-legged frog breeding transport in streams, altering and the species’ range. Suction dredging is habitat in bogs and along lake shores incising stream channels, and can cause highly regulated by the CDFW, and in from trampling and associated downstream deposition of sediment, the past, many streams have been degradation (Vredenburg 2002, p. 11; altering or eliminating habitat. seasonally or permanently closed (see Werner 2002, p. 2; National Park Service Aggregate mining typically occurs in review in Brown et al. 2009, p. 64). 2013, p. 3). Packstock use is also large riverine channels that are Currently CDFW has imposed a regulated in designated wilderness in downstream of much of the range of the moratorium on suction dredging. mountain yellow-legged frog complex The high-elevation areas where most National Forests within the Sierra (see review in Brown et al. 2009, pp. Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frogs and Nevada. 62–64). However, Brown et al. (2009, mountain yellow-legged frogs occur are Packstock use is likely a threat of low pp. 62–64) note that effects of aggregate within designated wilderness, where significance to mountain yellow-legged mining may occur in some portions of mechanical uses are prohibited by the frogs at the current time, except on a the Feather River system where such Wilderness Act. Designated wilderness limited, site-specific basis. As operations occur within the historic was withdrawn for new mining claims California’s human population range of the Sierra Nevada yellow- on January 1, 1984, although a limited increases, the impact of recreational legged frog, and potentially in localized number of active mines that predated activities, including packstock use and areas within the range of both species, the withdrawal still occur within riding on the National Forests in the where the USFS maintains small wilderness (see Wilderness Act under Sierra Nevada, are projected to increase quarries for road work. They note that, Factor D, below). Therefore, we expect (USDA 2001a, pp. 473–474). However, although effects of aggregate mining on that mining activities may pose local on the Inyo National Forest, current mountain yellow-legged frogs are habitat-related impacts to the species at commercial packstock use is unstudied, impacts are probably slight. specific localities where mining occurs. approximately 27 percent of the level of Hardrock mining can be a source of use in the 1980s reflecting a decline in pollution where potentially toxic metals Packstock Use the public’s need and demand for are solubilized by waters that are Similar to cattle, horses and mules packstock trips. From 2001 to 2005, slightly acidic. Past mining activities may significantly overgraze, trample, or commercial packstock outfitters within have resulted in the existence of many pollute riparian and aquatic habitat if the Golden Trout and South Sierra shaft or tunnel mines on the forest in too many are concentrated in riparian Wilderness Areas averaged 28 percent of the Sierra Nevada, although most are areas too often or for too long. their current authorized use (USFS

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:54 Apr 28, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\29APR3.SGM 29APR3 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 24271

2006, p. 3–18). Similarly, long-term northern part of the Sierra Nevada overlap of timber harvest activities with permitting data for administrative, yellow-legged frog’s range, attempted to the species in the northern and lower commercial, and recreational packstock assess the impact of vegetation elevation portions of the species’ ranges use in the three National Parks indicates management activities, which would where the frogs occur in streams and that packstock use is declining in the include activities similar to timber meadows in forested environments; in Parks, providing no evidence to suggest harvest, on mountain yellow-legged frog these areas, populations are very small that packstock use will increase in the populations (Foote et al. 2013, p. 2). and fragmented (Brown 2013, future in the Parks (National Park However, given the timing of project unpaginated). Likewise, at lower Service 2013, pp. 3, 4). Habitat changes implementation, the results were elevations of the Sierra Nevada, forest due to packstock grazing may pose a limited to the impacts of these roads and logging roads are more risk to some remnant populations of management activities on mountain common (Brown et al. 2009, p. 71). frogs and, in certain circumstances, a yellow-legged frog habitat. The results Habitat effects associated with roads are hindrance to recovery of populations in of the monitoring suggest these most likely to occur where existing heavily used areas. activities did not significantly impact roadways occur (for example, see Knapp perennial stream habitat for the 1993b, unpaginated). Although Roads and Timber Harvest mountain yellow-legged frog, although additional roads may be constructed Activities that alter the terrestrial there were instances of habitat within the range of the mountain environment (such as road construction degradation attributed to sedimentation yellow-legged frogs, we are not aware of and timber harvest) may impact resulting from road decommissioning any proposals to build new roads at this amphibian populations in the Sierra and culvert replacement (Foote et al. time. Nevada (Jennings 1996, p. 938) at 2013, p. 32). In riparian areas, the USFS generally locations where these activities occur. Roadways have the potential to affect maintains standards and guidelines for Historically, road construction and riparian habitat by altering the physical land management activities, such as timber harvest may have acted to reduce and chemical environment, including timber harvests, that are designed to the species’ range prior to the more alteration of surface-water run-off, with maintain the hydrologic, geomorphic, recent detailed studies and systematic potential changes to hydrology in high- and ecologic processes that directly monitoring that have quantified and mountain lake and stream systems affect streams, stream processes, and documented species losses. Prior to the (Brown et al. 2009, pp. 71–72). Roads, aquatic habitats, and which can limit formation of National Parks in 1890 and including those associated with timber potential effects of such activities (Foote National Forests in 1905, timber harvest harvests, have also been found to et al. 2013, pp. 4, 32). In general, we was widespread and unregulated, but contribute to habitat fragmentation and expect the standards to be effective in primarily took place at elevations on the limit amphibian movement, thus having preventing habitat-related effects to western slope of the Sierra Nevada a negative effect on amphibian species these species. Additionally, neither below the range of the mountain yellow- richness. Therefore, road construction timber harvests nor roads have been legged frog (University of California could fragment mountain yellow-legged implicated as important contributors to (UC) 1996b, pp. 24–25). Between 1900 frog habitat if a road bisects habitat the decline of this species (Jennings and 1950, the majority of timber harvest consisting of water bodies in close 1996, pp. 921–941), although habitat occurred in old-growth forests on proximity. In the prairies and forests of alterations due to these activities may, private land (UC 1996b, p. 25). Between Minnesota, Lehtinen et al. (1999, pp. 8– in site-specific, localized cases, have 1950 and the early 1990s, timber harvest 9) found that increased road density population-level effects to mountain on National Forests increased, and the reduced amphibian species richness. yellow-legged frogs. We expect that majority of timber harvest-associated DeMaynadier and Hunter (2000, p. 56) such cases would be more likely at impacts on mountain yellow-legged found similar results in a study of eight lower elevations or in the more northern frogs may therefore have taken place amphibian species in Maine, although portion of the species’ range where during this period in lower elevation results varied with road type and width. limited extant populations occur in locations where timber harvest and Results showed that anuran (true frogs, close proximity to timber harvest, or species occurrences overlapped. the group of frogs that includes the where populations occur in drainages Currently, these activities are expected mountain yellow-legged frogs) habitat adjacent to roadways. In the proposed to occur outside National Parks or use and movement were not affected rule, we stated that roads and timber National Forest wilderness areas, with even by a wide, heavily used logging harvest likely present minor prevalent limited exceptions. road (deMaynadier and Hunter 2000, p. threats to the mountain yellow-legged Timber harvest activities (including 56); this finding suggests that forest frogs factored across the range of the vegetation management and fuels roads may not fragment populations species. We are clarifying that language, management) remove vegetation and where such roads occur. noting that they may pose important cause ground disturbance and Currently, most of the mountain habitat-related effects to the species in compaction, making the ground more yellow-legged frog populations occur in localized areas, but are not likely threats susceptible to erosion (Helms and National Parks or designated wilderness across most of the species’ ranges. Tappeiner 1996, p. 446). This erosion areas where timber is not harvested can increase siltation downstream and (Bradford et al. 1994, p. 323; Drost and Fire and Fire Management Activities potentially damage mountain yellow- Fellers 1996, p. 421; Knapp and Mountain yellow-legged frogs are legged frog breeding habitat. Timber Matthews 2000, p. 430) and where generally found at high elevations in harvest may alter the annual hydrograph motorized access (and roads) does not wilderness areas and National Parks (timing and volume of surface flows) in occur. Mountain yellow-legged frog where vegetation is sparse and where areas where harvests occur. The populations outside of these areas are fire may have historically played a majority of erosion caused by timber most often located above the timberline, limited role in the ecosystem. However, harvests is from logging roads (Helms so timber harvest activity is not at lower elevations and in the northern and Tappeiner 1996, p. 447). A recent expected to affect the majority of extant portion of the range, mountain yellow- monitoring effort, which was conducted mountain yellow-legged frog legged frogs occur in stream or lake by the USFS in stream habitats in the populations. There is a higher potential environments within areas that are

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:54 Apr 28, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\29APR3.SGM 29APR3 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES 24272 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

forested to various extents. In some southern DPS of the mountain yellow- high mountain lakes can be locally areas within the current range of the legged frog, which occurs in streams, intense in western wilderness areas, mountain yellow-legged frog, long-term declined substantially after fire on the with most regions reporting a level of fire suppression has changed the forest East Fork City Creek (San Bernardino use greater than the fragile lakeshore structure and created conditions that Mountains) in 2003 and, by 2012, was environments can withstand. Heavy increase fire severity and intensity approaching extirpation. Although most recreation use has been associated with (McKelvey et al. 1996, pp. 1934–1935). populations of mountain yellow-legged changes in the basic ecology of lakes. In Excessive erosion and siltation of frogs are in alpine habitat that differs the 1970s, Silverman and Erman (1979) mountain yellow-legged frog habitats from the habitat in southern California, found that the most heavily used back- following wildfire is a concern where when they occur in lower-elevation country lakes in their study had less shallow, lower elevation aquatic areas stream habitats, they could be similarly nitrate and more iron and aquatic plants occur below forested stands. However, affected by large wildfires. When a large than other lakes. These researchers prescribed fire has been used by land fire does occur in occupied habitat, suggested that erosion at trails and managers to achieve various mountain yellow-legged frogs can be campsites, improper waste disposal, silvicultural objectives, including fuel susceptible to both direct mortality destruction of vegetation, and campsites load reduction. In some systems, fire is (leading to significantly reduced might cause an increase in elements that thought to be important in maintaining population sizes) and indirect effects formerly limited plant growth (Hendee open aquatic and riparian habitats for (habitat alteration and reduced breeding et al. 1990, pp. 435, 436). The NPS amphibians (Russell et al. 1999, p. 378), habitat). It is possible that fire has considers hiking and backpacking to be although severe and intense wildfires caused localized extirpations in the a negligible risk for the mountain may reduce amphibian survival, as the past. However, because these species yellow-legged frogs within the Parks, moist and permeable skin of amphibians generally occupy high-elevation habitat, noting that, while hiking and increases their susceptibility to heat and we have determined that fire is not a backpacking occur adjacent to many desiccation (Russell et al. 1999, p. 374). significant threat to the mountain populations, evidence indicates that risk Amphibians may avoid direct mortality yellow-legged frog complex over much to habitat is slight to none. For example, from fire by retreating to wet habitats or of its current range, although where the monitoring of a high-use trail that sheltering in subterranean burrows. species occur at lower elevations or in allows thousands of hikers annually to the most northerly portion of their The effects of past fire and fire come into close contact with several ranges, fire-related changes to habitat management activities on historical populations of mountain yellow-legged may have population-level effects to the populations of mountain yellow-legged frogs, whose habitat is immediately species. frogs are not known. Neither the direct adjacent to the trail, shows that the nor indirect effects of prescribed fire or Recreation populations have grown substantially over the last decade (NPS 2013, p. 6). In wildfire on the mountain yellow-legged Recreational activities that include one location where high hiking levels frog have been studied. Hossack et al. hiking, camping, and backpacking take may be having an impact due to access (2012, pp. 221, 226), in a study of the place throughout the Sierra Nevada, via an adjacent road, Yosemite National effects of six stand-replacing fires on whereas off-road vehicle (ORV) use Park personnel have restricted access three amphibians that breed in takes place in areas outside of (NPS 2013, p. 6). Although recreation temporary ponds in low-elevation dense designated wilderness. These activities coniferous forests or in high-elevation can have significant negative impacts on was noted in 1998 as the fastest growing open, subalpine forests in Glacier many plant and animal species and use of National Forests (USFS 2001a, p. National Park, found that effects of their habitats (U.S. Department of 453), to our knowledge, no studies to wildfire on amphibians may not be Agriculture (USDA) 2001a, pp. 483– date have identified a correlation evident for several years post-fire with 493). Extant populations of the between such recreation-related impacts time-lagged declines. The decline in mountain yellow-legged frog complex to habitat and effects to populations of populations was presumably due to the are primarily located at high elevations the mountain yellow-legged frog proximity of high-severity fires to in sub-alpine and alpine habitat within complex. important breeding habitats, which designated wilderness. High-elevation Because of demand for wilderness resulted in low recruitment of juveniles wilderness areas are ecosystems that are recreational experiences and concern into the breeding population. They subject to intense solar exposure; about wilderness resource conditions, cautioned, however, that amphibian extremes in temperatures, precipitation wilderness land management now responses to fire are context specific and levels, and wind; short growing seasons; includes standards for wilderness cannot be generalized too broadly; they and shallow, nutrient-poor soil. Such conditions, implementing permit found no change in occupancy after habitats are typically not resilient to systems and group-size limits for wildfire at high elevations where disturbance (Schoenherr 1992, p. 167; visitors and packstock, prohibitions on wetlands were in sparse forest or open Cole and Landres 1996, p. 170). camping and packstock use close to meadows where there was less change In easily accessible areas, heavy foot water, and other visitor management in canopy cover and insolation after traffic in riparian areas can trample techniques to reduce impacts to habitat, wildfire. Where fire has occurred in the vegetation, compact soils, and including riparian habitat (Cole 2001, steep canyons of southern California physically damage stream banks pp. 4–5). These wilderness land where the southern DPS of the (Kondolf et al. 1996, pp. 1014, 1019). management techniques are currently mountain yellow-legged frog occurs, the Human foot, horse, bicycle, or off- being used in National Forest character of the habitat has been highway motor vehicle trails can replace Wilderness areas in the Sierra Nevada significantly altered, leading to erosive riparian habitat with compacted soil and in backcountry areas of Yosemite, scouring and flooding of creeks after (Kondolph et al. 1996, pp. 1014, 1017, Sequoia, and Kings Canyon National surface vegetation is denuded (North 1019), lower the water table, and cause Parks. In the proposed rule, we stated 2012, pers. comm.). North (2012, pers. increased erosion where such activities that current recreation activities were comm.) reported that at least one occur. Bahls (1992, p. 190) reported that considered a threat of low significance population of the federally endangered the recreational activity of anglers at to the species’ habitat overall. Based on

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:54 Apr 28, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\29APR3.SGM 29APR3 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 24273

comments from the National Park Factor C. Disease or Predation and Storer 1924, p. 664; Mullally and Service, the USFS, CDFW, and the Cunningham 1956a, p. 190; Cory 1962a, Predation public, we have reevaluated the p. 401; 1963, p. 172; Bradford 1989, pp. previous analysis and have revised our Researchers have observed predation 775–778; Bradford and Gordon 1992, p. finding. Therefore, current habitat of mountain yellow-legged frogs by the 65; Bradford et al. 1993, pp. 882–888; effects of recreational activities are not mountain garter snake (Thamnophis 1994a, p. 326; Drost and Fellers 1996, p. elegans elegans), Brewer’s blackbird considered to have population-level 422; Jennings 1996, p. 940; Knapp 1996, (Euphagus cyanocephalus), Clark’s effects to mountain yellow-legged frogs p. 14; Knapp and Matthews 2000, p. nutcracker (Nucifraga columbiana), 428; Knapp et al. 2001, p. 401; over much of their respective ranges, coyote (Canis latrans), and black bear although there may be localized effects Vredenburg 2004, p. 7649; Knapp 2013, (Ursus americanus) (Mullally and unpaginated). Knapp (1996, pp. 1–44) especially outside of backcountry areas Cunningham 1956a, p. 193; Bradford estimated that 63 percent of lakes larger where use levels are not limited, or 1991, pp. 176–177; Jennings et al. 1992, than 1 ha (2.5 ac) in the Sierra Nevada where motorized use occurs in extant p. 505; Feldman and Wilkinson 2000, p. contain one or more nonnative trout frog habitat. 102; Vredenburg et al. 2005, p. 565). species, and that greater than 60 percent In summary, based on the best However, none of these has been of streams contain nonnative trout. In available scientific and commercial implicated as a driver of population some areas, trout-occupied waters information, we consider the dynamics, and we expect that such comprise greater than 90 percent of total modification of habitat and curtailment predation events do not generally have water body surface area (Knapp and of the species’ ranges to be a significant population-level impacts except where Matthews 2000, p. 434). and ongoing threat to the Sierra Nevada so few individuals remain that such The multiple-year tadpole stage of the predation is associated with loss of a yellow-legged frog and northern DPS of mountain yellow-legged frog requires population (Bradford 1991, pp 174–177; the mountain yellow-legged frog. submersion in the aquatic habitat year- Jennings 1996, p. 938). round until metamorphosis. Moreover, Habitat fragmentation and degradation The American bullfrog (Lithobates all life stages are highly aquatic, (loss of habitat through competitive catesbeiana) is native to the United increasing the frog’s susceptibility to exclusion) from stocking and the States east of the Rocky Mountains, but predation by trout (where they co-occur) continued presence of introduced trout was introduced to California about a throughout its lifespan. Overwinter across the majority of the species’ range century ago. The American bullfrog has mortality due to predation is especially is a threat of high prevalence. This become common in California in most significant because, when water bodies threat is a significant limiting factor to permanent lakes and ponds below 1,829 ice over in winter, adults and tadpoles persistence and recovery of the species m (6,000 ft) and is implicated in the move from shallow margins of lakes and rangewide. Threats of low prevalence declines of a number of native frog ponds into deeper unfrozen water where (threats that may be important limiting species (Jennings 1996, p. 931). they are more vulnerable to predation; factors in some areas, but not across a Mountain yellow-legged frogs are fish encounters in such areas increase, large part of the mountain yellow-legged thought to be particularly vulnerable to while refuge is less available. frog complex’s range) include dams and bullfrogs and introduced crayfish, The predation of mountain yellow- water diversions, grazing, packstock potentially because the frogs did not legged frogs by fishes observed in the use, timber harvest and roads, evolve with a predator (Jennings 1996, early 20th century by Grinnell and recreation, and fire management p. 939). In addition, research indicates Storer and the documented population activities. that bullfrogs may outcompete other declines of the 1970s (Bradford 1991, species of amphibians where fish are pp. 174–177; Bradford et al. 1994, pp. Factor B. Overutilization for present because bullfrogs are both 323–327; Stebbins and Cohen 1995, pp. Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or unpalatable to fish and are naturally 226–227) were not the beginning of the Educational Purposes vulnerable to invertebrate predators mountain yellow-legged frog’s decline, such as dragonfly (Anisoptera) nymphs, but rather the continuation of a long No commercial market for mountain which fish preferentially consume. decline that started soon after fish yellow-legged frogs exists, nor any Bullfrogs may co-occur with mountain introductions to the Sierra Nevada documented recreational or educational yellow-legged frogs at lower elevations. began in the mid-1800s (Knapp and uses for these species. Scientific On the Plumas National Forest, sites Matthews 2000, p. 436). Metapopulation research may cause stress to mountain created as a result of restoration theory (Hanski 1997, pp. 85–86) yellow-legged frogs through activities have been invaded by predicts this type of time lag from disturbance, including disruption of the bullfrogs (Brown et al. 2009, pp. 48, 49). habitat modification to population species’ behavior, handling of Bullfrogs also occur in the Lake Tahoe extinction (Knapp and Matthews 2000, individual frogs, and injuries associated Basin (USFS 2000, pp. 530, G–12) in the p. 436). In 2004, Vredenburg (2004, p. with marking and tracking individuals. vicinity of Fallen Leaf Lake. Bullfrog 7647) concluded that introduced trout However, this is a relatively minor predation and competition is expected are effective predators on mountain nuisance and not likely a negative to have population-level effects where yellow-legged frog tadpoles and impact to the survival and reproduction bullfrog populations occupy the same suggested that the introduction of trout of individuals or the viability of the areas as extant mountain yellow-legged is the most likely reason for the decline populations. frog populations. of the mountain yellow-legged frog The most prominent predator of complex. This threat due to predation Based on the best available scientific mountain yellow-legged frogs is by introduced trout is a significant, and commercial information, we do not introduced trout, whose significance is prevalent (rangewide) risk to mountain consider overutilization for commercial, well-established because it has been yellow-legged frogs, and it will persist recreational, scientific, or educational repeatedly observed that the frogs rarely into the future in those locations where purposes to be a threat to the mountain coexist with fish, and it is known that fish are present. The effect of introduced yellow-legged frog complex now or in introduced trout can and do prey on all bullfrogs is expected to be a substantial the future. frog life stages except for eggs (Grinnell continuing threat in those locations

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:54 Apr 28, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\29APR3.SGM 29APR3 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES 24274 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

where bullfrogs are known to occur mountain yellow-legged frogs as early as In several areas where detailed presently, but may present more of a 1975 (Ouellet et al. (2005, p. 1436; studies of the effects of Bd on the future threat if bullfrogs expand their Vredenberg et al. 2010, p. 9689). It is mountain yellow-legged frog are elevational range as a result of climate unclear how Bd was originally ongoing, substantial declines have been change. transmitted to the frogs (Briggs et al. observed following the course of the disease infection and spread. Survey Disease 2002, p. 39). Visual examination of 43 tadpole specimens collected between results from 2000 in Yosemite and Over roughly the last 2 decades, 1955 and 1976 revealed no evidence of Sequoia and Kings Canyon National pathogens have been associated with Bd infection, yet 14 of 36 specimens Parks indicated that 17 percent of frog amphibian population declines, mass preserved between 1993 and 1999 did populations in Yosemite and 27 percent die-offs, and even extinctions have abnormalities attributable to Bd of the mountain yellow-legged frog worldwide (Bradford 1991, pp. 174–177; (Fellers et al. 2001, p. 947). The earliest populations sampled across both Blaustein et al. 1994b, pp. 251–254; recorded case of Bd in mountain yellow- Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Alford and Richards 1999, pp. 506; legged frogs is from 1975, and Bd was Parks showed evidence of Bd infection, Muths et al. 2003, p. 357; Weldon et al. also identified on two adult Yosemite although the proportion of infected frogs 2004, p. 2100; Rachowicz et al. 2005, p. toads among over 50 dead, dying, or at each site varied greatly and disease 1446; Fisher et al. 2009, p. 292). One healthy Yosemite toads collected during incidence varied within each Park pathogen strongly associated with a die-off in 1976 (Green and Kagarise (Briggs et al. 2002, p. 40) (In the dramatic declines on all continents that Sherman 2001, p. 92), although it was proposed rule, these two figures were harbor amphibians (all continents not thought to be the cause of the die- averaged across all three parks; these except Antarctica) is the chytrid fungus, off in the population. Given these numbers reflect the text presented in Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis (Bd) records, it is possible that this pathogen Briggs et al. 2002). In both 2003 and (Rachowicz et al. 2005, p. 1442). This has affected all three amphibian species 2004, 19 percent of the populations that chytrid fungus has now been reported in covered in this final rule since at least were sampled in Sequoia and Kings amphibian species worldwide (Fellers et the mid-1970s. Mountain yellow-legged Canyon National Parks were infected al. 2001, p. 945; Rachowicz et al. 2005, frogs may be especially vulnerable to Bd with Bd (Rachowicz 2005, pp. 2–3). By p. 1442). Early doubt that this particular infections because all life stages share 2005, 91 percent of assayed populations pathogen was responsible for worldwide the same aquatic habitat nearly year in Yosemite National Park showed die-offs has largely been overcome by round, facilitating the transmission of evidence of Bd infection (Knapp 2005b, the weight of evidence documenting the this fungus among individuals at pp. 1–2), and the number of occupied appearance, spread, and detrimental different life stages (Fellers et al. 2001, sites in Sequoia and Kings Canyon effects to affected populations p. 951). National Parks had decreased by 47 (Vredenburg et al. 2010, p. 9689). The percent from those known to be During the epidemic phase of chytrid correlation of notable recent amphibian occupied 3 to 8 years previously (Knapp infection into unexposed populations, declines with reports of outbreaks of 2005b, pers. comm). Currently, it is fatal chytridiomycosis (the disease rapid die-offs of adult and subadult believed that all populations in caused by Bd) in montane areas has led lifestages are observed (Vredenburg et Yosemite Park are infected with Bd to a general association between high al. 2010, p. 9691), with metamorphs (Knapp et al. 2011, p. 9). altitude, cooler climates, and population being extremely sensitive to Bd The effects of Bd on host populations extirpations associated with Bd (Fisher infection (Kilpatrick et al. 2009, p. 113; of the mountain yellow-legged frog are et al. 2009, p. 298). Vredenburg et al. 2010, p. 9691; see also variable, ranging from extirpation to Bd affects the mouth parts and Vredenburg 2013, unpaginated). Field persistence with a low level of infection epidermal (skin) tissue of tadpoles and and laboratory experiments indicate that (Briggs et al. 2002, pp. 40–41). When Bd metamorphosed frogs (Fellers et al. Bd infection is generally lethal to infection first occurs in a population, 2001, pp. 950–951). The fungus can mountain yellow-legged frogs (Knapp the most common outcome is epidemic reproduce asexually, and can generally 2005b; Rachowicz 2005, pers. comm.), spread of the disease and population withstand adverse conditions such as and is likely responsible for declines in extirpation (Briggs et al. 2010, p. 9699). freezing or drought (Briggs et al. 2002, sites that were occupied as recently as Die-offs are characterized by rapid onset p. 38). It also may reproduce sexually, 2002, but where frogs were absent by of high-level Bd infections, followed by leading to thick-walled sporangia that 2005 (Knapp 2005b). Rachowicz et al. death due to chytridiomycosis. would be capable of long-term survival (2006, p. 1671) monitored several Although most populations that are (for distant transport and persistence in infected and uninfected populations in newly exposed to Bd are driven to sites even after all susceptible host Sequoia and Kings Canyon National extirpation following the arrival of Bd, animal populations are extirpated) Parks over multiple years, documenting some populations that experience Bd- (Morgan et al. 2007, p. 13849). Adult dramatic declines and extirpations in caused population crashes are not frogs can acquire this fungus from only the infected populations. Rapid extirpated, and some may even recover tadpoles, and it can also be transmitted die-offs of mountain yellow-legged frogs despite ongoing chytridiomycosis between tadpoles (Rachowicz and from chytridiomycosis have been (Briggs et al. 2010, pp. 9695–9696). Vredenburg 2004, p. 80). observed in more than 50 water bodies However, it is apparent that even at sites In California, chytridiomycosis has in the southern Sierra Nevada in recent exhibiting population persistence with been detected in many amphibian years (Briggs et al. 2005, p. 3151). Bd, high mortality of metamorphosing species, including mountain yellow- Studies of the microscopic structure of frogs persists, and this phenomenon legged frogs (Briggs et al. 2002, p. 38; tissue and other evidence suggests Bd may explain the lower abundances Knapp 2002b, p. 1). The earliest caused many of the recent extinctions in observed in such populations (Briggs et documented case in the mountain the Sierra National Forest’s John Muir al. 2010, p. 9699). yellow-legged frog complex was in Wilderness Area and in Kings Canyon Vredenburg et al. (2010a, pp. 2–4) 1998, at Yosemite National Park (Fellers National Park, where 41 percent of the studied frog populations before, during, et al. 2001, p. 945); however, more populations went extinct between 1995 and after the infection and spread of Bd recent literature shows Bd occurring in and 2002 (Knapp 2002a, p. 10). in three study basins constituting 13, 33,

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:54 Apr 28, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\29APR3.SGM 29APR3 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 24275

and 42 frog populations, respectively, individuals, and this pathogen appears populations or if the presence of such then comprising the most intact to be highly contagious, affecting the pathogens is a recent phenomenon. metapopulations remaining for these epidermis and digestive tract of However, it has been suggested that the species throughout their range. The otherwise healthy amphibians (Shotts susceptibility of amphibians to spread of Bd averaged 688 m/year (yr) 1984, pp. 51–52; Carey 1993, p. 358; pathogens may have recently increased (2,257 ft/yr), reaching all areas of the Carey and Bryant 1995, pp. 14–15). in response to anthropogenic smaller basin in 1 year, and taking 3 to Although it has been correlated with environmental disruption (Carey 1993, 5 years to completely infect the larger decline of a frog population in at least pp. 355–360; Blaustein et al. 1994b, p. basins, progressing like a wave across one case, red-leg disease is not thought 253; Carey et al. 1999, p. 7). This the landscape. The researchers to be a significant contributor to hypothesis suggests that environmental documented die-offs following the observed frog population declines changes may be indirectly responsible spread of Bd, with decreased population rangewide, based on the available for certain amphibian die-offs due to growth rates evident within the first literature. immune system suppression of tadpoles year of infection. Basinwide, Saprolegnia is a globally distributed or post-metamorphic amphibians (Carey metapopulations crashed from 1,680 to fungus that commonly attacks all life 1993, p. 358; Blaustein et al. 1994b, p. 22 individuals (northern DPS of the stages of fishes (especially hatchery- 253; Carey et al. 1999, pp. 7–8). mountain yellow-legged frog) in reared fishes), and has recently been Pathogens such as Aeromonas Milestone Basin, with 9 of 13 documented to attack and kill egg hydrophila, which are present in fresh populations extirpated; from 2,193 to 47 masses of western toads (Bufo boreas) water and in healthy organisms, may individuals (northern DPS of the (Blaustein et al. 1994b, p. 252). This become more of a threat, potentially pathogen may be introduced through mountain yellow-legged frog) in Sixty causing localized amphibian population fish stocking, or it may already be Lakes Basin, with 27 of 33 populations die-offs when the immune systems of established in the aquatic ecosystem. extirpated; and from 5,588 to 436 individuals within the host population individuals (Sierra Nevada yellow- Fishes and migrating or dispersing are suppressed (Carey 1993, p. 358; legged frog) in Barrett Lakes Basin, with amphibians may be vectors for this Carey and Bryant 1995, p. 14). 33 of 42 populations extirpated. The fungus (Blaustein et al. 1994b, p. 253; evidence is clear that Bd can and does Kiesecker et al. 2001, p. 1068). The contribution of Bd as an decimate newly infected frog Saprolegnia has been reported in the environmental stressor and limiting populations. Moreover, this rangewide southern DPS of the mountain yellow- factor on mountain yellow-legged frog population threat is acting upon a legged frog (North 2012, pers. comm.); population dynamics is currently landscape already impacted by habitat however, its occurrence within the extremely high, and it poses a modification and degradation by Sierran range of the mountain yellow- significant current and continuing threat introduced fishes (see Factor A legged frog complex and associated to remnant uninfected populations in discussion, above). As a result, remnant influence on population dynamics (if the southern Sierra Nevada. Its effects populations in fishless lakes are now any) are unknown. are most dramatic following the affected by Bd. Other pathogens of concern for epidemic stage as it spreads across Vredenburg et al. (2010a, p. 3) amphibian species include ranaviruses newly infected habitats; massive die-off projected that, at current extinction (Family Iridoviridae). Mao et al. (1999, events follow the spread of the fungus, rates, and given the disease dynamics of pp. 49–50) isolated identical and it is likely that survival of mountain Bd (infected tadpoles succumb to iridoviruses from co-occurring yellow-legged frogs through the chytridiomycosis at metamorphosis), populations of the threespine metamorphosis stage is substantially most if not all, extant populations stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus) and reduced even years after the initial within the recently infected basins they the red-legged frog (Rana aurora), epidemic (Rachowicz et al. 2006, pp. studied would go extinct within the indicating that infection by a given virus 1679–1680). The relative impact from next 3 years. Available data (CDFW, is not limited to a single species, and other diseases and the interaction of unpubl. data; Knapp 2005b; Rachowicz that iridoviruses can infect animals of other stressors and disease on the 2005, pers. comm.; Rachowicz et al. different taxonomic classes. This immune systems of mountain yellow- 2006, p. 1671) indicate that Bd is now suggests that virus-hosting trout legged frogs remains poorly documented widespread throughout the Sierra introduced into mountain yellow-legged to date. Nevada and, although it has not infected frog habitat may be a vector for all populations at this time, it is a amphibian viruses. However, definitive In summary, based on the best serious and substantial threat rangewide mechanisms for the transmission to the available scientific and commercial to the mountain yellow-legged frog mountain yellow-legged frog remain information, we consider the threats of complex. unknown. No viruses were detected in predation and disease to be significant, Other diseases have also been the mountain yellow-legged frogs that ongoing threats to the Sierra Nevada reported as adversely affecting Fellers et al. (2001, p. 950) analyzed for yellow-legged frog and the northern DPS amphibian species, and these may be Bd. In Kings Canyon National Park, of the mountain yellow-legged frog. present within the range of the Knapp (2002a, p. 20) found mountain These threats include predation by mountain yellow-legged frog. Bradford yellow-legged frogs showing symptoms bullfrogs and introduced fishes, and (1991, pp. 174–177) reported an attributed to a ranavirus (Knapp 2013, amphibian pathogens (most specifically, outbreak of red-leg disease in Kings unpaginated). To date, ranaviruses the chytrid fungus), two primary driving Canyon National Park, and suggested remain a concern for the mountain forces leading to population declines in this was a result of overcrowding within yellow-legged frog complex, but the the mountain yellow-legged frog a mountain yellow-legged frog available information does not indicate complex. These are highly prevalent population. Red-leg disease is caused by they are negatively affecting threats, and they are predominant the bacterial pathogen Aeromonas populations. limiting factors hindering population hydrophila, along with other pathogens. It is unknown whether amphibian viability and precluding recovery across Red-leg disease is opportunistic and pathogens in the high Sierra Nevada the ranges of the mountain yellow- successfully attacks immune-suppressed have always coexisted with amphibian legged frog complex.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:54 Apr 28, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\29APR3.SGM 29APR3 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES 24276 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing USFS is tasked with managing National Intermountain Regional Guide, and the Regulatory Mechanisms Forest lands based on multiple-use, LRMPs for National Forests in the Sierra In determining whether the sustained-yield principles, and with Nevada and Modoc Plateau. This inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms implementing land and resource document affects land management on constitutes a threat to the mountain management plans (LRMP) on each all National Forests throughout the National Forest to provide for a range of the mountain yellow-legged yellow-legged frog complex, we diversity of plant and animal frog complex. The SNFPA addresses analyzed the existing Federal and State communities. The purpose of an LRMP and gives management direction on laws and regulations that may address is to guide and set standards for all issues pertaining to old forest the threats to these species or contain natural resource management activities ecosystems; aquatic, riparian, and relevant protective measures. Regulatory for the life of the plan (10 to 15 years). meadow ecosystems; fire and fuels; mechanisms are typically NFMA requires the USFS to incorporate noxious weeds; and lower west-side nondiscretionary and enforceable, and standards and guidelines into LRMPs. hardwood ecosystems of the Sierra may preclude the need for listing if such The 1982 planning regulations for Nevada. In January 2004, the USFS mechanisms are judged to adequately implementing NFMA (47 FR 43026; amended the SNFPA, based on the final address the threat(s) to the species such September 30, 1982), under which all supplemental environmental impact that listing is not warranted. Conversely, existing forest plans in the Sierra statement, following a review of fire and threats on the landscape are not Nevada were prepared until recently, fuels treatments, compatibility with the ameliorated where existing regulatory guided management of National Forests National Fire Plan, compatibility with mechanisms are not adequate (or when and required that fish and wildlife the Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library existing mechanisms are not adequately habitat on National Forest system lands Group Forest Recovery Pilot Project, and implemented or enforced). be managed to maintain viable effects of the SNFPA on grazing, Federal Wilderness Act populations of existing native and recreation, and local communities desired nonnative vertebrate species in (USDA 2004, pp. 26–30). The Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C. the planning area. A viable population Relevant to the mountain yellow- 1131 et seq.) established a National is defined as a population of a species legged frog complex, the Record of Wilderness Preservation System made that continues to persist over the long Decision for SNFPA aims to protect and up of federally owned areas designated term with sufficient distribution to be restore aquatic, riparian, and meadow by Congress as ‘‘wilderness’’ for the resilient and adaptable to stressors and ecosystems, and to provide for the purpose of preserving and protecting likely future environments. In order to viability of associated native species designated areas in their natural insure that viable populations would be through implementation of an aquatic condition. The Wilderness Act states the maintained, the 1982 planning management strategy. The aquatic use of these areas with limited regulations directed that habitat must be management strategy is a general exception are subject to the following provided to support, at least, a framework with broad policy direction. restrictions: (1) New or temporary roads minimum number of reproductive Implementation of this strategy was cannot be built; (2) motor vehicles, individuals and that habitat must be intended to take place at the landscape motorized equipment, or motorboats well-distributed so that those and project levels. Nine goals are cannot be used; (3) aircraft cannot land; individuals could interact with others in associated with the aquatic management (4) no form of mechanical transport can the planning area. strategy: occur; and (5) no structure or On April 9, 2012, the USFS published (1) The maintenance and restoration installation may be built. In addition, a a final rule (77 FR 21162) amending 36 of water quality to comply with the special provision within the Wilderness CFR 219 to adopt new National Forest Clean Water Act (CWA) and the Safe Act stipulated that, except for valid System land management regulations Drinking Water Act; existing rights, effective January 1, 1984, that guide the development, (2) The maintenance and restoration the minerals within designated amendment, and revision of LRMPs for of habitat to support viable populations wilderness areas would be withdrawn all Forest System lands. These revised of native and desired nonnative from all forms of appropriation under regulations, which became effective on riparian-dependent species, and to mining laws, precluding new mining May 9, 2012, replaced the 1982 reduce negative impacts of nonnative claims within designated wilderness planning rule. The 2012 planning rule species on native populations; after that date (see Hendee et al. 1990, requires that the USFS maintain viable (3) The maintenance and restoration p. 508). A large number of mountain populations of species of conservation of species diversity in riparian areas, yellow-legged frog locations occur concern at the discretion of regional wetlands, and meadows to provide within wilderness areas managed by the foresters. This rule could thereby result desired habitats and ecological USFS and NPS and, therefore, are in removal of the limited protections functions; afforded protection from direct loss or that are currently in place for mountain (4) The maintenance and restoration degradation of habitat by some human yellow-legged frogs under the Sierra of the distribution and function of biotic activities (such as development, Nevada Forest Plan Amendment communities and biological diversity in commercial timber harvest, road (SNFPA), as described below. special aquatic habitats (such as springs, construction, and some fire management seeps, vernal pools, fens, bogs, and Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment actions). Livestock grazing and fish marshes); stocking both occur within designated In 2001, a record of decision was (5) The maintenance and restoration wilderness areas on lands within the signed by the USFS for the Sierra of spatial and temporal connectivity for National Forest System. Nevada Forest Plan Amendment aquatic and riparian species within and (SNFPA), based on the final between watersheds to provide National Forest Management Act of environmental impact statement for the physically, chemically, and biologically 1976 SNFPA effort and prepared under the unobstructed movement for their Under the National Forest 1982 NFMA planning regulations. The survival, migration, and reproduction; Management Act of 1976, as amended Record of Decision amends the USFS (6) The maintenance and restoration (NFMA) (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.), the Pacific Southwest Regional Guide, the of hydrologic connectivity between

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:54 Apr 28, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\29APR3.SGM 29APR3 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 24277

floodplains, channels, and water tables terminated this practice entirely in 1991 CDFW on activities that may affect a to distribute flood flows and to sustain (Knapp 1996, p. 9). State-listed species, and mitigate for any diverse habitats; adverse impacts to the species or its Federal Power Act (7) The maintenance and restoration habitat. Pursuant to CESA, it is unlawful of watershed conditions as measured by The Federal Power Act of 1920, as to import or export, take, possess, favorable infiltration characteristics of amended (FPA) (16 U.S.C. 791 et seq.) purchase, or sell any species or part or soils and diverse vegetation cover to was enacted to regulate non-federal product of any species listed as absorb and filter precipitation, and to hydroelectric projects to support the endangered or threatened. The State sustain favorable conditions of development of rivers for energy may authorize permits for scientific, streamflows; generation and other beneficial uses. educational, or management purposes, (8) The maintenance and restoration The FPA provides for cooperation and allow take that is incidental to of instream flows sufficient to sustain between the Federal Energy Regulatory otherwise lawful activities. On April 1, desired conditions of riparian, aquatic, Commission (Commission) and other 2013, the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged wetland, and meadow habitats, and to Federal agencies in licensing and frog was listed as a threatened species keep sediment regimes within the relicensing power projects. The FPA and the mountain yellow-legged frog natural range of variability; and mandates that each license includes (Statewide) was listed as an endangered (9) The maintenance and restoration conditions to protect, mitigate, and species under CESA (CDFW 2013, p. 1). of the physical structure and condition enhance fish and wildlife and their While the listing of the Sierra Nevada of streambanks and shorelines to habitat affected by the project. However, yellow-legged frog and the mountain minimize erosion and sustain desired the FPA also requires that the yellow-legged frog under CESA provide some protections to these species, as habitat diversity. Commission give equal consideration to State regulation prohibits the If these goals of the aquatic competing priorities, such as power and unauthorized take of State-listed management strategy are pursued and development, energy conservation, species, the definition of take under met, threats to the mountain yellow- protection of recreational opportunities, and preservation of other aspects of CESA does not include habitat legged frog complex resulting from modification or degradation. habitat alterations could be reduced. environmental quality. Further, the FPA does not mandate protections of habitat Additionally, the majority of the lands However, the aquatic management occupied by these species are federally strategy is a generalized approach that or enhancements for fish and wildlife species, but provides a mechanism for managed lands, so there is limited does not contain specific jurisdiction in which to regulate land implementation timeframes or resource agency recommendations that are incorporated into a license at the management activities that may affect objectives, and it does not provide these species. direct protections for the mountain discretion of the Commission. Additionally, the FPA provides for the Overall, existing Federal and State yellow-legged frog. Additionally, as laws and regulatory mechanisms described above, the April 9, 2012, final issuance of a license for the duration of up to 50 years, and the FPA contains no currently offer some level of protection rule (77 FR 21162) that amended 36 CFR for the mountain yellow-legged frog 219 to adopt new National Forest provision for modification of the project for the benefit of species, such as complex. While not the intent of the System land management planning Wilderness Act, the mountain yellow- regulations could result in removal of mountain yellow-legged frogs, before a current license expires. legged frogs receive ancillary protection the limited protections that are from the Wilderness Act due to its currently in place for mountain yellow- Although most reservoirs and water diversions are located at lower prohibitions on development, road legged frogs under the SNFPA. construction, and timber harvest, and elevations than those at which extant associated standards and guidelines that National Park Service Organic Act mountain yellow-legged frog limit visitor and packstock group sizes populations occur, numerous extant The statute establishing the National and use. With the exception of the populations occur within watersheds Park Service, commonly referred to as National Park Service Organic Act, the that feed into developed and managed the National Park Service Organic Act existing regulatory mechanisms have aquatic systems (such as reservoirs and (39 Stat. 535; 16 U.S.C. 1, 2, 3, and 4), not been effective in reducing threats to water diversions) operated for the states that the NPS will administer areas mountain yellow-legged frogs and their purpose of power generation and under their jurisdiction ‘‘. . . by such habitat from fish stocking and the regulated by the FPA and may be means and measures as conform to the continuing presence of nonnative fish. considered during project relicensing. fundamental purpose of said parks, Nor have these mechanisms been monuments, and reservations, which State effective in protecting populations from purpose is to conserve the scenery and California Endangered Species Act infection by diseases, although Forest the natural and historic objects and the Service standards and guidelines have wildlife therein and to provide for the This section has been updated from likely reduced threats associated with enjoyment of the same in such manner the information presented in the grazing, timber harvest, and recreation and by such means as will leave them proposed rule, and discussion of use. Although State regulations under unimpaired for the enjoyment of future CDFW’s current fish-stocking practices CESA provide some protection against generations.’’ Park managers must take has been moved to the Factor A take of the mountain yellow-legged action to ensure that ongoing NPS discussion of Habitat Modification Due frogs, the definition of take under CESA activities do not cause impairment. In to Introduction of Trout to Historically does not include habitat modification or cases of doubt as to the impact of Fishless Areas. degradation. activities on park natural resource, the The California Endangered Species Park Service is to decide in favor of Act (CESA) (California Fish and Game Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade protecting the natural resources. Code, section 2080 et seq.) prohibits the Factors Affecting Its Continued Sequoia, Kings Canyon, and Yosemite unauthorized take of State-listed Existence National Parks began phasing out fish endangered or threatened species. CESA The mountain yellow-legged frog is stocking by the State in 1969 and requires State agencies to consult with sensitive to environmental change or

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:54 Apr 28, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\29APR3.SGM 29APR3 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES 24278 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

degradation because it has an aquatic or the best scientific information temperatures. However, it is expected and terrestrial life history and highly available for us to use. However, that temperature and climate variability permeable skin that increases exposure projected changes in climate and related will vary based on topographic diversity of individuals to substances in the impacts can vary substantially across (for example, wind intensity will water, air, and terrestrial substrates and within different regions of the determine east versus west slope (Blaustein and Wake 1990, p. 203; world (for example, IPCC 2007a, pp. 8– variability) (PRBO 2011, p. 18). Mean Bradford and Gordon 1992. p. 9; 12). Therefore, we use downscaled annual rainfall is projected to decrease Blaustein and Wake 1995, p. 52; projections when they are available and from 9.2–33.9 cm (3.6–13.3 in) by 2070; Stebbins and Cohen 1995, pp. 227–228). have been developed through however, projections have high Several natural or anthropogenically appropriate scientific procedures, uncertainty and one study predicts the influenced changes, including because such projections provide higher opposite effect (PRBO 2011, p. 18). contaminant deposition, acid resolution information that is more Given the varied outputs from differing precipitation, increases in ambient relevant to the spatial scales used for modeling assumptions, and the ultraviolet radiation, and climate analyses of a given species (see Glick et influence of complex topography on change, have been implicated as al. 2011, pp. 58–61, for a discussion of microclimate patterns, it is difficult to contributing to amphibian declines downscaling). With regard to our draw general conclusions about the (Corn 1994, pp. 62–63; Alford and analysis for the Sierra Nevada of effects of climate change on Richards 1999, pp. 2–7). There are also California (and western United States), precipitation patterns in the Sierra documented incidences of direct downscaled projections are available, Nevada (PRBO 2011, p. 18). Snowpack mortality of, or the potential for direct yet even downscaled climate models is, by all projections, going to decrease disturbance to, individuals from some contain some uncertainty. dramatically (following the temperature activities already discussed; in severe Variability exists in outputs from rise and more precipitation falling as instances, these actions may have different climate models, and rain) (Kadir et al. 2013, pp. 76–80). population-level consequences. As uncertainty regarding future GHG Higher winter streamflows, earlier presented in the proposed rule (78 FR emissions is also a factor in modeling runoff, and reduced spring and summer 24472, April 25, 2013), contaminants, (PRBO 2011, p. 3). A general pattern streamflows are projected, with acid precipitation, and ambient that holds for many predictive models increasing severity in the southern ultraviolet radiation are not known to indicates northern areas of the United Sierra Nevada (PRBO 2011, pp. 20–22); pose a threat (current or historical) to States will become wetter, and southern (Kadir et al. 2013, pp. 71–75). areas (particularly the Southwest) will the mountain yellow-legged frog and, Snow-dominated elevations of 2,000– become drier. These models also predict therefore, are not discussed further. 2,800 m (6,560–9,190 ft) will be the that extreme events, such as heavier Please refer to the proposed listing rule most sensitive to temperature increases, storms, heat waves, and regional for the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged and a warming of 5 °C (9 °F) is projected droughts, may become more frequent frog, the northern DPS of the mountain to shift center timing (the measure when (Glick et al. 2011, p. 7). Moreover, it is yellow-legged frog, and the Yosemite half a stream’s annual flow has passed generally expected that the duration and toad (78 FR 24472, April 25, 2013) for a given point in time) to more than 45 a detailed discussion of contaminants, intensity of droughts will increase in the days earlier in the year as compared to acid precipitation, and ambient future (Glick et al. 2011, p. 45; PRBO the 1961–1990 baseline (PRBO 2011, p. ultraviolet radiation. 2011, p. 21). The last century has included some of 23). Lakes, ponds, and other standing Climate Change the most variable climate reversals waters fed by snowmelt or streams are Our analysis under the Act includes documented, at both the annual and likely to dry out or be more ephemeral consideration of ongoing and projected near-decadal scales, including a high during the non-winter months (Lacan et changes in climate. The terms ‘‘climate’’ frequency of El Nin˜ o (associated with al. 2008, pp. 216–222; PRBO 2011, p. and ‘‘climate change’’ are defined by the more severe winters) and La Nin˜ a 24). This pattern could influence ground Intergovernmental Panel on Climate (associated with milder winters) events water transport, and springs may be Change (IPCC). The term ‘‘climate’’ (reflecting drought periods of 5 to 8 similarly depleted, leading to lower lake refers to the mean and variability of years alternating with wet periods) levels. different types of weather conditions (USDA 2001b, p. 33). Scientists have Blaustein et al. (2010, pp. 285–300) over time, with 30 years being a typical confirmed a longer duration climate provide an exhaustive review of period for such measurements, although cycle termed the Pacific Decadal potential direct and indirect and shorter or longer periods also may be Oscillation (PDO), which operates on habitat-related effects of climate change used (IPCC 2007a, p. 1450; IPCC 2013a, cycles between 2 to 3 decades, and to amphibian species, with Annex III). The term ‘‘climate change’’ generally is characterized by warm and documentation of effects in a number of thus refers to a change in the mean or dry (PDO positive) followed by cool and species where such effects have been variability of one or more measures of wet cycles (PDO negative) (Mantua et al. studied. Altitudinal range shifts with climate (for example, temperature or 1997, pp. 1069–1079; Zhang et al. 1997, changes in climate have been reported precipitation) that persists for an pp. 1004–1018). Snowpack is seen to in some regions. They note that extended period, typically decades or follow this pattern—heavier in the PDO temperature can influence the longer, whether the change is due to negative phase in California, and lighter concentration of dissolved oxygen in natural variability, human activity, or in the positive phase (Mantua et al. aquatic habitats, with warmer water both (IPCC 2007a, p. 1450; IPCC 2013a, 1997, p. 14; Cayan et al. 1998, p. 3148; generally having lower concentrations Annex III). A recent compilation of McCabe and Dettinger 2002, p. 24). of dissolved oxygen, and that water climate change and its effects is For the Sierra Nevada ecoregion, balance heavily influences amphibian available from reports of the climate models predict that mean physiology and behavior. They predict Intergovernmental Panel on Climate annual temperatures will increase by 1.8 that projected changes in temperature Change (IPCC) (IPCC 2013b, entire). to 2.4 °C (3.2 to 4.3 °F) by 2070, and precipitation are likely to increase Global climate projections are including warmer winters with earlier habitat loss and alteration for those informative and, in some cases, the only spring snowmelt and higher summer species living in sensitive habitats, such

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:54 Apr 28, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\29APR3.SGM 29APR3 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 24279

as ephemeral ponds and alpine habitats that today’s subalpine forests in the habitat or microhabitat requirements, (2) (Blaustein et al. 2010, pp. 285–287). Sierra Nevada are much denser—that is, narrow environmental tolerances or Because environmental cues such as comprise more small-diameter trees— thresholds that are likely to be exceeded temperature and precipitation are than they were over 70 years ago. under climate change, (3) dependence clearly linked to onset of reproduction During this time period, warmer on specific triggers or cues that are in many species, climate change will temperatures, earlier snowmelt, and likely to be disrupted (for example, likely affect the timing of reproduction more rain than snow occurred in this rainfall or temperature cues for in many species, potentially with region. Many of these changes in the breeding, migration, or hibernation), (4) different sexes responding differently to Sierra Nevada of California due to dependence on interactions between climate change. For example, males of climate are likely to influence mountain species that are likely to be disrupted, two newt species (Triturus spp.) showed yellow-legged frogs because both and (5) inability or poor ability to a greater degree of change in arrival date mountain yellow-legged frog species in disperse quickly or to colonize more at breeding ponds (Blaustein et al. 2010, the Sierra Nevada are highly vulnerable suitable range. We apply these criteria p. 288). Lower concentrations of to climate change because changing in this final rule to assess the dissolved oxygen in aquatic habitats hydrology and habitat in the Sierra vulnerability of mountain yellow-legged may negatively affect developing Nevada will likely have impacts on frogs to climate change. embryos and larvae, in part because remaining populations (Viers et al. At high elevations, where most extant increases in temperature increase the 2013, pp. 55, 56). populations occur, mountain yellow- oxygen consumption rate in Vulnerability of species to climate legged frogs depend on high mountain amphibians. Reduced oxygen change is a function of three factors: lakes where both adult and larval frogs concentrations have also been shown to Sensitivity of a species or its habitat to overwinter under ice for up to 9 months result in accelerated hatching in ranid climate change, exposure of individuals of the year. Overwintering under ice frogs, but at a smaller size, while larval to such physical changes in the poses physiological problems for the development and behavior may also be environment, and their capacity to frogs, most notably the depletion of affected and may be mediated by larval adapt to those changes (Glick et al. oxygen in the water during the winter density and food availability (Blaustein 2011, pp. 19–22). Critical sensitivity (Bradford 1983, p. 1171). Bradford et al. 2010, pp. 288–289). elements broadly applicable across (1983, pp. 1174–1182) has found, based Increased temperatures can reduce organizational levels (from species on lab and field results, that tadpoles time to metamorphosis, which can through habitats to ecosystems) are are more resistant to low dissolved increase chances of survival where associated with physical variables, such oxygen levels than adult frogs; after two ponds dry, but also result in as hydrology (timing, magnitude, and drought years that were followed by a metamorphosis at a smaller size, volume of waterflows), fire regime severe winter, all frogs in 21 of 26 study suggesting a likely trade-off between (frequency, extent, and severity of fires), lakes were lost (with the exception of development and growth, which may be and wind (Glick et al. 2011, pp. 39–40). one 2.1-m (6.9-ft) deep lake that exacerbated by climate change and have Species-level sensitivities generally contained only one individual), while fitness consequences for adults include physiological factors, such as tadpoles survived in all but one of the (Blaustein et al. 2010, pp. 289–290). changes in temperature, moisture, or pH shallowest lakes. Losses were Changes in terrestrial habitat, such as as they influence individuals; these also apparently due to oxygen depletion in a changed soil moisture and vegetation, include dependence on sensitive year when there was exceptional can also directly affect adult and habitats, ecological linkages to other precipitation, ice depths that were juvenile amphibians, especially those species, and changes in phenology thicker than usual, and lake thawing adapted to moist forest floors and cool, (timing of key life-history events) (Glick was 5 to 6 weeks later than the previous highly oxygenated water that et al. 2011, pp. 40–41). year. The survival of adults in characterizes montane regions. Climate Exposure to environmental stressors substantial numbers was significantly change may also interact with other renders species vulnerable to climate correlated with lake depth and confined stressors that may be acting on a change impacts, either through direct to lakes deeper than 4 m (13.1 ft). particular species, such as disease and mechanisms (for example, physical Bradford (1983, pp. 1174–1179) found contaminants (Blaustein et al. 2010, pp. temperature extremes or changes in that mean oxygen concentration in lakes 290–299). solar radiation), or indirectly through was directly related to maximum lake A recent paper (Kadir et al. 2013, impacts upon habitat (hydrology; fire depth, with dissolved oxygen levels entire) provides specific information on regime; or abundance and distribution declining throughout the winter. He also the effects of climate change in the of prey, competitors, or predator found that a thickened ice layer on a Sierra Nevada. The report found that species). A species’ capacity to adapt to lake causes the lake to become glaciers in the Sierra Nevada have climate change is increased by effectively more shallow, leading to an decreased in area over the past century, behavioral plasticity (the ability to increased rate of oxygen depletion and glacier shrinkage results in earlier modify behavior to mitigate the impacts (Bradford 1983, p. 1178). Studies of peak water runoff and drier summer of the stressor), dispersal ability (the winterkill of fish due to oxygen conditions. Another result from the ability to relocate to meet shifting depletion also show that oxygen report is that the lower edge of the conditions), and evolutionary potential depletion is inversely related to lake conifer-dominated forests in the Sierra (for example, shorter lived species with depth and occurs most rapidly in Nevada has been retreating upslope over multiple generations have more capacity shallow lakes relative to deeper lakes the past 60 years. Regarding wildfire, to adapt through evolution) (Glick et al. (See review in Bradford 1983, p. 1179). since 1950, annual acreage burned in 2011, pp. 48–49). Bradford (1983, p. 1179) considered the wildfires statewide has been increasing The International Union for possibility that winterkill of the frogs in California, and in the western United Conservation of Nature describes five was due to freezing, but dismissed the States, large wildfires have become categories of life-history traits that potential because some of the lakes more frequent, increasing in tandem render species more vulnerable to where winterkill occurred were deeper with rising spring and summer climate change (Foden et al. 2008 in than the probable maximum ice depth temperatures. Finally, the report found Glick et al. 2011, p. 33): (1) Specialized in that year. Because the deeper lakes

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:54 Apr 28, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\29APR3.SGM 29APR3 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES 24280 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

that once supported frog populations change may alter lake productivity the introduction of fishes in many of the now harbor introduced trout through changes in water chemistry, the more productive and persistent high populations and are generally no longer extent and timing of mixing, and mountain lake habitats and streams that available as refugia for frogs, the nutrient inputs from increased fires, all constitute critical dispersal corridors shallower lakes where frogs currently of which may influence community throughout much of the frogs’ range (see occur may be more vulnerable to dynamics and composition (Melack et Factor C discussion above). weather extremes in a climate with al. 1997, p. 971; Parker et al. 2008, p. An increase in the frequency, increased variability, including drought 12927). These changes may not all be intensity, and duration of droughts years and years with exceptional severe negative; for example, water chemistry caused by climate change may have cold winters. Such episodic stressors and nutrient inputs, along with warmer compounding effects on populations of may have been infrequent in the past, summer temperatures, could increase mountain yellow-legged frogs already in but appear to be increasing, and they are net primary productivity in high decline. In situations where other important to long-lived species with mountain lakes to enhance frog food stressors (such as introduced fish) have small populations. sources, although changes in net resulted in the isolation of mountain In summer, reduced snowpack and primary productivity may also yellow-legged frogs in marginal habitats, enhanced evapotranspiration following negatively affect invertebrate prey localized mountain yellow-legged frog higher temperatures can dry out ponds species endemic to oligotrophic lakes population crashes or extirpations that otherwise would have sustained (low nutrient, low productivity). resulting from drought may exacerbate rearing tadpoles (Lacan et al. 2008, p. Carey (1993, p. 359) has suggested their isolation and preclude natural 220), and may also reduce fecundity that, where environmental changes recolonization (Bradford et al. 1993, p. (egg production) (Lacan et al. 2008, p. cause sufficient stress to cause 887; Drost and Fellers 1996, p. 424; 222). Lacan et al. (2008, p. 211) immunological suppression, cold body Lacan et al. 2008, p. 222). Viers et al. observed that most frog breeding temperatures that montane amphibians (2013, pp. 55, 56) have used a variety of occurred in the smaller, fishless lakes of experience over winter could play a risk metrics to determine that both Kings Canyon National Park that are synergistic role in reducing further mountain yellow-legged frog species in shallow and prone to summer drying. immunological responses to disease. the Sierra Nevada are highly vulnerable Thus, climate change will likely reduce Thus, such conditions might make to climate change, and that changing available breeding habitat for mountain mountain yellow-legged frogs more hydrology and habitat in the Sierra yellow-legged frogs and lead to greater susceptible to disease. Additionally, Nevada will likely have drastic impacts frequency of stranding and death of Blaustein et al. (2001, p. 1808) have on remaining populations. Climate tadpoles as such lakes dry out earlier in suggested that climate change could also change represents a substantial future the year (Corn 2005, p. 64; Lacan et al. affect the distribution of pathogens and threat to the persistence of mountain 2008, p. 222). their vectors, exposing amphibians to yellow-legged frog populations. Earlier snowmelt is expected to cue new pathogens. Climate change Direct and Indirect Mortality breeding earlier in the year. The (warming) has been hypothesized as a advance of this primary signal for driver for the range shift of Bd (Pounds Other risk factors include direct and breeding phenology in montane and et al. 2006, p. 161; Bosch et al. 2007, p. indirect mortality as an unintentional boreal habitats (Corn 2005, p. 61) may 253). However, other work has indicated consequence of activities within have both positive and negative effects. that survival and transmission of Bd is mountain yellow-legged frog habitat. Additional time for growth and more likely facilitated by cooler and Mortality due to trampling by grazing development may render larger wetter conditions (Corn 2005, p. 63). livestock has been noted in a limited individuals more fit to overwinter; Fisher et al. (2009, p. 299) present a number of situations, with expected however, earlier breeding may also review of information available to date mortality risk thought to be greatest if expose young tadpoles (or eggs) to and evaluate the competing hypotheses livestock concentrate in prime breeding killing frosts in more variable regarding Bd dynamics, and they habitat early in the season when adults conditions of early spring (Corn 2005, p. present some cases that suggest a are breeding and egg masses are present 60). changing climate can change the host– (Brown et al. 2009, p. 59). Brown et al. Whether mountain yellow-legged pathogen dynamic to a more virulent (2009, p. 59) note that standards in the frogs depend on other species that may state. SNFPA are intended to mitigate this be affected either positively or The key risk factor for climate change risk. Recreational uses also have the negatively by climate change is unclear. impacts on mountain yellow-legged potential to result in direct or indirect Climate change may alter invertebrate frogs is likely the combined effect of mortality of mountain yellow-legged communities (PRBO 2011 p. 24). In one reduced water levels in high mountain frog individuals at all life stages. The study, an experimental increase in lakes and ponds and the relative Forest Service has identified activities, stream temperature was shown to inability of individuals to disperse and including recreational activities that decrease density and biomass of colonize across longer distances in order occur in the frogs’ breeding sites as invertebrates (Hogg and Williams 1996, to occupy more favorable habitat being risk factors for the frogs, while p. 401). Thus, climate change might conditions (if they exist). Although such noting that recreation use is a risk that have a negative impact on the mountain adaptive range shifts have been USFS management can change (USDA yellow-legged frog prey base. observed in some plant and animal 2001a, pp. 213–214). Brown et al. (2009, Indirect effects from climate change species, they have not been reported in pp. 65–66) note that tadpoles and may lead to greater risk to mountain amphibians. The changes observed in juveniles, in particular, may be injured yellow-legged frog population amphibians to date have been more or killed by trampling, crushing, etc., by persistence. For example, fire intensity associated with changes in timing of hikers, bikers, anglers, pets, packstock, and magnitude are projected to increase breeding (phenology) (Corn 2005, p. 60). or off-highway vehicles, although the (PRBO 2011, pp. 24–25), and, therefore, This limited adaptive capacity for number of documented situations the contribution and influence of this mountain yellow-legged frogs is a appears limited. Recreational activities, stressor upon frog habitat and function of high site fidelity and the such as hiking and camping, are populations will increase. Climate extensive habitat fragmentation due to associated primarily with physical site

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:54 Apr 28, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\29APR3.SGM 29APR3 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 24281

alteration (changes to soil and p. 131). Small populations may be less new or formerly occupied areas is vegetation conditions), and such effects able to respond to natural necessary. Connectivity between these are found to be highly localized. For environmental changes (Ke´ry et al. populations is essential to increase the example, estimates in a heavily-used 2000, p. 28), such as a prolonged number of reproductively active portion of the Eagle Cap Wilderness in drought or even a significant natural individuals in a population; mitigate the Oregon indicated that no more than 2 predation event. Periods of prolonged genetic, demographic, and percent of the area had been altered by drought are more likely to have a environmental effects of small recreational use (Cole and Landres 1996, significant effect on mountain yellow- population size; and recolonize p. 170). However, where impacts of legged frogs because drought conditions extirpated areas. Additionally, fewer recreational use are highly localized, occur on a landscape scale and all life populations by itself increases the risk species impacts due to trampling have stages are dependent on habitat with of extinction. been identified, especially for rare plant suitable perennial water. Demographic The combination of low numbers with species (Cole and Landres 1996, p. 170). stochasticity is random variability in the other extant stressors of disease, fish Fire management activities (i.e. fuels survival or reproduction among persistence, and potential for climate reduction and prescribed fire) lead to individuals within a population (Shaffer extremes could have adverse some direct mortality and have the 1981, p. 131) and could increase the risk consequences for the mountain yellow- potential to disrupt behavior. Please of extirpation of the smaller remaining legged frog complex as populations refer to the proposed listing rule for the populations. Genetic stochasticity approach the Allee threshold. Small Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog and results from changes in gene frequencies population size is currently a significant the northern DPS of the mountain due to the founder effect (loss of genetic threat to most populations of mountain yellow-legged frog under the Act (16 variation that occurs when a new yellow-legged frogs across the range of U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) for information population is established by a small the species. about effects of fire retardants on number of individuals) (Reiger 1968, p. Cumulative Impacts of Extant Threats mountain yellow-legged frogs. Roads 163); random fixation (the complete loss create the potential for direct mortality of one of two alleles in a population, the Stressors may act additively or of amphibians by vehicle strikes other allele reaching a frequency of 100 synergistically. An additive effect would (deMaynadier and Hunter 2000, p. 56) percent) (Reiger 1968, p. 371); or mean that an accumulation of otherwise and the possible introduction of inbreeding depression (loss of fitness or low threat factors acting in combination contaminants into new areas; however, vigor due to mating among relatives) may collectively result in individual most extant populations are not located (Soule´ 1980, p. 96). Additionally, small losses that are meaningful at the near roads. Collectively, direct mortality populations generally have an increased population level. A synergistic effect is risks to mountain yellow-legged frogs chance of genetic drift (random changes one where the interaction of one or are likely of sporadic significance. They in gene frequencies from generation to more stressors together leads to effects may be important on occasion on a site- generation that can lead to a loss of greater than the sum of those individual specific basis, but are likely of low variation) and inbreeding (Ellstrand and factors combined. Further, the prevalence across the range of the Elam 1993, p. 225). cumulative effect of multiple added species. Allee effects (Dennis 1989, pp. 481– stressors can erode population viability 538) occur when a population loses its over successive generations and act as a Small Population Size positive stock-recruitment relationship chronic strain on the viability of a In many localities, remaining (when population is in decline). In a species, resulting in a progressive loss of populations for both the Sierra Nevada declining population, an extinction populations over time. Such interactive yellow-legged frog and the mountain threshold or ‘‘Allee threshold’’ (Berec et effects from compounded stressors yellow-legged frog are small (CDFW, al. 2006, pp. 185–191) may be crossed, thereby act synergistically to curtail the unpubl. data). Brown et al. (2011, p. 24) where adults in the population either viability of frog metapopulations and reported that about 90 percent of cease to breed or the population increase the risks of extinction. watersheds have fewer than 10 adults becomes so compromised that breeding It is difficult to predict the precise and 80 percent have fewer than 10 does not contribute to population impact of the cumulative threat subadults and 100 tadpoles. Remnant growth. Allee effects typically fall into represented by the relatively novel Bd populations in the northern portion of three broad categories (Courchamp et al. epidemic across a landscape already the range for the Sierra Nevada yellow- 1999, pp. 405–410): lack of facilitation fragmented by fish stocking. The legged frog (from Lake Tahoe north) and (including low mate detection and loss singular threat of the Bd epidemic wave the southern portion of the populations of breeding cues), demographic in the uninfected populations of the of the northern DPS of the mountain stochasticity, and loss of heterozygosity mountain yellow-legged frog complex in yellow-legged frog (south of Kings (a measure of genetic variability). the southern Sierra Nevada could Canyon National Park) currently also Environmental stochasticity amplifies extirpate those populations as the exhibit very low abundances (CDFW, Allee effects (Dennis 1989, pp. 481–538; pathogen spreads. A compounding unpubl. data). Dennis 2002, pp, 389–401). The Allee effect of disease-caused extirpation is Compared to large populations, small effects of demographic stochasticity and that recolonization may never occur populations are more vulnerable to loss of heterozygosity are likely as because streams connecting extirpated extirpation from environmental, mountain yellow-legged frog sites to extant populations now contain demographic, and genetic stochasticity populations continue to diminish. introduced fishes, which act as barriers (random natural occurrences), and The extinction risk for a species to frog movement within unforeseen (natural or unnatural) represented by few small populations is metapopulations. This situation isolates catastrophes (Shaffer 1981, p. 131). magnified when those populations are the remaining populations of mountain Environmental stochasticity refers to isolated from one another. This is yellow-legged frogs from one another annual variation in birth and death rates especially true for species whose (Bradford 1991, p. 176; Bradford et al. in response to weather, disease, populations normally function in a 1993, p. 887). It is logical to presume competition, predation, or other factors metapopulation structure, whereby that the small, fragmented populations external to the population (Shaffer 1981, dispersal or migration of individuals to left in the recent wake of Bd spread

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:54 Apr 28, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\29APR3.SGM 29APR3 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES 24282 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

through the majority of the range of the and unfavorable conditions exist for contributed to historical losses when Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog may genetic exchange or dispersal to protections and use limits that are experience further extirpations as unoccupied areas (habitat currently afforded by USFS and NPS surviving adults eventually die, and fragmentation)); and (2) species standards and guidelines did not exist. recruitment into the breeding pool from abundance (in any given population) is Currently, Federal land management the Bd-positive subadult class is reduced, making local extirpations agencies with jurisdiction within the significantly reduced. These impacts much more likely (decreased population current range of the Sierra Nevada may be exacerbated by the present and viability). Knapp et al. (2007b, pp. 1–2) yellow-legged frog have developed growing threat of climate change, estimated a 10 percent decline per year management standards and guidelines although this effect may take years to in the number of remaining mountain that limit habitat damage due to these materialize. yellow-legged frog populations and activities, although in localized areas In summary, based on the best argued for the listing of the species as habitat-related changes may continue to available scientific and commercial endangered based on this observed rate affect individual populations. information, we consider other natural of population loss. Competitive exclusion and predation and manmade factors to be substantial Threats that face the Sierra Nevada by fish have eliminated or reduced ongoing threats to the Sierra Nevada mountain yellow-legged frog, discussed mountain yellow-legged frog yellow-legged frog and the northern DPS above under Factors A, C, D, and E, populations in stocked habitats, and left of the mountain yellow-legged frog. increase the risk of the species’ remnant populations isolated, while These include high, prevalent risk extinction, given the isolation of bullfrogs are expected to have negative associated with climate change and remaining populations. The best effects where they occur (Factor C). It is small population sizes, and the available science indicates that the important to recognize that, throughout associated risk from the additive or introduction of fishes to the frog’s the vast majority of its range, Sierra synergistic effects of these two stressors habitat to support recreational angling is Nevada yellow-legged frogs did not co- interacting with other acknowledged one of the primary causes of the decline evolve with any species of fish, as they threats, including habitat fragmentation of the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog predominantly occur in water bodies and degradation (see Factor A), disease and poses a current and continuing above natural fish barriers. and predation (see Factor C), or other threat to the species (Factor A). Water Consequently, the species has not threats currently present but with low bodies throughout this range have been evolved defenses against fish predation. relative contribution in isolation. intensively stocked with introduced fish Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frogs are (principally trout). It is a threat of vulnerable to multiple pathogens (see Determination for the Sierra Nevada significant influence, and although Factor C) whose effects range from low Yellow-Legged Frog fewer lakes are stocked currently than levels of infection within persistent We have carefully assessed the best were stocked prior to 2001, it remains populations to disease-induced scientific and commercial information prevalent today because fish persist in extirpation of entire populations. The available regarding the past, present, many high-elevation habitats even Bd epidemic has caused extirpations of and future threats to the Sierra Nevada where stocking has ceased. Further, the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog yellow-legged frog. The best available introduction of fish has generally populations throughout its range and information for the Sierra Nevada restricted remaining Sierra Nevada caused associated significant declines in yellow-legged frog shows that the yellow-legged frog populations to more numbers of individuals. Though Bd was geographic extent of the species’ range marginal habitats, thereby increasing the only recently discovered to affect the has declined, with local population- likelihood of localized extinctions. Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog, it level changes first noticed in the early Recolonization in these situations is appears to infect populations at much 1900s (Grinnell and Storer 1924, p. 664) difficult for a highly aquatic species higher rates than other pathogens. The although they were still abundant at with high site fidelity and unfavorable imminence of this risk to populations in many sites in the Sierra Nevada until dispersal conditions. currently uninfected habitats is the 1960s (Zweifel 1955, pp. 237–238). Historical livestock grazing activities immediate and the potential effects Population losses continued between may also have modified the habitat of severe. The already-realized effects to the 1960s and 1990s (Bradford et al. the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog the survival of sensitive amphibian life 1993, p. 883) and have continued in throughout much of its range (Factor A). stages in Bd-positive areas are well- recent decades. Now fewer, increasingly Grazing pressure has been significantly documented. Although some isolated populations maintain viable reduced from historical levels, but is populations survive the initial Bd wave, recruitment (entry of post-metamorphic expected to have legacy effects on survival rates of metamorphs and frogs into the breeding population). mountain yellow-legged frog habitat population viability are markedly Coupled with the observation that where prior downcutting and reduced relative to historical (pre-Bd) remnant populations are also headcutting of streams have resulted in norms. numerically smaller (in some cases reduced water tables and would benefit These threats described above are consisting of few individuals), this from restoration. Current grazing that likely to be exacerbated by widespread reduction in occupancy and population complies with forest standards and changes associated with climate change density across the landscape suggests guidelines is not expected to cause and by current small population sizes in significant losses in metapopulation habitat-related effects to the species in many locations (see Factor E), while viability and high attendant risk to the almost all cases, but in limited cases instances of direct and indirect overall population of the species. The may continue to contribute to some mortality are expected to have impacts of the declines on population localized degradation and loss of population-level effects only in resilience are two-fold: (1) The suitable habitat. The habitat-related relatively uncommon, localized geographic extent and number of effects of recreation, packstock grazing, situations. On a rangewide basis, the populations are reduced across the dams and water diversions, roads, existing regulatory mechanisms (Factor landscape, resulting in fewer and more timber harvests, and fire management D) have not been effective in protecting isolated populations (the species is less activities on the Sierra Nevada yellow- populations from declines due to fish able to withstand population stressors legged frog (Factor A) may have stocking and continuing presence of fish

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:54 Apr 28, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\29APR3.SGM 29APR3 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 24283

and to disease, although standards and population stressors makes species Population losses continued between guidelines developed by the USFS and persistence precarious throughout the the 1960s and 1990s (Bradford et al. the NPS have largely limited threats due current range in the Sierra Nevada. 1993, p. 883) and have continued in to livestock and packstock grazing, We have carefully assessed the best recent decades. Now fewer, increasingly recreation, and timber use. scientific and commercial information isolated populations maintain viable The main and interactive effects of available regarding the past, present, recruitment (entry of post-metamorphic these various risk factors have acted to and future threats to the species, and frogs into the breeding population). reduce Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog have determined that the Sierra Nevada Coupled with the observation that populations to small fractions of their yellow-legged frog meets the definition remnant populations are also historical habitat and reduce population of endangered under the Act, rather numerically smaller (in some cases abundances significantly throughout than threatened. This is because consisting of a few individuals), this most of its current range. Remaining significant threats are occurring now reduction in occupancy and population areas that have yet to be impacted by Bd and will occur in the future, at a high density across the landscape suggests are at immediate and severe risk. magnitude and across the species’ entire significant losses in metapopulation Given the life history of this species, range, making the species in danger of viability and high attendant risk to the dispersal, recolonization, and genetic extinction at the present time. The rate overall population of the species. The exchange are largely precluded by the of population decline remains high in impacts of the declines on population fragmentation of habitat common the wake of Bd epidemics, and the resilience are two-fold: (1) The throughout its current range as a result remaining Sierra Nevada yellow-legged geographic extent and number of of fish introductions. Frogs that may frog populations are at high, imminent populations are reduced across the disperse are susceptible to hostile risk. Population declines are expected to landscape, resulting in fewer and more conditions in many circumstances. In continue as maturing tadpoles succumb isolated populations (the species is less essence, Sierra Nevada yellow-legged to Bd infection, and fragmented able to withstand population stressors frogs have been marginalized by populations at very low abundances and unfavorable conditions exist for historical fish introductions. will face significant obstacles to genetic exchange or dispersal to Populations have recently been recovery. Therefore, on the basis of the unoccupied areas (habitat decimated by Bd, and the cumulative best available scientific and commercial fragmentation)); and (2) species effect of other stressors (such as information, and the threats posed to abundance (in any given population) is anticipated reduction of required these species under the listing factors reduced, making local extirpations aquatic breeding habitats with climate above, we are listing the Sierra Nevada much more likely (decreased population change and more extreme weather) yellow-legged frog as endangered in viability). Knapp et al. (2007b, pp. 1–2) upon a fragmented landscape make accordance with sections 3(6) and estimated a 10 percent decline per year adaptation and recovery a highly 4(a)(1) of the Act. in the number of remaining mountain improbable scenario without active Under the Act and our implementing yellow-legged frog populations and intervention. The cumulative risk from regulations, a species may warrant argued for the listing of the species as these stressors to the persistence of the listing if it is endangered or threatened endangered based on this observed rate Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog throughout all or a significant portion of of population loss. throughout its range is significant. its range. The Sierra Nevada yellow- Threats that face the northern DPS of The Act defines an endangered legged frog is restricted in its range, and the mountain yellow-legged frog, species as any species that is ‘‘in danger the threats occur throughout the discussed above under Factors A, C, D, of extinction throughout all or a remaining occupied habitat. Therefore, and E, increase the risk of the species’ significant portion of its range’’ and a we assessed the status of this species extinction, given the isolation of threatened species as any species ‘‘that throughout its entire range. The threats remaining populations. The best is likely to become endangered to the survival of the species occur available science indicates that the throughout all or a significant portion of throughout the species’ range and are introduction of fishes to the frog’s its range within the foreseeable future.’’ not restricted to any particular habitat to support recreational angling is We find that the Sierra Nevada yellow- significant portion of that range. one of the primary causes of the decline legged frog is presently in danger of Accordingly, our assessment and final of the northern DPS of the mountain extinction throughout its entire range, determination applies to the species yellow-legged frog and poses a current based on the immediacy, severity, and throughout its entire range. and continuing threat to the species scope of the threats described above. (Factor A). Water bodies throughout this Final Determination for the Northern Specifically, these include habitat range have been intensively stocked DPS of the Mountain Yellow-Legged degradation and fragmentation under with introduced fish (principally trout). Frog Factor A, predation and disease under It is a threat of significant influence, and Factor C, and climate change and the We have carefully assessed the best although fewer lakes are stocked interaction of these various stressors scientific and commercial information currently than were stocked prior to cumulatively impacting small remnant available regarding the past, present, 2001, it remains prevalent today populations under Factor E. There has and future threats to the northern DPS because fish persist in many high- been a rangewide reduction in of the mountain yellow-legged frog. The elevation habitats even where stocking abundance and geographic extent of best available information for the has ceased. Recolonization in these surviving populations of the Sierra northern DPS of the mountain yellow- situations is difficult for a highly Nevada yellow-legged frog following legged frog shows that the geographic aquatic species with high site fidelity decades of fish stocking, habitat extent of the species’ range has and unfavorable dispersal conditions. fragmentation, and, most recently, a declined, with local population-level Climate change is likely to exacerbate disease epidemic. Surviving changes first noticed in the early 1900s these other threats and further threaten populations are smaller and more (Grinnell and Storer 1924, p. 664), population resilience. isolated, and recruitment in Bd-positive although they were still abundant at Historical livestock grazing activities populations is much reduced relative to many sites in the Sierra Nevada until may also have modified the habitat of historical norms. This combination of the 1960s (Zweifel 1955, pp. 237–238). the northern DPS of the mountain

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:54 Apr 28, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\29APR3.SGM 29APR3 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES 24284 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

yellow-legged frog throughout much of severe. The already-realized effects to its range within the foreseeable future.’’ its range (Factor A). Grazing pressure the survival of sensitive amphibian life We find that the northern DPS of the has been significantly reduced from stages in Bd-positive areas are well- mountain yellow-legged frog is historical levels, but is expected to have documented. Although some presently in danger of extinction legacy effects to mountain yellow-legged populations survive the initial Bd wave, throughout its entire range, based on the frog habitat where prior downcutting survival rates of metamorphs and immediacy, severity, and scope of the and headcutting of streams have population viability are markedly threats described above. Specifically, resulted in reduced water tables that reduced relative to historical (pre-Bd) these include habitat degradation and still need restoration to correct. Current norms. fragmentation under Factor A, predation grazing that complies with forest These threats are likely to be and disease under Factor C, and climate standards and guidelines is not exacerbated by widespread changes change and the interaction of these expected to cause habitat-related effects associated with climate change and by various stressors cumulatively to the species in almost all cases, but in current small population sizes in many impacting small remnant populations limited cases may continue to locations (see Factor E), while instances under Factor E. There has been a contribute to some localized of direct and indirect mortality are rangewide reduction in abundance and degradation and loss of suitable habitat. expected to have population-level geographic extent of surviving The habitat-related effects of recreation, effects only in relatively uncommon, populations of the northern DPS of the packstock grazing, dams and water localized situations. Rangewide, the mountain yellow-legged frog following diversions, roads, timber harvests, and existing regulatory mechanisms (Factor decades of fish stocking, habitat fire management activities on the D) have not been effective in protecting fragmentation, and, most recently, a northern DPS of the mountain yellow- populations from declines due to fish disease epidemic. Surviving legged frog (Factor A) may have stocking and continuing presence of fish populations are smaller and more contributed to historical losses when and to disease, although standards and isolated, and recruitment in Bd-positive protections and use limits that are guidelines developed by the USFS and populations is much reduced relative to currently afforded by USFS and NPS the NPS have largely limited threats due historical norms. This combination of standards and guidelines did not exist. to livestock and packstock grazing, population stressors makes species Currently, Federal agencies with recreation, and timber use. persistence precarious throughout the jurisdiction within the current range of The main and interactive effects of current range in the Sierra Nevada. the northern DPS of the mountain these various risk factors have acted to We have carefully assessed the best yellow-legged frog have developed reduce the northern DPS of the scientific and commercial information management standards and guidelines mountain yellow-legged frog to a small available regarding the past, present, that limit habitat damage due to these fraction of its historical range and and future threats to the species, and activities, although in localized areas reduce population abundances have determined that the northern DPS habitat-related changes may continue to significantly throughout most of its of the mountain yellow-legged frog, affect individual populations. current range. Populations of this meets the definition of endangered Competitive exclusion and predation species in remaining areas in the under the Act, rather than threatened. by fish have eliminated or reduced southern Sierra Nevada that have yet to This is because significant threats are mountain yellow-legged frog be impacted by Bd are at immediate and occurring now and will occur in the populations in stocked habitats, and left severe risk. future, at a high magnitude and across remnant populations isolated, while Given the life history of this species, the DPS’ entire range, making the bullfrogs are expected to have negative dispersal, recolonization, and genetic northern DPS of the mountain yellow- effects where they occur (Factor C). It is exchange are largely precluded by the legged frog in danger of extinction at the important to recognize that throughout fragmentation of habitat common present time. The rate of population the vast majority of its range, the throughout its current range as a result decline remains high in the wake of Bd northern DPS of the mountain yellow- of fish introductions. Frogs that may epidemics, and northern DPS of the legged frogs did not co-evolve with any disperse are susceptible to hostile mountain yellow-legged frog areas are at species of fish, as this species conditions in many circumstances. In high, imminent risk. The recent rates of predominantly occurs in water bodies essence, mountain yellow-legged frogs decline for these populations are even above natural fish barriers. have been marginalized by historical higher than declines in the populations Consequently, the species has not fish introductions. Populations have of the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog, evolved defenses against fish predation. recently been decimated by Bd, and the and as Bd infects remaining core areas, Mountain yellow-legged frogs are accumulation of other stressors (such as population viability will be significantly vulnerable to multiple pathogens (see anticipated reduction of required reduced, and extirpations or significant Factor C) whose effects range from low aquatic breeding habitats with climate population declines are expected. levels of infection within persistent change and more extreme weather) Population declines are expected to populations to disease-induced upon a fragmented landscape make continue as maturing tadpoles succumb extirpation of entire populations. The adaptation and recovery a highly to Bd infection, and fragmented Bd epidemic has caused rangewide improbable scenario without active populations at very low abundances extirpations of populations of the intervention. The cumulative risk from will face significant obstacles to northern DPS of the mountain yellow- these stressors to the persistence of the recovery. Therefore, on the basis of the legged frog and associated significant mountain yellow-legged frog throughout best available scientific and commercial declines in numbers of individuals. its range is significant. information, and the threats posed to Though Bd was only recently The Act defines an endangered these species discussed under the listing discovered to affect the mountain species as any species that is ‘‘in danger factors above, we are listing the yellow-legged frog, it appears to infect of extinction throughout all or a northern DPS of the mountain yellow- populations at much higher rates than significant portion of its range’’ and a legged frog as endangered in accordance other pathogens. The imminence of this threatened species as any species ‘‘that with sections 3(6) and 4(a)(1) of the Act. risk to currently uninfected habitats is is likely to become endangered Under the Act and our implementing immediate, and the potential effects throughout all or a significant portion of regulations, a species may warrant

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:54 Apr 28, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\29APR3.SGM 29APR3 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 24285

listing if it is endangered or threatened breeding and rearing habitat. The energetic expense of breeding every year throughout all or a significant portion of Yosemite toad is more common in areas (Morton 1981, p. 237). The Yosemite its range. The northern DPS of the with less variation in mean annual toad is a prolific breeder, laying many mountain yellow-legged frog addressed temperature, or more temperate sites eggs immediately at snowmelt. This is in this final listing rule is restricted in with less climate variation (Liang 2010, accomplished in a short period of time, its range, and the threats occur pp. 21–22). coinciding with water levels in meadow throughout the remaining occupied Adults are thought to be long-lived, habitats and ephemeral pools they use habitat. Therefore, we assessed the and this factor allows for persistence in for breeding. Female toads lay status of this DPS throughout its entire variable conditions and more marginal approximately 700–2,000 eggs in two range in the Sierra Nevada of California. habitats where only periodic good years strings (one from each ovary) (USFS et The threats to the survival of this DPS allow high reproductive success (USFS al. 2009, p. 21). Females may split their occur throughout its range in the et al. 2009, p. 27). Females have been egg clutches within the same pool, or southern Sierra Nevada and are not documented to reach 15 years of age, even between different pools, and may restricted to any particular significant and males as many as 12 years (Kagarise lay eggs communally with other toads portion of that range. Accordingly, our Sherman and Morton 1993, p. 195); (USFS et al. 2009, p. 22). assessment and final determination however, the average longevity of the Eggs hatch within 3–15 days, applies to the DPS throughout its entire Yosemite toad in the wild is not known. depending on ambient water range. Jennings and Hayes (1994, p. 52) temperatures (Kagarise Sherman 1980, indicated that females begin breeding at pp. 46–47; Jennings and Hayes 1994, p. Summary of Biological Status and ages 4 to 6 years, while males begin 52). Tadpoles typically metamorphose Threats Affecting the Yosemite Toad breeding at ages 3 to 5 years. around 40–50 days after fertilization, Background Adults appear to have high site- and are not known to overwinter fidelity; Liang (2010, pp. 99, 100) found (Jennings and Hayes 1994. p. 52). Taxonomy and Species Description that the majority of individuals Tadpoles are black in color, tend to Please refer to the proposed listing identified in multiple years were congregate together (Brattstrom 1962, rule for the Yosemite toad under the Act located in the same meadow pools, pp. 38–46) in warm shallow waters (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) for additional although individuals will move between during the day (Cunningham 1963, pp. species information, including detailed breeding areas (Liang 2010, p. 52; Liang 60–61), and then retreat to deeper information on taxonomy. In this 2013, p. 561). Breeding habitat includes waters at night (Mullaly 1953, p. 182). section of the final rule, it is our intent shallow, warm-water areas in wet Rearing through metamorphosis takes to discuss only those topics directly meadows, such as shallow ponds and approximately 5–7 weeks after eggs are relevant to the listing of the Yosemite flooded vegetation, ponds, lake edges, laid (USFS et al. 2009, p. 25). Toads toad (Anaxyrus canorus) as threatened. and slow-flowing streams (Karlstrom need shallow, warm surface water that Habitat and Life History 1962, pp. 8–12; Brown 2013, persists through the period during unpaginated). Tadpoles have also been which they metamorphose; shorter Breeding habitat—Yosemite toads are observed in shallow areas of lakes hydroperiods in that habitat can reduce associated with wet meadows due to (Mullally 1953, pp. 182–183). reproductive success (Brown 2013, their breeding ecology. Camp (1916, pp. Adult Yosemite toads are most often unpaginated). 59–62) found Yosemite toads in wet observed near water, but only Reproductive success is dependent on meadow habitats and at lake shores occasionally in water (Mullally and the persistence of tadpole rearing sites located among lodgepole (Pinus Cunningham 1956b, pp. 57–67). Moist and conditions for breeding, egg contorta) at the lower elevations to upland areas such as seeps and deposition, hatching, and rearing to whitebark (P. albicaulis) pines at the springheads are important summer metamorphosis (USFS et al. 2009, p. higher elevations. Mullally (1953, pp. nonbreeding habitats for adult toads 23). Given their association with 182–183) found adult toads common on (Martin 2002, pp. 1–3). The majority of shallow, ephemeral habitats, Yosemite the margins of high-elevation lakes, their life is spent in the upland habitats toads are susceptible to droughts and streams, and pools wherever the proximate to their breeding meadows. weather extremes. Abiotic factors meadow vegetation was thicker or more They use rodent burrows for leading to mortality (such as freezing or luxuriant than usual or where there overwintering and probably for desiccation) appear to be more were patches of low willows (Salix temporary refuge during the summer significant during the early life stages of spp.). Liang (2010, p. 81) observed (Jennings and Hayes 1994, pp. 50–53), toads, while biotic factors (such as Yosemite toads most frequently and they spend most of their time in predation) are probably more prominent associated with (in order of preference): burrows (Liang 2010, p. 95). They also factors during later life stages (USFS et wet meadows, alpine-dwarf scrub, red use spaces under surface objects, al. 2009, p. 30). However, since adult fir (Abies magnifica), water, lodgepole including logs and rocks, for temporary toads lead a much more inconspicuous pine, and subalpine conifer habitats. refuge (Stebbins 1951, pp. 245–248; lifestyle, direct observation of adult Yosemite toads were found as often at Karlstrom 1962, pp. 9–10). Males and mortality is difficult and it is usually large as at small sites (Liang 2010, p. females also likely inhabit different not possible to determine causes of 19), suggesting that this species is areas and habitats when not breeding, adult mortality. capable of successfully utilizing small and females tend to move farther from Yosemite toads can move farther than habitat patches. Liang also found that breeding ponds than males (USFS et al. 1 km (0.63 mi) from their breeding population persistence was greater at 2009, p. 28). meadows (average movement is 275 m higher elevations, with an affinity for Males exit burrows first, and spend (902 ft)), and they utilize terrestrial relatively flat sites with a southwesterly more time in breeding pools than environments extensively (Liang 2010, aspect (Liang 2010, p. 20; see also females, who do not breed every year p. 85). The average distance traveled by Mullally 1953, p. 182). These areas (Kagarise Sherman and Morton, 1993, p. females is twice as far as males, and receive higher solar radiation and are 196). Data suggest that higher lipid home ranges for females are 1.5 times capable of sustaining hydric (wet), storage in females, which enhances greater than those for males (Liang 2010, seasonally ponded, and mesic (moist) overwinter survival, also precludes the p. 94). Movement into the upland

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:54 Apr 28, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\29APR3.SGM 29APR3 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES 24286 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

terrestrial environment following extended from the Blue Lakes region similar to the historical range defined breeding does not follow a predictable north of Ebbetts Pass (Alpine County) to above (USFS et al. 2009, p. 41). path, and toads tend to traverse longer south of the Evolution Lake area (Fresno However, within that range, toad distances at night, perhaps to minimize County) (Karlstrom 1962, p. 3; Stebbins habitats have been degraded and may be evaporative water loss (Liang 2010, p. 1985, p. 72; see also Knapp 2013, decreasing in area as a result of conifer 98). Martin (2008, p. 123) tracked adult unpaginated; Brown 2013, encroachment and historical livestock toads during the active season and unpaginated). Yosemite toad habitat grazing (see Factor A below). The vast found that on average toads traveled a historically spanned elevations from majority of the Yosemite toad’s range is total linear distance of 494 m (1,620 ft) 1,460 to 3,630 m (4,790 to 11,910 ft) within federally managed land. Figure within the season, with minimum travel (Stebbins 1985, p. 72; Stephens 2001, p. 2, Estimated Range of Yosemite Toad, distance of 78 m (256 ft) and maximum 12). displays a range map for the species. of 1.76 km (1.09 mi). Current Range and Distribution BILLING CODE 4310–55–P Historical Range and Distribution The current range of the Yosemite The known historical range of the toad, at least in terms of overall Yosemite toad in the Sierra Nevada geographic extent, remains largely

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:54 Apr 28, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\29APR3.SGM 29APR3 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES ER29AP14.002 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 24287

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C found Yosemite toads at 13 of those Sadinski (2004, p. 40) revisited the Population Estimates and Status sites. In 1992, Drost and Fellers (1996, survey locations annually from 1995 pp. 414–425) conducted more thorough and 2001 and found a maximum of two Baseline data on the number and size surveys, specifically for amphibians, at males and two egg masses, suggesting of historical Yosemite toad populations 38 of the Grinnell and Storer sites plus the toads in Tioga Meadows had not are limited, and historic records are additional nearby sites. Drost and recovered from their decline. In the largely based on accounts from field Fellers (1996, pp. 418) found that study of Yosemite toads at nearby Dana notes, or pieced together through Yosemite toads were absent from 6 of 13 Meadows, Sadinski (2004, pp. 39–42) museum collections, thereby providing sites where they had been found in the documented few adults within the limited information on historical original Grinnell and Storer (1924) habitats surveyed, finding substantial populations. Systematic survey survey. Moreover, at the sites where mortality in embryos that he associated information across the range of the they were present, Yosemite toads most with effects of ice, water mold, and species on National Forest System often occurred in very low numbers flatworms. Sadinski (2004, pp. 38–42) Lands largely follows the designation of relative to general abundance reported also found high larval mortality when the Yosemite toad as a candidate species in the historical record (Grinnell and breeding sites dried before larvae could under the Act. In addition, surveys for Storer 1924, pp. 657–660). Therefore, by reach metamorphosis. Sadinski (2004) the Yosemite toad have been conducted the early 1990s, the species was either stated that the proximity of the Kagarise within Yosemite, Kings Canyon, and undetectable or had declined in Sherman and Morton (1993) study sites Sequoia National Parks (Knapp 2013, numbers at 9 of 13 (69 percent) of the at Tioga Meadows and his sites in Dana unpaginated). From these recent Grinnell and Storer sites (Drost and Meadows practically ensured that inventories, Yosemite toads have been Fellers 1996, p. 418). animals from both sites were part of the found at 469 localities collectively on Another study comparing historic and same metapopulation. Sadinski six National Forests (USFS et al. 2009, current occurrences also found a large surmised that perhaps much of that p. 40; see also Brown and Olsen 2013, decline in Yosemite toad distribution. In metapopulation experienced events at pp. 675–691), at 179 breeding sites that 1990, David Martin surveyed 75 sites breeding sites similar to those that were surveyed between 1992 and 2010 throughout the range of the Yosemite Kagarise Sherman and Morton (1993) in Yosemite National Park (Berlow et al. toad for which there were historical observed (Sadinski 2004, pp. 39–40). He 2013, p. 3), and detected at 18 localities records of the species’ presence. This further opined that, if each of his in Kings Canyon National Park (NPS study found that 47 percent of substantial sites had previously 2011, geospatial data). Although we did historically occupied sites showed no supported hundreds of breeding adults not cite to the information from the evidence of any life stage of the species in the 1970s, the overall population of National Parks in the proposed rule, we (Stebbins and Cohen 1995, pp. 213– Yosemite toads had declined had the geospatial occupancy data that 215). This result suggests a range-wide dramatically throughout the area since is currently included in Berlow et al. decline to about one half of historical that time. 2013, and we utilized that data in our sites, based on occupancy alone. Kagarise Sherman and Morton (1993, analysis for the proposed listing (see A third study comparing historic and pp. 186–198) also conducted occasional comments 6 and 7 below, and their recent surveys indicates declines in surveys of six other populations in the respective responses). The number of Yosemite toad distribution. Jennings eastern Sierra Nevada. Five of these localities identified in these surveys and Hayes (1994, pp. 50–53) reviewed populations showed long-term declines reflects more occupied sites than were the current status of Yosemite toads that were evident beginning between known before such extensive surveys using museum records of historic and 1978 through 1981, while the sixth were conducted, and indicates that the recent sightings, published data, and population held relatively steady until species is still widespread throughout unpublished data and field notes from the final survey in 1990, at which time its range. These inventories were biologists working with the species. it dropped. In 1991, E.L. Karlstrom typically conducted to determine toad They estimated a loss of over 50 percent revisited the site where he had studied presence or absence (they were not of former Yosemite toad locations a breeding population of Yosemite toads censuses), and do not explicitly throughout the range of the species from 1954 to 1958 (just south of Tioga compare historic sites to recent surveys. (based on 144 specific sites). Pass Meadow within Yosemite National Moreover, single-visit surveys of toads The only long-term, site-specific Park), and found no evidence of toads are unreliable as indices of abundance population study for Yosemite toads or signs of breeding (Kagarise Sherman because timing is so critical to the documented a dramatic decline over 2 and Morton 1993, p. 190). presence of detectable life stages and decades of monitoring. Kagarise The most reliable information about not all potential breeding habitats Sherman and Morton (1993, pp. 186– Yosemite toad population status and within the range of the species were 198) studied Yosemite toads at Tioga trends is the USFS SNAMPH. This surveyed (USFS et al. 2009, p. 41; Liang Pass Meadow (Mono County, California) study, conducted on National Forest 2010, p. 10; Brown and Olsen 2013, p. from 1971 through 1991 (with the most System Lands, is designed to provide 685). Given these considerations, intensive monitoring through 1982). statistical comparisons across 5-year conclusions about population trends, They documented a decline in the monitoring cycles with 134 watersheds abundance, or extirpation rates are not average number of males entering the (Brown et al. 2011, pp. 3–4). This possible from these datasets overall. breeding pools from 258 to 28 during approach allows researchers to assess One pair of studies allows us to the mid-1970s through 1982. During the trends for the entire range of the toad, compare current distribution with same time period, the number of rather than at limited survey sites (C. historic distributions and indicates that females varied between 45 and 100, but Brown 2012, pers. comm., see also large reductions have occurred. In 1915 there was no apparent trend in number Brown and Olsen 2013). The results of and 1919, Grinnell and Storer (1924, pp. observed. During the 1980s, it appeared this assessment indicate the species has 657–660) surveyed for vertebrates at 40 that males continued to decline, females declined from historical levels, with sites along a 143-km (89-mi) west-to-east also declined, and breeding activity Yosemite toads occurring in transect across the Sierra Nevada, became sporadic. By 1991, they found approximately 13 percent of watersheds through Yosemite National Park, and only one male and two egg masses. where they existed prior to 1990. This

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:54 Apr 28, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\29APR3.SGM 29APR3 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES 24288 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

study also found that breeding was Meadow Habitat section, we reorganized protections provided by agency-required occurring in approximately 84 percent the information and separated the research permits. In Factor C, based on of the watersheds that were occupied in effects of historic livestock grazing from peer review comments, we added the period 1990–2001, suggesting that the effects due to current grazing levels, information on a Bd study on Yosemite the number of locations where breeding and we added additional references toads. We removed the discussion of occurs has continued to decline. received from the USFS. In the Roads contaminants under Factor E, and we Additionally, the study found that and Timber Harvest Effects to Meadow refer readers to the proposed rule breeding currently occurs in an Habitat section, we clarified the extent affirming that the best available estimated 22 percent of watersheds to which these activities overlap with information indicates that contaminants within the current estimated range of the Yosemite toad’s range and do not pose a current or continuing the species (Brown et al. 2012, p. 115). distinguished the effects of past threat to the Yosemite toad. We also Moreover, overall abundances in the activities from the effects of current added new information in the Other intensively monitored watersheds were activities. We added information on Sources of Direct and Indirect Mortality very low (fewer than 20 males per road locations and on USFS Forest section as a result of information meadow per year) relative to other standards and guidelines that currently provided during peer review. Although historically reported abundances of the limit the effects of these activities on we have not changed the determination, species (Brown et al. 2011, p. 4). Brown riparian areas. In this final rule, we we have made a few small changes in et al. (2011, p. 35) suggest that found that roads and timber harvest the wording of the determination for the populations are now very small across activities are not current and ongoing Yosemite toad to reflect the above the range of the species. During their threats to the species. However, there changes. monitoring over the past decade, they may be localized effects where legacy Summary of Factors Affecting the found only 18 percent of occupied effects of past road building or timber Species survey watersheds range-wide had harvest continue to modify wet ‘‘large’’ populations (more than 1,000 meadows or where activities occur in Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), tadpoles or 100 of any other lifestage close proximity to extant Yosemite toad and its implementing regulations at 50 detected at the time of survey). While populations. CFR part 424, set forth the procedures not all surveys were conducted at the In the Fire Management section, we for adding species to the Federal Lists peak of tadpole presence and adults are added information to clarify that of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife not reliably found outside of the Yosemite toads primarily occur in and Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of the breeding season, Brown et al. (2012) higher elevation areas where fire Act, we may list a species based on any surveyed many sites at appropriate suppression activities are rarely of the following five factors: (A) The times and rarely found the large conducted. This finding suggests that present or threatened destruction, numbers of tadpoles or metamorphs that fire suppression has had little effect on modification, or curtailment of its would be expected if population sizes forest encroachment into meadow habitat or range; (B) overutilization for were similar to those reported habitats in most areas where the species commercial, recreational, scientific, or historically. The researchers interpret occurs. In the Recreation and Packstock educational purposes; (C) disease or these data, in combination with Effects to Meadow Habitat section, we predation; (D) the inadequacy of documented local population declines added additional information on USFS existing regulatory mechanisms; and (E) from other studies (see above), to and NPS restoration activities to protect other natural or manmade factors support the hypothesis that population meadows, off-highway vehicle effects, affecting its continued existence. Listing declines have occurred range-wide packstock use, and agency monitoring actions may be warranted based on any (Brown et al. 2012, p. 11). and protection activities to limit effects of the above threat factors, singly or in due to packstock use. We revised our combination. Each of these factors is Summary of Changes From the conclusion to clarify that, in general, we discussed below, and changes from the Proposed Rule for the Yosemite Toad do not consider habitat-related changes proposed rule (78 FR 24472, April 25, Based on peer review and Federal, associated with current levels of hiking, 2013) are reflected in these discussions. State, and public comments (see backpacking, or packstock use to pose a Factor A. The Present or Threatened comments in the Summary of risk to Yosemite toad populations. Comments and Recommendations Destruction, Modification, or Recreation may have habitat-related Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range section, below), we clarified information effects to toads in localized areas where for the Yosemite toad to better use adjacent to occupied meadows is The habitat comprising the current characterize our knowledge of the exceptionally heavy, or where heavy or range of the Yosemite toad is generally species’ habitat requirements. motorized use results in changes to characterized by low levels of physical Specifically, we reorganized and meadow hydrology. Accordingly, disturbance (there is little to no current clarified the habitat details (Habitat and rangewide, recreation is a threat of low development pressure). However, these Life History), southern extent of the prevalence. In the section on Dams and areas are also generally more sensitive species’ range (Historic Range and Water Diversions, we added information to perturbation and take longer to Distribution), and species surveys to clarify that almost all reservoirs are recover from disturbances due to (USFS and NPS). We also added located below the range of the Yosemite reduced growing seasons and harsher information on occupancy in National toad. We include small changes in the environmental conditions. Since Parks that was inadvertently omitted Climate Change section to improve Yosemite toads rely heavily on shallow, from the proposed rule (Population clarity or add information from ephemeral water, they may be more Estimates and Status). references provided during peer review. sensitive to minor changes in their In the Summary of Factors Affecting In Factor B, we added information habitat. Loss or alteration of suitable the Species section, under Factor A, we provided during the comment period, breeding habitat can reduce made small changes to the discussion which documented the sale of one reproductive success, which may have a about meadow loss and degradation in Yosemite toad from a pet store in profound impact when population order to improve clarity. In the Southern California (store now closed). numbers are small. Past management Livestock Use (Grazing) Effects to We also added information on and development activity has played a

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:54 Apr 28, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\29APR3.SGM 29APR3 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 24289

role in the degradation of meadow changed the underlying hydrologic Mountain meadows in the western habitats within the Sierra Nevada. system. Diversion and irrigation ditches United States and Sierra Nevada have Human activities within these habitats formed a vast network that altered local also been progressively colonized by include grazing, timber harvest, fuels and regional stream hydrology, although trees (Thompson 2007, p. 3; Vale 1987, management, recreation, and water these manmade systems are generally p. 6), with an apparent pattern of development. below the range of the Yosemite toad. encroachment during two distinct Timber harvest and associated road periods in the late 1800s and mid-1900s Meadow Habitat Loss and Degradation construction further altered erosion and (Halpern et al. 2010, p. 717). This trend Some of the habitat effects associated sediment delivery patterns in rivers and has been attributed to a number of with grazing activities that were meadow streams. Fire suppression and factors, including climate, changes in described for the mountain yellow- an increase in the frequency of large fire regime, and cessation of sheep legged frogs (see the Summary of wildfires due to excessive fuel buildup grazing (Halpern et al. 2010, pp. 717– Factors Affecting the Species section for have introduced additional disturbance 718; Vale 1987, pp. 10–13), but analyses those species, above) also apply to pressures to the meadows of the Sierra are limited to correlational comparisons Yosemite toads. However, there are Nevada (Stillwater Sciences 2008, p. and research results are mixed, so the differences based on the Yosemite toad’s 13). Many meadows now have downcut fundamental contribution of each reliance on very shallow, ephemeral stream courses, compacted soils, altered potential driver remains uncertain. We water in meadow and pool habitats plant community compositions, and discuss the contribution of these factors versus the deeper lakes and streams diminished wildlife and aquatic habitats to habitat loss and degradation for the frequented by mountain yellow-legged (SNEP 1996, pp. 120–121). Yosemite toad below. frogs. Because Yosemite toads rely on Land uses causing channel erosion are very shallow, ephemeral water, they a threat to Sierra Nevada meadows. Livestock Use (Grazing) Effects to may be sensitive to even minor changes These threats include erosive activities Meadow Habitat in their habitat, particularly to within the watershed upslope of the The combined effect of legacy hydrology (Brown 2013, unpaginated). meadow, along with impacts from land conditions from historically excessive Meadow habitat quality in the Western use directly in the meadows themselves. grazing use and current livestock United States, and specifically the Compaction of meadow soils by roads or grazing activities have the potential to Sierra Nevada, has been degraded by intensive trampling (for example, impact habitat in the range of the past activities, such as overgrazing, tree overgrazing) can reduce infiltration, Yosemite toad. The following encroachment, fire suppression, and accelerate surface run-off, and thereby subsections discuss the effects of road building, over the last century lead to channel incision (Menke et al. excessive historical grazing, current (Stillwater Sciences 2008, pp. 1–53; 1996, pp. 25–28). Mining, overgrazing, extent of grazing, and current grazing Halpern et al. 2010, pp. 717–732; Vale timber harvesting, and railroad and road management practices. 1987, pp. 1–18; Ratliff 1985, pp. i–48). construction and maintenance have Overgrazing has been associated with These past activities have contributed to contributed to watershed degradation, accelerated erosion and gullying of erosion and stream incision in areas of resulting in accelerated erosion, meadows (Kattelmann and Embury the Sierra Nevada, leading to meadow sedimentation in streams and reservoirs, 1996, pp. 13, 18), which leads to dewatering and encroachment by meadow dewatering, and degraded siltation and more rapid succession of invasive vegetation (Menke et al. 1996, terrestrial and aquatic habitats (Linquist meadows. Grazing can cause erosion by pp. 25–28; Lindquist and Wilcox 2000, 2000, p. 2). Deep incision has been disturbing the ground, damaging and p. 2). documented in several meadows in the reducing vegetative cover, and Given the reliance of the Yosemite Sierra Nevada. One example is Halstead destroying peat layers in meadows, toad on these meadow and pool habitats Meadow in Sequoia National Park, which lowers the groundwater table and for breeding, rearing, and adult survival, where headcutting exceeds 10 feet in summer flows (Armour et al. 1994, pp. it is logical to conclude that the various many areas and is resulting in widening 9–12; Martin 2002, pp. 1–3; Kauffman stressors have had an indirect effect on channels, erosion in additional and Krueger 1984, pp. 431–434). the viability of Yosemite toad meadows, and a lowered water table Downcut channels, no longer connected populations via degradation of their (Cooper and Wolf 2006, p. 1). to the historic, wide floodplains of the habitat. Loss of connectivity of habitats The hydrologic effects of stream meadow, instead are confined within leads to further isolation and population incision on the groundwater system may narrow, incised channels. Downstream, fragmentation. Because of physiological significantly impact groundwater formerly perennial (year-round) streams constraints, the tendency to move only storage, affecting late summer soil often become intermittent or dry due to short distances, and high site fidelity, moisture and facilitating vegetation loss of water storage capacity in the amphibians may be unable to recolonize change (Bergmann 2004, pp. 24–31). For meadow aquifers that formerly unoccupied sites following local example, in the northern Sierra Nevada, sustained them (Lindquist et al. 1997, extinctions if the distance between sites logging, overgrazing, and road/railroad pp. 7–8). is too great, although recolonization can construction have caused stream Heavy grazing can alter vegetative occur over time (Blaustein et al. 1994a, incision, resulting in dewatering of species composition and contribute to p. 8). riparian meadow sediments and a lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta) Since the existence of meadows is succession from native wet meadow invasion (Ratliff 1985, pp. 33–36). largely dependent on their hydrologic vegetation to sagebrush and dryland Lowering of the water table facilitates setting, most meadow degradation is grasses (Loheide and Gorelick 2007, p. encroachment of conifers into meadows. due fundamentally to hydrologic 2). A woody shrub (Artemisia Gully formation and lowering of water alterations (Stillwater Sciences 2008, p. rothrockii) is invading meadows as tables, changes in the composition of 13). There are many drivers of channel incision causes shallow-water- herbaceous vegetation, increases in the hydrologic alterations in meadow dependent herbs to die back, allowing density of forested stands, and the ecosystems. In some locations, historic shrub seedlings to establish in disturbed expansion of trees into areas that water development and ongoing water areas during wet years (Darrouzet-Nardi formerly were treeless have been management activities have physically et al. 2006, p. 31). documented in California wilderness

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:54 Apr 28, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\29APR3.SGM 29APR3 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES 24290 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

areas and National Parks (Cole and the Effects of Excessive Historical erosion, and stream entrenchment that Landres 1996, p. 171). This invasion has Grazing section in Factor A analysis for resulted in lowered water tables, drier been attributed to sheep grazing, though the Sierra Nevada and mountain yellow- meadows, and tree encroachment could the phenomenon has been observed on legged frogs, above). still be observed in some Sierran both ungrazed meadows and on Livestock grazing in the Sierra Nevada meadows, especially in National Forests meadows grazed continually since about has been widespread for so long that, in where grazing was more intense (Vankat 1900 (Ratliff 1985, p. 35), suggesting most places, no ungrazed areas are and Major 1978, pp. 386–397). Meadow that other drivers may be involved (see available to illustrate the natural conditions in the Sierra Nevada have ‘‘Effects of Fire Suppression on Meadow condition of the habitat (Kattelmann improved over time, but local problems Habitats’’ and ‘‘Climate Effects to and Embury 1996, pp. 16–18). Dull could still be found as of 1985 (Ratliff Meadow Habitat’’ below). (1999, p. 899) conducted stratigraphic 1985, pp. ii–iii) and numerous examples pollen analysis (identification of pollen of head-cutting and stream incision are Effects of Historical Livestock Grazing in sedimentary layers) in mountain available within the range of the toad Grazing of livestock in Sierra Nevada meadows of the Kern Plateau, and found (Knapp 2013, unpaginated). (For meadows and riparian areas (rivers, significant vegetation changes additional information, see sections streams, and adjacent upland areas that attributable to sheep and cattle grazing above pertaining to effects of grazing on directly affect them) began in the mid- by 1900 (though fire regime change was the mountain yellow-legged frogs.) 1700s with the European settlement of also implicated; see below). This The influence of grazing on toad California (Menke et al. 1996, p. 7). degradation is widespread across the populations in recent history is Following the gold rush of the mid- Sierra Nevada. Cooper and Wolf 2006 uncertain, despite more available data 1800s, grazing increased to a level (p. 1) reports that 50 to 80 percent of on land use and Yosemite toad exceeding the carrying capacity of the grazed meadows now dominated by dry occurrence. In 2005, the USFS, in available range, causing significant meadow plants were formerly wet collaboration with other researchers, impacts to meadow and riparian meadows (Cooper and Wolf 2006, p. 1). began a 5-year study with multiple ecosystems (Meehan and Platts 1978, p. Due to the long history (Menke et al. components to assess the effects of 275; Menke et al. 1996, p. 7). By the turn 1996, Ch. 22, pp. 1–52) of livestock and grazing on Yosemite toads (Allen-Diaz of the 20th century, high Sierra Nevada packstock grazing in the Sierra Nevada et al. 2010, pp. 1–45; Roche et al. 2012a, meadows were converted to summer and the lack of historical Yosemite toad pp. 56–65; Roche et al. 2012b, pp. 1–11; rangelands for grazing cattle, sheep, population size estimates, it is McIlroy et al.. 2013, pp. 1–11). horses, goats, and pigs, although the impossible to establish a reliable Specifically, the goals of the research alpine areas were mainly grazed by quantitative estimate for the historical were to assess: (1) Whether livestock sheep (Beesley 1996, pp. 7–8; Menke et significance and contribution of grazing grazing under SNFPA Riparian al. 1996, p. 14). Stocking rates of both on Yosemite toad populations. Standards and Guidelines has a cattle and sheep in Sierra meadows in However, because of the documented measurable effect on Yosemite toad the late 19th and early 20th centuries negative effects of livestock on Yosemite populations and (2) effects of livestock were very heavy (Kosco and Bartolome toad habitat, and the documented direct grazing on key habitat components that 1981, pp. 248–250), and grazing mortality caused by livestock, the affect survival and recruitment of severely degraded many meadows decline of some populations of Yosemite toad populations. SNFPA (Ratliff 1985, pp. 26–31; Menke et al. Yosemite toad has been attributed to the standards and guidelines limit livestock 1996, p. 14). Grazing impacts occurred effects of livestock grazing (Jennings and utilization of grass and grass-like plants across the entire range of the Yosemite Hayes 1994, pp. 50–53; Jennings 1996, to a maximum of 40 percent (or a toad, as cattle and sheep were driven pp. 921–944). Because Yosemite toad minimum 4-inch stubble height) (USDA virtually everywhere in the Sierra breeding habitat is generally in very 2004, p. 56). These companion studies Nevada where forage was available shallow waters within meadows, the did not detect an effect from grazing (Kinney 1996, pp. 37–42; Menke et al. breeding habitat is thought to be more activity on young-of-year toad density or 1996, p. 14). vulnerable to changes in hydrology breeding pool occupancy, water quality, Grazing within the National Forests caused by grazing because the small or cover (Allen-Diaz et al. 2010, p. 1; has continued into recent times, with shallow pools are more easily impacted Roche et al. 2012a, p. 56; Roche et al. reduction in activity (motivated by (Knapp 2002c, p. 1; Martin 2002, pp. 1– 2012b, p. 1–1; McIlroy et al.. 2013, p. 1). resource concerns, conflicts with other 3; USFS et al. 2009, pp. 22, 59–62; It is important to note that the results uses, and deteriorating range Brown 2013, unpaginated). U.S. of these studies did not present a direct conditions) beginning in the 1920s. A Geological Survey records indicate that measurement of toad survival (for brief wartime increase in the 1940s Yosemite, Sequoia, and Kings Canyon example, mark—recapture analysis of followed, before grazing continued to be have no meadows within the parks that population trends), and the design was scaled back beginning in the 1950s are documented to have degraded limited in numbers of years and through the early 1970s. However, hydrology (see NPS 2013, p. 7); treatment replicates. It is plausible that, despite these reductions, grazing still conditions in the parks may be related for longer lived species with irregular exceeded sustainable capacity in many to the early elimination of most grazing female breeding activity over the time areas (Menke et al. 1996, p. 9; UC 1996a, on national parklands in the Sierra course of this particular study, p. 115). Historical evidence indicates Nevada. statistical power was not sufficient to that heavy livestock use in the Sierra discern a treatment effect. Further, a Nevada has resulted in widespread Effects of Current Livestock Grazing time lag could occur between effect and damage to rangelands and riparian Currently, approximately 33 percent discernible impacts, and significant systems due to sod destruction in of the estimated range of the Yosemite confounding variability in known meadows, vegetation destruction, and toad is within active USFS grazing drivers such as interannual variation in gully erosion (see review in Brown et al. allotments (USFS 2008, geospatial data). climate. 2009, pp. 56–58 and in USFS et al. While stocking rates have been reduced Additionally, the experimental design 2009, p. 57). (For additional information or eliminated in most areas, legacy in the studies tested the hypothesis that on historical grazing regimes, refer to effects including eroded channels, soil forest management guidelines (at 40

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:54 Apr 28, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\29APR3.SGM 29APR3 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 24291

percent use threshold) were impacting where grazing and toads co-occur in compaction or erosion (Helms and toad populations, and this limited some meadows. Tappeiner 1996, pp. 439–476). Roads analyses and experimental design to The available grazing studies focus on may alter both the physical environment sites with lower treatment intensities. breeding habitat (wet meadows) and do and the chemical environment; roads Researchers reported annual utilization not consider impacts to upland habitats. may present barriers to movement and by cattle ranging from 10–48 percent, The USFS grazing guidelines for may alter hydrologic and geomorphic while individual meadow use ranged protection of meadow habitats of the processes that shape aquatic systems, from 0–76 percent (the SNFPA Yosemite toad include fencing breeding while vehicle emissions and road-runoff allowable use is capped at 40 percent) meadows, but they do not necessarily are expected to contain chemicals that (Allen-Diaz et al. 2010, p. 5). As a result protect upland habitat. Martin (2008) may be toxic (USFS et al. 2009, pp. 71– of the study design, the Allen-Diaz surveyed 11 meadow sites located along 73). Timber harvests and past study does not provide sufficient a stream channel in or near low growing development of roads could potentially information on the impacts of grazing willows both before and after cattle also lead to increased rates of siltation, on Yosemite toads above the prescribed grazed the entire meadow, and Martin contributing to the loss of breeding management guidelines. In general, it is found that Yosemite toads could no habitats for the Yosemite toad. not clear to what extent brief episodes longer be located along the stream Prior to the formation of National of intense use (such as in cattle channel after the vegetation was grazed. Parks and National Forests, timber gathering areas) have as negative However, both adults and subadults harvest was widespread and impacts on toads, or over what could be found in dense willow thickets unregulated in the Sierra Nevada; percentage of the grazed meadow or in parts of the meadow that were less however, most cutting occurred below landscape such heavier usage may heavily grazed (Martin 2008, p. 298). the current elevation range of the occur. Grazing can also degrade or destroy Yosemite toad (University of California The researchers observed significant moist upland areas used as nonbreeding at Davis (UCD) UC 1996b, pp. 17–45; variation in young-of-year occupancy in habitat by Yosemite toads (Martin 2008, USFS et al. 2009, p. 77). Between 1900 pools between meadows and years, and p. 159), especially when nearby and 1950, most timber harvest occurred within meadows over years (Allen-Diaz meadow and riparian areas have been in old-growth forests on private land et al. 2010, p. 7). This variability would fenced to exclude livestock. Livestock (UC 1996b, pp. 17–45). During this likely mask treatment effects, unless the may also collapse rodent burrows used period, forest plans often lacked by Yosemite toads as cover and standards to protect riparian areas and grazing variable was a dominant factor hibernation sites (Martin 2008, p. 159) associated meadows, leading to harvest driving site occupancy, and the or disturb toads and disrupt their activities that included cutting to edges magnitude of the effect was quite severe. behavior. Martin (2008, pp. 305–306) of riparian areas and forest road Further, in an addendum to the initial observed that grazing significantly construction that often crossed streams, report, Lind et al. (2011b, pp. 12–14) reduced vegetation height at grazed associated aquatic habitat, and report statistically significant negative meadow foraging sites, and since these meadows, and resulted in head-cutting, (inverse) relationships for tadpole areas are not protected by current lowered water tables, and loss of density and grazing intensity (tadpole grazing guidelines, deduced that cattle riparian habitats; legacies of these past densities decreased when percent use grazing is having a negative effect on activities remain today (USFS et al. exceeded between 30 and 40 percent). terrestrial life stage survivorship in 2009, p. 77). Currently on National This result supports the hypothesis that Yosemite toads. This problem was Forests, timber harvest and related grazing at intensities approaching and exacerbated as fenced areas effectively vegetation management activities above the 40 percent threshold can shifted grazing activity to upland areas overlap with Yosemite toads primarily negatively affect Yosemite toad actively used by terrestrial life stages of in the lower elevation portions of the populations. the Yosemite toad (Martin 2008, p. 306). species’ range; the red fir and lodgepole Allen-Diaz et al. (2010, p. 2) and Although we lack definitive data to forests that generally surround high- Roche et al. (2012b, pp. 6–7) found that assess the link between Yosemite toad elevation meadows that are Yosemite toad occupancy is strongly driven by population dynamics and habitat toad habitat do not have commercial meadow wetness (hydrology) and degradation by livestock grazing value (USFS et al. 2009, pp. 76, 77). suggested attention should focus on activity, in light of the documented Forest standards and guidelines contemporary factors directly impacting impacts to meadow habitats (including currently provide protections for meadow wetness, such as climate, fire effects on local hydrology) from grazing riparian areas, such as buffers for timber regime changes, and conifer activity in general, we consider this and vegetation management activities. encroachment (see Factor A above). The threat prevalent with moderate impacts The majority of forest roads in researchers also stated that meadow use to the Yosemite toad and a potential National Forests of the Sierra Nevada by cattle during the grazing season is limiting factor in population recovery were built between 1950 and 1990, to driven by selection of plant rangewide. In addition, given the support major increases in timber communities found in drier meadows potential for negative impacts from harvest on National Forests, (USDA (Allen-Diaz et al. 2010, p. 2). This heavy use, and the vulnerability of toad 2001a, p. 443), suggesting that many suggests that the apparent differences in habitat should grazing management forest roads occur at elevations below preference could provide for some practices change with new management the current range of the Yosemite toad. segregation of toad and livestock use in plans, we expect this threat to continue Relatively few public roads, including meadow habitats, so that at least direct into the future. trans-Sierran State Highways 4 (Ebbetts mortality threats may be mitigated by Pass), 88 (Carson Pass), 108 (Sonora behavioral isolation. Based on the Roads and Timber Harvest Effects to Pass), and 120 (Tioga Pass), cross the limitations of the study as described Meadow Habitat high elevations of the Sierra Nevada above, we find the initial results from Road construction and use, along with within the range of the Yosemite toad Allen-Diaz et al. (2010, pp. 1–45) to be timber harvest activity, may impact (USFS et al. 2009, p. 71), although inconclusive to discern the impacts of Yosemite toad habitat via fragmentation, smaller public roads are present in some grazing on Yosemite toad populations ground disturbance, and soil high-elevation areas. One percent of

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:54 Apr 28, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\29APR3.SGM 29APR3 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES 24292 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

Yosemite toad populations occur on continued by sheepherders (Kilgore and 1996, p. 1072) that are the setting for private lands where urbanization and Taylor 1979, p. 139). Beginning in the Yosemite toad habitats at higher corresponding construction of new 20th century, land management in the elevations. The effects of fire roads may be more likely (USFS et al. Sierra Nevada shifted to focus on fire suppression on forest structure is 2009, p. 71); however, we are not aware suppression as a guiding policy (UC thought to be far less important in the of any proposals for new road 2007, p. 10). longer interval forest types (Chang 1996, construction at this time. Long-term fire suppression has p. 1072). We expect that the majority of timber influenced forest structure and altered While no studies have confirmed a harvest, road development, and ecosystem dynamics in the Sierra link between fire suppression and associated management impacts (see Nevada. In general, the time between rangewide population decline of the ‘‘Effects of Fire Suppression on Meadow fires is now much longer than it was Yosemite toad, circumstantial evidence Habitats’’ below) to Yosemite toad historically, and live and dead fuels are to date suggests that historic fire habitat took place during the expansion more abundant and continuous (USDA suppression may be a factor underlying period in the latter half of the 20th 2001a, p. 35). Much of the habitat for meadow encroachment at lower century. Using a model, Liang et al. the Yosemite toad occurs in high- elevations. The effect of fire (2010, p. 16) found that Yosemite toads elevation meadows within wilderness suppression, therefore, is thought to be were more likely to occur in areas closer and backcountry areas where vegetation largely restricted to lower elevations to timber activity, although the high is sparse and fire suppression activities within the Yosemite toad’s range; fire correlation between elevation and the are rarely conducted (USFS et al. 2009, suppression activities are rarely distance to harvest activity in model p. 55), suggesting that fire suppression conducted where much of the habitat results definitive conclusions regarding has played a limited role in such for the Yosemite toad occurs (USFS et cause and effect. However, they noted locations. At high elevations, al. 2009, pp. 51–54). Based on the best that, because timber harvest activities encroachment of lodgepole pine at available information, we find it likely may maintain breeding sites by opening meadow edges has been attributed to that habitat modification due to reduced the forest canopy and potentially cessation of sheep grazing or legacy fire frequency is a moderate threat to preventing encroachment of trees into effects of high-intensity grazing that Yosemite toad in those lower-elevation sites, breeding animals might benefit reduced water tables, as opposed to fire areas where fire suppression has from timber activity (Liang et al. 2010, suppression activities (Vankat and resulted in conifer encroachment into p. 16). Limited information from timber Major 1978, pp. 392–395). At lower meadows. sale areas where low-elevation elevations, it is not clear how habitat populations occur indicates that such changes attributed to fire suppression Recreation and Packstock Effects to activities may negatively affect upland have affected Yosemite toad Meadow Habitat habitat use if burrow sites are crushed populations. However, Liang et al. (USFS 2013, p. 6). Although ground- (2010, p. 16) observed that toads were Recreational activities take place disturbance due to timber harvest less likely to occur in areas where the throughout the Sierra Nevada, and they activities has the potential to have fire regime was significantly altered can have significant negative impacts on population-level effects on Yosemite from historical conditions, and wildlife and their habitats (USDA toad habitat, especially where habitat is suggested that the toads are affected by 2001a, pp. 221, 453–500). Recreation limited, currently the best available some unknown or unmeasured factors can cause considerable impact to information does not indicate that the related to fire management. vegetation and soils in western U.S. current level of timber harvest occurring Evidence indicates that fire plays a Wilderness Areas and National Parks within watersheds currently inhabited significant role in the evolution and even with light use, with recovery by the Yosemite toad is adversely maintenance of lower elevation forested occurring only after considerable affecting habitat (USFS et al. 2009, p. meadows of the Sierra Nevada. Under periods of non-use (USFS et al. 2009, p. 77). Therefore the best available natural conditions, conifers are 66). Heavy foot traffic in riparian areas scientific and commercial information excluded from meadows by fire and tramples vegetation, compacts soils, and does not indicate that ongoing road saturated soils. Small fires thin and/or can physically damage streambanks. construction and maintenance or timber destroy encroaching conifers, while Trails (foot, horse, bicycle, or off- harvest are significant threats to the large fires are believed to determine the highway motor vehicle) can compact the Yosemite toad. There may be localized meadow—forest boundary (Vankat and soil, displace vegetation, and increase effects of these activities in areas where Major 1978, p. 394; Parsons and erosion, thereby potentially lowering legacy effects continue to result in DeBenedetti 1979, pp. 29–31). Fire is the water table (Kondolph et al. 1996, modified wet meadow habitat thought to be important in maintaining pp. 1009–1026). However, the National conditions, or where current harvest open aquatic and riparian habitats for Park Service considers current hiking and road activities occur in close amphibians in some systems (Russel et and backpacking activities to be a proximity to extant Yosemite toad al. 1999, pp. 374–384), and fire negligible risk factor for the Yosemite populations. suppression may have thereby toad within the Parks. The Parks have contributed to conifer encroachment on also worked to improve impacted Effects of Fire Suppression on Meadow meadows (Chang 1996, pp. 1071–1099; meadows by reconstructing poorly Habitats NPS 2002, p. 1). However, fire designed trails that have degraded Fire management refers to activities suppression effects are thought to vary meadow hydrology, also identifying over the past century to combat forest with ecosystem fire regime; variable- additional Yosemite toad meadows to fires. Historically, both lightning-caused interval fires are characteristic of the prioritize additional restoration fires and fires ignited by American upper montane red fir forests (Chang activities (NPS 2013, p. 9). Similar Indians were regularly observed in 1996, pp. 107, 1072) that are the setting activities have been implemented on western forests (Parsons and Botti 1996, for Yosemite toad habitat at the lower National Forests; for example, the Inyo p. 29), and in the latter 19th century, the elevations of its range, while long- National Forest has re-routed several active use of fire to eliminate tree interval fires are characteristic of the trails to avoid the toad’s breeding canopy in favor of forage plants subalpine lodgepole pine forests (Chang habitat (USFS 2013, p. 5).

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:54 Apr 28, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\29APR3.SGM 29APR3 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 24293

Although much Yosemite toad habitat continuing meadow damage, or where into meadows. The first factor affecting is located in wilderness or other off-highway vehicle use results in the rate of conifer encroachment into backcountry areas removed from changes in meadow hydrology. meadow habitats, fire suppression, was motorized access, the USFS has noted However, in general, we do not consider discussed above. Climate variability is locations where proximity of roads or habitat-related changes associated with another factor affecting the rate of off-highway vehicle routes to Yosemite current levels of hiking or backpacking conifer encroachment on meadow toad breeding habitat has resulted in to pose a population-level risk to habitats. A study by Franklin et al. observed impacts to Yosemite breeding Yosemite toads. Therefore, at this time (1971, p. 215) concluded that fire had habitat. Off-highway vehicles are often we consider recreational activities to be little influence on meadow maintenance the first vehicles to pass through roads a low prevalence threat across the range in their study area, while another study blocked by winter snows, occasionally of the Yosemite toad. concluded that climate change is a more driving off the road to pass remaining likely explanation for encroachment of Dams and Water Diversions Effects to obstacles (USFS et al. 2009, p. 63). trees into the adjacent meadow at their Meadow Habitat Records of such off-highway vehicle site, rather than fire suppression or travel in breeding meadows and ponds Past construction of dams, diversion, changes in grazing intensity (Dyer and (USFS 2013, pp. 6, 7) suggests that such and irrigation ditches resulted in a vast Moffett, 1999, p. 444). activities have the potential to man-made network that altered local Climatic variability is strongly negatively affect these habitats, although and regional stream hydrology in the correlated with tree encroachment into the population-level effects to Yosemite Sierra Nevada (SNEP 1996, p. 120), dry subalpine meadows (Jakubos and toads are thought to be limited. although, with the exception of several Romme 1993, p. 382). In the Sierra Packstock use has similar effects to dozen small impoundments and Nevada, most lodgepole pine seedlings those discussed for livestock grazing (for diversions, almost all of these are become established during years of low additional information on current located below the range of the Yosemite snowpack when meadow soil moisture packstock use levels and management toad (USFS et al. 2009, pp. 76, 77). is reduced (Wood 1975, p. 129). The protections, see the Packstock Use However, in the past a small number of length of the snow-free period may be section under the mountain yellow- reservoirs were constructed within the the most critical variable in tree legged frogs, above), although this risk historic range of the Yosemite toad, invasion of subalpine meadows factor is potentially more problematic as most notably Upper and Lower Blue (Franklin et al. 1971, p. 222), with the this land use typically takes place in Lakes, Edison, Florence, Huntington, establishment of a good seed crop, more remote and higher-elevation areas Courtright, and Wishon Reservoirs. followed by an early snowmelt, occupied by Yosemite toads, and Construction of several high-elevation resulting in significant tree packstock tend to graze in many of the reservoirs (for example, Edison and establishment. It is apparent that same locations that the toads prefer Florence) is thought to have inundated periods of low snowpack and early melt (USFS et al. 2009, p. 65). Currently, shallow-water breeding habitat for the may in fact be necessary for seedling there are very few studies on the effects toad (USFS et al. 2009, pp. 76, 77). establishment (Ratliff, 1985, p. 35). of packstock grazing on amphibians, Where reservoirs are used for Millar et al. (2004, p. 181) reported that especially in the Sierra Nevada. hydroelectric power, water-level increased temperature, coupled with However, in Yosemite, Sequoia, and declines caused by drawdown of reduced moisture availability in relation Kings Canyon National Parks, packstock reservoirs can lead to the mortality of to large-scale temporal shifts in climate, use is monitored annually to prevent eggs and tadpoles by stranding and facilitated the invasion of 10 subalpine long-term impacts. Additionally, the desiccation, although, with the meadows studied in the Sierra Nevada. NPS (2013, p. 9) has indicated that, exception of Blue Lakes, Yosemite toads Our analyses under the Act include except for a few specific areas, are currently not known from the above consideration of ongoing and projected packstock use and Yosemite toads reservoirs (USFS et al. 2009, pp. 78, 79). changes in climate. The terms ‘‘climate’’ typically do not overlap within the Past construction of these reservoirs and ‘‘climate change’’ are defined by the Parks. Many areas are closed to likely contributed to the decline of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate packstock use entirely or limited to day Yosemite toad in the area where they Change (IPCC). ‘‘Climate’’ refers to the use due to inadequate trail access or to were built. Increasing effects from mean and variability of different types protect sensitive areas. Long-term use climate change, or new water supply of weather conditions over time, with 30 data indicate that packstock use is development in response to such effects, years being a typical period for such declining, with no evidence to suggest may exacerbate this risk in the future if measurements, although shorter or that it will increase in the future (NPS new reservoirs are constructed within longer periods also may be used (IPCC 2013, pp. 6, 7). Where permitted, areas occupied by the toad. However, 2007, p. 1450; IPCC 2013a, Annex III). current guidelines in the National Parks we are not aware of any proposals to The term ‘‘climate change’’ thus refers limit trips to 20–25 animals, regulated construct additional reservoirs within to a change in the mean or variability of under conditional use permits (Brooks the Yosemite toads range. We expect one or more measures of climate (for 2012, pers. comm.). Similar standards that continuing reservoir operations example, temperature or precipitation) and guidelines limit packstock group may have continued habitat-related that persists for an extended period, size and use within the National Forests effects to toad populations in these typically decades or longer, whether the (USFS 2013, pp. 3–5). developed areas, but less so in the change is due to natural variability, Habitat-related effects of recreational current extent of the Yosemite toad’s human activity, or both (IPCC 2007, p. activities on the Yosemite toad may (remnant) range. Therefore, we consider 1450; IPCC 2013a, Annex III). A recent have population-level impacts in this threat to be of low prevalence to the compilation of climate change and its localized areas and under site-specific Yosemite toad across its range. effects is available from reports of the conditions, for example, where foot Intergovernmental Panel on Climate traffic adjacent to occupied meadows is Climate Effects to Meadow Habitat Change (IPCC) (IPCC 2013b, entire). exceptionally heavy and results in Different studies indicate that Various types of changes in climate can meadow damage, where legacy effects of multiple drivers are behind the have direct or indirect effects on high recreation use have resulted in phenomenon of conifer encroachment species. These effects may be positive,

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:54 Apr 28, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\29APR3.SGM 29APR3 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES 24294 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

neutral, or negative, and they may of dissolved oxygen, and that water since 1950, annual acreage burned in change over time, depending on the balance heavily influences amphibian wildfires statewide has been increasing species and other relevant physiology and behavior. They predict in California, and in the western United considerations, such as the effects of that projected changes in temperature States, large wildfires have become interactions of climate with other and precipitation are likely to increase more frequent, increasing in tandem variables (for example, habitat habitat loss and alteration for those with rising spring and summer fragmentation) (IPCC 2007, pp. 8–14, species living in sensitive habitats, such temperatures. Finally, the report found 18–19). In our analyses, we use our as ephemeral ponds and alpine habitats that today’s subalpine forests in the expert judgment to weigh relevant (Blaustein et al. 2010, pp. 285–287). Sierra Nevada are much denser—that is, information, including uncertainty, in Because environmental cues such as comprise more small-diameter trees— our consideration of various aspects of temperature and precipitation are than they were over 70 years ago. climate change. clearly linked to onset of reproduction During this time period, warmer For the Sierra Nevada ecoregion, in many species, climate change will temperatures, earlier snowmelt, and climate models predict that mean likely affect the timing of reproduction more rain than snow occurred in this annual temperatures will increase by 1.8 in many species, potentially with region. Many of these changes in the to 2.4 °C (3.2 to 4.3 °F) by 2070, different sexes responding differently to Sierra Nevada of California due to including warmer winters with earlier climate change. For example, males of climate are likely to influence Yosemite spring snowmelt and higher summer two newt species (Triturus spp.) showed toads because they are highly vulnerable temperatures (PRBO 2011, p. 18). a greater degree of change in arrival date to climate change because changing Additionally, mean annual rainfall is at breeding ponds (Blaustein et al. 2010, hydrology and habitat in the Sierra projected to decrease from the current p. 288). Lower concentrations of Nevada will likely have impacts on average by some 9.2–33.9 cm (3.6–13.3 dissolved oxygen in aquatic habitats remaining populations (Viers et al. in) by 2070 (PRBO 2011, p. 18). may negatively affect developing 2013, pp. 55, 56). However, projections have high embryos and larvae, in part because Historically, drought is thought to uncertainty, and one study predicts the increases in temperature increase the have contributed to the decline of the opposite effect (PRBO 2011, p. 18). oxygen consumption rate in Yosemite toad (Kagarise Sherman and Snowpack is, by all projections, going to amphibians. Reduced oxygen Morton 1993, p. 186; Jennings and decrease dramatically (following the concentrations have also been shown to Hayes 1994, pp. 50–53). Extended and temperature rise and increase in result in accelerated hatching in ranid more severe droughts pose an ongoing, precipitation falling as rain) (PRBO frogs, but at a smaller size, while larval rangewide risk to the species and are 2011, p. 19); (Kadir et al. 2013, pp. 76– development and behavior may also be expected to increase with predicted 80). Higher winter stream flows, earlier affected and may be mediated by larval climate changes (PRBO 2011, p. 18). runoff, and reduced spring and summer density and food availability (Blaustein Such changes may reduce both the stream flows are projected, with et al. 2010, pp. 288–289). amount of suitable breeding habitat and increasing severity in the southern Increased temperatures can reduce the length of time that suitable water is Sierra Nevada (PRBO 2011, pp. 20–22); time to metamorphosis, which can available in that habitat (Brown 2013, (Kadir et al. 2013, pp. 71–75). increase chances of survival where unpaginated). Snow-dominated elevations from ponds dry, but also result in Davidson et al. (2002, p. 1598) 2,000–2,800 m (6,560–9,190 ft) will be metamorphosis at a smaller size, analyzed geographic decline patterns for the most sensitive to temperature suggesting a likely trade-off between the Yosemite toad. They compared increases (PRBO 2011, p. 23). Meadows development and growth, which may be known areas of extirpation against a fed by snowmelt may dry out or be more exacerbated by climate change and have hypothesized model for climate change ephemeral during the non-winter fitness consequences for adults that would predict greater numbers of months (PRBO 2011, p. 24). This pattern (Blaustein et al. 2010, pp. 289–290). extirpations at lower altitudes, and in could influence groundwater transport, Changes in terrestrial habitat, such as more southern latitudes. The and springs may be similarly depleted, changed soil moisture and vegetation, researchers did not observe a pattern in leading to lower water levels in can also directly affect adult and the available historic data to support the available breeding habitat and decreased juvenile amphibians, especially those climate change hypothesis as a driver of area and hydroperiod (i.e., duration of adapted to moist forest floors and cool, historic population losses, although water retention) of suitable habitat for highly oxygenated water that they acknowledge that climate change rearing tadpoles of Yosemite toads. characterizes montane regions. Climate may be a contributor in more complex Changes in water transport may promote change may also interact with other or subtle ways. Additionally, this study channel incision and result in a shift to stressors that may be acting on a was limited by small sample size, and non-meadow conditions (Viers et al. particular species, such as disease and it is possible that climate change effects 2013, p. 31). contaminants (Blaustein et al. 2010, pp. on the Yosemite toad (a long-lived Blaustein et al. (2010, pp. 285–300) 290–299). species) may not become evident for provide an exhaustive review of A recent paper (Kadir et al. 2013, many years (USFS et al. 2009, p. 48). potential direct and indirect and entire) provides specific information on Finally, Davidson et al. (2002, p. 1598) habitat-related effects of climate change the effects of climate change in the did find an increase in occupancy with to amphibian species, with Sierra Nevada. The report found that elevation (greater densities of documentation of effects in a number of glaciers in the Sierra Nevada have populations at altitude), and this species where such effects have been decreased in area over the past century, observation is consistent with a pattern studied. Altitudinal range shifts with and glacier shrinkage results in earlier that would fit a response to climate changes in climate have been reported peak water runoff and drier summer change (USFS et al. 2009, p. 48). in some regions. They note that conditions. Another result from the However, this observation would also be temperature can influence the report is that the lower edge of the consistent if the features of these concentration of dissolved oxygen in conifer-dominated forests in the Sierra particular habitats (such as at higher aquatic habitats, with warmer water Nevada has been retreating upslope over elevation) were more suited to the generally having lower concentrations the past 60 years. Regarding wildfire, special ecological requirements of the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:54 Apr 28, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\29APR3.SGM 29APR3 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 24295

toad, or if other stressors acting on Factor B. Overutilization for vulnerable to fish predation than frogs populations at lower elevations were Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or because they breed primarily in responsible for the declines. We, Educational Purposes ephemeral waters that do not support therefore, find these results We do not have any scientific or fish. Further, Jennings and Hayes (1994, inconclusive. commercial information to indicate that pp. 50–53) stated that the palatability of Yosemite toad tadpoles to fish predators Most recently, modeled vulnerability overutilization for commercial, is unknown, but often assumed to be assessments for Sierra Nevada montane recreational, or scientific purposes low based on the unpalatability of meadow systems have utilized life poses a threat to the Yosemite toad. There is currently no known western toads (Drost and Fellers 1994, history and habitat requirements to pp. 414–425; Kiesecker et al. 1996, pp. gauge vulnerability of amphibian commercial market for Yosemite toads, although one pet store in Los Angeles 1237–1245), to which Yosemite toads species to climate change. This are closely related. Grasso (2005, p. 1) assessment indicates that vulnerability that is no longer in business had previously sold at least one Yosemite observed brook trout swimming near, to hydro-climatic changes will likely be but the trout ignored Yosemite toad very high for the Yosemite toad, and toad (USFS et al. 2009, pp. 65–66); and there is also no documented recreational tadpoles, suggesting that tadpoles are that continued or worsening stream unpalatable. The study also found that channelization in montane meadows or educational use for Yosemite toads. Scientific research may cause some subadult Yosemite toads were not from flashy storms may worsen effects stress to Yosemite toads through consumed by brook trout (Grasso 2005, by further reductions in the water table disturbance and disruption of behavior, p. 1), although the sublethal effects of (Viers et al. 2013, p. 56). handling, and injuries associated with trout ‘‘sampling’’ (mouthing and The breeding ecology and life history marking individuals. This activity has ejecting tadpoles) and the palatability of of the Yosemite toad are that of a habitat resulted in the known death of subadults to other trout species are specialist, as it utilizes pool and individuals through accidental unknown. Martin (2002, p. 1) observed meadow habitats during the onset of trampling (Green and Kagarise Sherman brook trout preying on Yosemite toad snowmelt and carefully times its 2001, pp. 92–103), irradiation from tadpoles, and also saw them ‘‘pick at’’ reproduction to fit available conditions radioactive tags (Karlstrom 1957, pp. Yosemite toad eggs (which later became within ephemeral breeding sites. The 187–195), and collection for museum infected with fungus). In addition, most striking documented declines in specimens (Jennings and Hayes 1994, metamorphosed western toads have Yosemite toad populations in the pp. 50–53). We expect that requirements been observed in golden trout stomach contents (Knapp 2002c, p. 1). historical record are correlated with for Federal (USFS and NPS) and State Nevertheless, Grasso et al. (2010, p. 457) extreme climate episodes (drought) (CDFW) research and special use concluded that early life stages of the (Kagarise Sherman and Morton 1993, permits, and University ethics requirements provide some protections Yosemite toad likely possess chemical pp. 186–198). Given these observations, defenses that provide sufficient it is likely that climate change (see also for wildlife-research subjects and limit negative effects to individuals. protection from native trout predation. discussion in mountain yellow-legged The observed predation of Yosemite Therefore, we do not currently consider frog’s Summary of Factors Affecting the toad tadpoles by trout (Martin 1992, p. ongoing and future scientific research to Species, under Factor E) poses a 1) indicates that introduced fishes may be a threat to the Yosemite toad. We also significant risk to the Yosemite toad pose a predation risk to the species in anticipate that further research into the now and in the future. It is quite some situations, which may be possible that these impacts are genetics and life history of the Yosemite accentuated during drought years. At a occurring currently, and have occurred toad and broader methodological site where Yosemite toads normally over the last few decades. However, it censuses will provide a net conservation breed in small meadow ponds, they is difficult in short time intervals to benefit to this under-studied species. have been observed to successfully Based on the best available scientific discern the degree of effect from climate switch breeding activities to stream and commercial information, we do not change within the variability of natural habitat containing fish during years of consider overutilization for commercial, climate cycles. low water (Strand 2002, p. 1). Thus, recreational, scientific, or educational In summary, based on the best drought conditions may increase the purposes to be a threat to the Yosemite toads’ exposure to predatory fish, and available scientific and commercial toad. information, we consider the threats of place them in habitats where they destruction, modification, and Factor C. Disease or Predation compete with fish for invertebrate prey. Additionally, although the number of curtailment of the species’ habitat and Predation lake breeding sites used by Yosemite range to be significant ongoing threats to Prior to the trout stocking of high toads is small relative to the number of the Yosemite toad. The legacy effects of Sierra Nevada lakes, which began over ephemeral sites, lake sites may be past land uses have altered meadow a century ago, fish were entirely absent especially important because they are communities through the mechanism of from most of this region (Bradford 1989, more likely to be habitable during years stream incision by permanently pp. 775–778). Observations regarding with low water (Knapp 2002c, p. 1). reducing habitat quantity and quality the effects of introduced fishes on the Overall, the data and available unless active and costly restoration is Yosemite toad are mixed. However, re- literature suggest that direct mortality implemented. Climate change is a surveys of historical Yosemite toad sites from fish predation is likely not an current threat of high magnitude. have shown that the species has important factor driving Yosemite toad Threats considered of moderate disappeared from several lakes where population dynamics. This does not magnitude include livestock grazing and they formerly bred, and these areas are discount other indirect impacts, such as fire management regime. Threats now occupied by fish (Stebbins and the possibility that fish may be effective considered currently low magnitude Cohen 1995, pp. 213–215; Martin 2002, disease vectors (see below). Yosemite include roads and timber harvest, dams p. 1). toad use of more ephemeral breeding and water diversions, and recreational Drost and Fellers (1994, pp. 414–425) habitats (which are less habitable to fish land uses. suggested that Yosemite toads are less species as they cannot tolerate drying or

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:54 Apr 28, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\29APR3.SGM 29APR3 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES 24296 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

freezing) minimizes the interaction of validated by field studies. Tissue be attributed to an unidentified species fish and toad tadpoles. Further, where samples from dead or dying adult of a free-living flatworm (Turbellaria fish and toads co-occur, it is possible Yosemite toads and healthy tadpoles spp.). In Yosemite National Park, these that food depletion (outcompetition) by were collected during a die-off at Tioga worms were observed to penetrate fish negatively affects Yosemite toads Pass Meadow and Saddlebag Lake and Yosemite toad egg masses and feed (USFS et al. 2009, p. 58). analyzed for disease (Green and directly on the embryos. In some Other predators may also have an Kagarise Sherman 2001, pp. 92–103). locations, Turbellaria spp. reached such effect on Yosemite toad populations. Six infections were found in the adults, large densities that they consumed all Kagarise Sherman and Morton (1993, p. including infection with Bd, bacillary the embryos within a Yosemite toad egg 194) reported evidence of toad bacterial septicemia (red-leg disease), mass. Predation also facilitated the predation by common ravens (Corvus Dermosporidium (a fungus), myxozoa colonization and spread of water mold corax) and concluded this activity was spp. (parasitic cnidarians), Rhabdias on egg masses, leading to further responsible for the elimination of toads spp. (parasitic roundworms), and embryo mortality. Further studies from one site. These researchers also several species of trematode (parasitic would be needed to determine which confirmed, as reported in other studies, flatworms). Despite positive detections, species of Turbellaria feeds on Yosemite predation on Yosemite toad by Clark’s no single infectious disease was found toad eggs, and the extent of this impact nutcrackers (Nucifraga columbiana). in more than 25 percent of individuals, on Yosemite toad populations. The significance of avian predation may and some dead toads showed no signs Until recently, the contribution of Bd increase if the abundance of common of infection to explain their death. infection to Yosemite toad population ravens within the current range of the Further, no evidence of infection was declines was relatively unknown. Yosemite toad increases as it has in found in tadpoles. A meta-analysis of Although the toad is hypothetically nearby regions (Camp et al. 1993, p. red-leg disease also revealed that the susceptible due to co-occurrence with 138; Boarman et al. 1995, p. 1; Kelly et disease is a secondary infection that the mountain yellow-legged frog, the al. 2002, p. 202). However, the degree to may be associated with a suite of spread and growth of Bd in the warmer which avian predation may be affecting different pathogens, and so actual pool habitats, occupied for a much Yosemite toad populations has not been causes of decline in these instances shorter time relative to the frog, is quantified. were ambiguous (Kagarise Sherman and suspected to render individuals less prone to epidemic outbreaks (USFS et Disease Morton 1993, p. 194). The authors concluded that the die-off was caused al. 2009, p. 50). Fellers et al. (2011, p. Although not all vectors have been by suppression of the immune system 391) documented the occurrence of Bd confirmed in the Sierra Nevada, caused by an undiagnosed viral infection in Yosemite National Park introduced fishes, humans, pets, infection or chemical contamination toads over at least a couple of decades, livestock, packstock, vehicles, and wild that made the toads susceptible to the and they note population persistence in animals may all act to facilitate disease variety of diagnosed infections. spite of the continued presence of the transmission between amphibian Saprolegnia ferax, a species of water pathogen. In a survey of 196 museum populations. Infection of both fish and mold that commonly infects fish in specimens, Dodge and Vredenburg amphibians by a common disease has hatcheries, caused a massive lethal (2012, p. 1) report the first presence of been documented with viral (Mao et al. infection of eggs of western toads at a Bd infection in Yosemite toads 1999, pp. 45–52) and fungal pathogens site in Oregon (Blaustein et al. 1994b, p. beginning in 1961, with the pathogen in the western United States (Blaustein 252). It is unclear whether this event becoming highly prevalent during the et al. 1994b, pp. 251–254). Mass die-offs was caused by the introduction of the recorded declines of the late 1970s, of amphibians in the western United fungal pathogen via fish stocking, or if before it peaked in the 1990s at 85 States and around the world have been the fungus was already present and the percent positive incidence. In live attributed to Bd fungal infections of eggs’ ability to resist infection was specimen sampling, Dodge and metamorphs and adults (Carey et al. inhibited by some unknown Vredenburg (2012, p. 1) collected 1,266 1999, pp. 1–14), Saprolegnia fungal environmental factor (Blaustein et al. swabs of Yosemite toads between 2006 infections of eggs (Blaustein et al. 1994b, p. 253). Subsequent laboratory and 2011, and found Bd infection 1994b, pp. 251–254), ranavirus experiments have shown that the fungus intensities at 17–26 percent (with infections, and bacterial infections could be passed from hatchery fish to juvenile toads most affected). The (Carey et al. 1999, pp. 1–14). western toads (Kiesecker et al. 2001, pp. studies detected a pattern indicative of Various diseases are confirmed to be 1064–1070). Fungal growth on Yosemite the historic emergence of Bd, which lethal to Yosemite toads (Green and toad eggs has been observed in the field, coincided with the documented decline Kagarise Sherman 2001, pp. 92–103), but the fungus was not identified and it in Yosemite toad (Dodge 2013, p. 1). As and recent research has elucidated the was unclear whether the fungus was the such, results from these studies support potential role of Bd infection as a threat source of the egg mortality (Kagarise the hypothesis that Bd infection and to Yosemite toad populations (Dodge Sherman 1980, p. 46). Field studies chytridiomycosis have played an and Vredenburg 2012, p. 1). These conducted in Yosemite National Park important role in Yosemite toad various diseases and infections, in found that an undetermined species of population dynamics over the period of concert with other factors, have likely water mold infected only the egg masses their recent recorded decline. contributed to the decline of the that contained dead embryos of Carey (1993, pp. 355–361) developed Yosemite toad (Kagarise Sherman and Yosemite toads (Sadinski 2004, pp. 33– a model to explain the disappearance of Morton 1993, pp. 193–194) and may 34). The researchers also observed that boreal toads (Bufo boreas boreas) in the continue to pose a risk to the species the water mold became established on Rocky Mountains, suggesting immune (Dodge and Vredenburg 2012, p. 1). egg masses only after embryo death, and system suppression from extreme winter Die-offs in Yosemite toad populations subsequently spread, causing the stress (‘‘winter stress syndrome’’) could have been documented in the literature, mortality of additional embryos of have contributed to the decline in that and an interaction with diseases in Yosemite toads. species. This model may also fit these events has been confirmed. Sadinski (2004, p. 35) discovered that Yosemite toad die-offs observed by However, no single cause has been mortality of Yosemite toad embryos may Kagarise Sherman and Morton (1993,

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:54 Apr 28, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\29APR3.SGM 29APR3 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 24297

pp. 186–198), given the close concurrent with the prevalence and Existing Federal and State laws and relationship between the two toads, and spread of Bd across the Sierra Nevada regulatory mechanisms currently offer their occupation of similar habitats. support the assertion that disease has some level of protection for the However, an analysis of immune system played a role in the observed trend. Yosemite toad. Specifically, these suppression and the potential role of Further, Bd infection, even at lower include the Wilderness Act, the NFMA, winter stress relative to Yosemite toad intensities, may interact with climate the SNFPA, and the FPA (see Factor D population trends is not available at this extremes and continue to depress discussion for mountain yellow-legged time. Yet, the decline pattern observed recruitment of yearling and subadult frog complex). Based on the best in the Carey study is mirrored by the Yosemite toads to breeding Yosemite available scientific and commercial pattern in the Yosemite toad (heavy toad populations. We suspect this threat information, we do not consider the mortality exhibited in males first) was historically significant, that it is inadequacy of existing regulatory (Knapp 2012, pers. comm.). This currently having a moderate influence mechanisms to be a threat to the observation, in concert with the recent on toad populations, and we expect it to Yosemite toad. results from museum swabs (Dodge and be a future concern. Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade Vredenburg 2012, p. 1), provides a Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing Factors Affecting Its Continued correlative link to the timing of the Regulatory Mechanisms Existence recorded Yosemite toad declines and Bd infection intensities. In determining whether the The Yosemite toad is sensitive to Although disease as a threat factor to inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms environmental change or degradation the Yosemite toad is relatively less constitutes a threat to the Yosemite due to its life history, biology, and documented, Bd infection causes mass toad, we analyzed the existing Federal existence in ephemeral habitats mortalities in the closely related boreal and State laws and regulations that may characterized by climate extremes and toad (Carey et al. 2006, p. 19) and there address the threats to the species or low productivity. It is also sensitive to is evidence related to Bd’s role in contain relevant protective measures. anthropogenically influenced factors. historical die-offs in Yosemite toads. Regulatory mechanisms are typically For example, contaminants, acid Much of the historic research nondiscretionary and enforceable, and precipitation, ambient ultraviolet documenting Yosemite toad declines may preclude the need for listing if such radiation, and climate change have been predated our awareness of Bd as a major mechanisms are judged to adequately implicated as contributing to amphibian amphibian pathogen. Additionally, the address the threat(s) to the species such declines (Corn 1994, pp. 62–63; Alford life history of the Yosemite toad, as a that listing is not warranted. Conversely, and Richards 1999, pp. 2–7). However, rapid breeder during early snowmelt, threats on the landscape are not as with the case with the mountain limits the opportunities to observe addressed by existing regulatory yellow-legged frog complex, population crashes in the context of mechanisms where the existing contaminants, acid precipitation, and varied environmental stressors. mechanisms are not adequate (or not ambient ultraviolet radiation are not Currently available evidence indicates adequately implemented or enforced). known to pose a threat (current or that Bd was likely a significant factor We discussed the applicable State and historical) to Yosemite toad and, contributing to the recent historical Federal laws and regulations, including therefore, are not discussed further. declines observed in Yosemite toad the Wilderness Act, NFMA above (see Please refer to the proposed listing rule populations (Dodge and Vredenburg Factor D discussion for mountain for the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged 2012, p. 1). Although infection yellow-legged frogs). In general, the frog, the northern DPS of the mountain intensities are currently lower than same administrative policies and yellow-legged frog, and the Yosemite some peak historic measurements, this statutes are in effect for the Yosemite toad (78 FR 24472, April 25, 2013) for threat remains a potential factor that toad. This section additionally a detailed discussion of contaminants, may continue to reduce survival addresses regulatory mechanisms with a acid precipitation, and ambient through metamorphosis, and therefore specific emphasis on the Yosemite toad. ultraviolet radiation. The following discussion will focus on potential threat recruitment to the breeding population Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 (Knapp 2012, pers. comm.). factors specifically studied in the Additionally, the interaction of disease In response to overgrazing of available Yosemite toad, based on the unique life and other stressors, such as climate rangelands by livestock from the 1800s history, population status, extremes, is not well understood in the to the 1930s, Congress passed the Taylor demographics, or biological factors Yosemite toad. Research does suggest Grazing Act in 1934 (43 U.S.C. 315 et specific to Yosemite toad populations. that the combination of these threats seq.). This action was an effort to stop Climate Change Effects on Individuals represents a factor in the historical the damage to the remaining public decline of the species (Kagarise lands as a result of overgrazing and soil As discussed above in Factor A, Sherman and Morton 1993, p. 186). depletion, to provide coordination for climate change can result in detrimental In summary, based on the best grazing on public lands, and to attempt impacts to Yosemite toad habitat. available scientific and commercial to stabilize the livestock industry Climate variability could also negatively information, we do not consider (Meehan and Platts 1978, p. 275; Public impact populations through alteration of predation to be a threat to the species. Lands Council et al. v. Babbitt Secretary the frequency, duration, and magnitude We consider disease to be a threat to the of the Interior et al. (167 F. 3d 1287)). of either droughts or severe winters Yosemite toad that has a moderate, Passage of the Taylor Grazing Act (USFS et al. 2009, p. 47). Yosemite toads ongoing effect on populations of the resulted in reduced grazing in some breed and their tadpoles develop in species rangewide. The threat most areas, including the high Sierra Nevada. shallow meadow and ephemeral specifically includes the amphibian However, localized use remained high, habitats, where mortality from pathogen, Bd. Although definitive precluding regeneration of many desiccation and freezing can be very empirical data quantifying the meadow areas (Beesley 1996, p. 14; high, often causing complete loss of an contribution of disease to Yosemite toad Menke et al. 1996, p. 14; Public Lands annual cohort (USFS et al. 2009, p. 10). population declines are not currently Council et al. v. Babbitt Secretary of the Kagarise Sherman and Morton (1993, available, population declines that were Interior et al. (167 F. 3d 1287)). pp. 192–193) documented in a long-

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:54 Apr 28, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\29APR3.SGM 29APR3 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES 24298 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

term population study that Yosemite anglers may be a source of introduced Toads could potentially be trampled toad hatching success and survival were pathogens and parasites, and they have or crushed by activities implemented to subject to a balance between the been observed using toads and tadpoles reduce fire danger. USFS et al. (2009, p. snowpack water contribution to as bait (USFS et al. 2009, p. 66). 53) report that the Forest Service has breeding pools and the periodicity and However, Kagarise Sherman and Morton initiated a fuels reduction program in character of breeding season storms and (1993, p. 196) did not find a relationship order to reduce the extent and intensity post-breeding climate (whether it is cold between the distance from the nearest of wildfires. However, most of these or warm). When it is too cold, eggs and road and the declines in their study projects will occur in the Wildland tadpoles are lost to freezing. This populations, suggesting that human Urban Interface, which is below the situation poses a risk as earlier activity was not the cause of decline in elevational range of the Yosemite toad snowmelt is expected to cue breeding that situation. Recreational activity may and generally near human earlier in the year, exposing young be of conservation concern, and this developments. However, in the future tadpoles (or eggs) to killing frosts in threat may increase with greater activity some fuels projects may occur in limited more variable conditions of early spring in mountain meadows. However, areas around facilities, such as resorts, (Corn 2005, p. 60). When it is too dry, current available information does not pack stations, or summer homes, within tadpoles are lost to pool desiccation. indicate that recreational activity is a the lowest portion of the Yosemite toad Alterations in the annual and seasonal significant stressor for Yosemite toads. range. hydrologic cycles that influence water Fire management practices over the Collectively, direct mortality from volume and persistence in Yosemite last century have created the potential land uses within the Yosemite toad toad breeding areas can thereby impact for severe fires in the Sierra Nevada. range may have impacts to the toad. breeding success. The threat of climate Wildfires do pose a potential direct However, we are aware of no studies change on individuals is significant, and mortality threat to Yosemite toads, that have quantified or estimated the is of high prevalence now and into the although amphibians in general are prevalence of this particular threat to be future. thought to retreat to moist or able to assess its impact to Yosemite subterranean refuges and thereby suffer toad populations. At the current time, Other Sources of Direct and Indirect low mortality during natural fires direct and indirect mortality from roads Mortality (Russel et al. 1999, pp. 374–384). In the are not considered to be a significant Direct and indirect mortality of closely related boreal toad (Bufo factor affecting the Yosemite toad Yosemite toads has occurred as a result boreas), Hossak and Corn (2007, p. rangewide. of livestock grazing. Mortality risk from 1409) documented a positive response Small Population Size livestock trampling is expected to be the (increase in occupied breeding sites and greatest for non-larval stages where population size) following a wildfire, Although it is believed that the range livestock concentrate in Yosemite toad with returns to near pre-fire occupancy of the Yosemite toad has not habitat when toad densities are highest; levels after 4 to 5 years (Hossack et al. significantly contracted, the majority of early in the season when breeding 2012, p. 224), suggesting that habitat- populations across this area have been adults are aggregated and egg masses are related changes associated with extirpated, and this loss has been laid; and at metamorphosis when wildfires may provide at least short- significant relative to the historical juveniles are metamorphosing in mass term benefits to Yosemite toad condition (multitudes of populations along aquatic margins. However, populations. However, data on the within many watersheds across their because cattle typically are not present direct and indirect effects of fire on geographic range) (see ‘‘Population during the breeding season, the risk of Yosemite toads are lacking. Estimates and Status’’ above). Further, trampling is expected to be greatest for USFS et al. (2009, p. 74) suggested growing evidence suggest that the metamorphs (USFS et al. 2009, p. 59). that the negative effects of roads that populations that remain are small, Cattle have been observed to trample have been documented in other numbering fewer than 20 males in most Yosemite toad metamorphs and amphibians, in concert with the cases (Kagrise Sherman and Morton subadult toads, and these life stages can substantial road network across a 1993, p. 190; Sadinski 2004, p. 40; fall into deep hoofprints and die (Martin portion of the Yosemite toad’s range, Brown et al. 2012, p. 125). This 2008, p. 158). Specifically, Martin indicate this risk factor may be situation renders these remnant (2008, p. 158) witnessed some 60 potentially significant to the species. populations susceptible to risks subadult and metamorph toad deaths Roads may facilitate direct mortality of inherent to small populations (see during the movement of 25 cattle across amphibians through vehicle strikes Factor E discussion, ‘‘Small Population a stream channel bordered by willows (DeMaynadier and Hunter 2000, pp. 56– Size,’’ for mountain yellow-legged frogs, within a meadow complex. Adult 65), and timber harvest activities above) including inbreeding depression Yosemite toads trampled to death by (including fuels management and and genetic drift, along with a higher cattle have also been observed (Martin vegetation restoration activities) have probability of extirpation from 2002, pp. 1–3). This risk factor is likely been documented to result in the direct unpredictable events such as severe of sporadic significance, and is of mortality of Yosemite toads (USFS 2013, storms or extended droughts. greatest concern where active grazing p. 94). Levels of timber harvest and road Traill et al. (2009, p. 32) argued for a allotments coincide with breeding construction have declined substantially benchmark viable population size of meadows. However, it is difficult to since implementation of the California 5,000 adult individuals (and 500 to determine the degree of this impact Spotted Owl Sierran Province Interim prevent inbreeding) for a broad range of without quantitative data. Guidelines in 1993, and some existing taxa, although this type of blanket figure Trampling and collapse of rodent roads have been decommissioned or are has been disputed as an approach to burrows by recreationists, pets, and scheduled to be decommissioned conservation (Flather et al. 2011, pp. vehicles could lead to direct mortality of (USDA 2001a, p. 445). Therefore, the 307–308). Another estimate, specific to terrestrial life stages of the Yosemite risks posed by new roads and timber amphibians, is that populations of at toad. Recreational activity may also harvests have declined, but those least 100 individuals are less disturb toads and disrupt their behavior already existing still may pose risks to susceptible to demographic stochasticity (Karlstrom 1962, pp. 3–34). Recreational the species and its habitat. (Schad 2007, p. 10). Amphibian species

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:54 Apr 28, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\29APR3.SGM 29APR3 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 24299

with highly fluctuating population size, watershed is set in motion (Vankat and The Yosemite toad is the most narrowly high frequencies of local extinctions, Major 1978, pp. 386–397). Certain distributed Sierra Nevada endemic, and living in changeable environments stressors may be of concern, such as pond-breeding amphibian (Shaffer et al. may be especially susceptible to recreational impacts and avian 2000, p. 246). Although it apparently curtailment of dispersal and restriction predation upon terrestrial life stages of still persists throughout a large portion of habitat (Green 2003, p. 331). These toads, although we do not have of its historical range, it has been conditions are all likely applicable to sufficient data to document the reduced to an estimated 13 percent of the Yosemite toad. magnitude of these particular stressors. historical watersheds. (The proposed Therefore, based on the best available Given the evidence supporting the rule indicated that the toad was reduced commercial and scientific information, role of climate in reducing populations to an estimated 12 percent of its range, we conclude that small population size and potentially leading to the peer review corrected this number to 13 is a prevalent and significant threat to extirpation of many of the populations percent (Brown 2013, unpaginated). In the species viability of the Yosemite studied through the 1970s and into the addition, while the best available data toad across its range, especially in early 1990s (Kagarise Sherman and do not provide information on whether concert with other extant stressors (such Morton 1993, pp. 186–198), this factor populations are currently stable, or as climate change). is likely either a primary driver, or at whether there is a persistent decline, least a significant contributing factor in Cumulative Impacts of Extant Threats remnant populations are predominantly the declines that have been observed. small. Interactive effects or cumulative Climate models predict increasing Yosemite toad populations are subject impacts from multiple additive stressors drought intensity and changes to the to threats from habitat degradation acting upon Yosemite toad populations hydroperiod based on reduced associated with land uses that over time are indicated by the snowpack, along with greater climate documented declines in populations negatively influence meadow variability in the future (PRBO 2011, pp. hydrology, fostering meadow and abundance across the range of the 18–25). These changes will likely species. Although no single causative dewatering, and conifer and other exacerbate stress to the habitat specialist invasive plant encroachment. These factor linked to population declines in Yosemite toad through a pronounced Yosemite toads has been confirmed in activities include the legacy effects of impact on its ephemeral aquatic habitat, historic grazing activities, the fire the literature (excepting perhaps and also through an increase in the extreme climate conditions such as management regime of the past century, frequency of freezing and drying events historic timber management activities, droughts) (Kagarise Sherman and that kill Yosemite toad eggs and and associated road construction. The Morton 1993, p. 186; Jennings and tadpoles. These changes and the impacts from these threats are Hayes 1994, pp. 50–53), there has been resultant impacts likely will effectively cumulatively of moderate magnitude, a decline in population abundance and reduce breeding success of remnant and their legacy impacts on meadow numbers of extant populations populations already at low abundance habitats act as a constraint upon extant inhabiting the landscape (Brown et al. and still in decline. If an interaction populations now and are expected to 2012, pp. 115–131; Kagarise Sherman such as winter stress and disease (Carey hinder persistence and recovery into the and Morton 1993, pp. 186–198). This 1993, pp. 355–362) is the underlying future. Diseases are threats of pattern of decline suggests a factor or mechanism for Yosemite toad declines, conservation concern that have likely combination of factors common then the enhanced influence of climate throughout the range of the toad. The change as a stressor may tip the balance also had an effect on populations available literature (Kagarise Sherman further towards higher incidence and leading to historical population decline, and Morton 1993, pp. 186–198; Jennings increased virulence of disease, which and these threats are operating currently and Hayes 1994, pp. 50–53; USFS et al. would also lead to greater population and will continue to do so into the 2009, pp. 1–133; Martin 2008, pp. i– declines and extirpations. future, likely with impacts of moderate- 393) supports the contention that a magnitude effects on Yosemite toad combination of factors has interacted Determination for Yosemite Toad populations. and is responsible for the decline Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), The individual, interactive, and observed in Yosemite toad populations and its implementing regulations at 50 cumulative effects of these various risk over the past few decades. CFR part 424, set forth the procedures factors have acted to reduce the Disease has been documented in for adding species to the Federal Lists geographic extent and abundance of this Yosemite toad populations, and recent of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife species throughout its habitat in the data documenting historic trends in Bd and Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of the Sierra Nevada. The combined effect of infection intensity are compelling Act, we may list a species based on (A) these stressors acting upon small (Dodge and Vredenburg 2012, p. 1), but The present or threatened destruction, remnant populations of Yosemite toads disease has not been definitively tied to modification, or curtailment of its is of significant conservation concern. the observed rangewide decline. There habitat or range; (B) Overutilization for The Yosemite toad has a life history and is considerable evidence that various commercial, recreational, scientific, or ecology that make it sensitive to drought stressors, mediated via impacts to educational purposes; (C) Disease or and anticipated weather extremes meadow hydrology following upslope predation; (D) The inadequacy of associated with climate change. Climate land management practices over the last existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) change is expected to become century, have detrimentally affected the Other natural or manmade factors increasingly significant to the Yosemite quantity and quality of breeding affecting its continued existence. Listing toad and its habitat in the future meadows. Many of these stressors, such actions may be warranted based on any throughout its range. Therefore, climate as grazing, have been more significant in of the above threat factors, singly or in change represents a threat that has a the past than under current management combination. high magnitude of impact as an indirect standards. However, legacy effects We have carefully assessed the best stressor via habitat loss and degradation, remain, and meadows tend not to scientific and commercial information and as a direct stressor via enhanced recover without active intervention once available regarding the past, present, risk of climate extremes to all life stages excessive stream incision in their and future threats to the Yosemite toad. of Yosemite toads.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:54 Apr 28, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\29APR3.SGM 29APR3 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES 24300 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

The Act defines an endangered foreseeable future throughout all or a January 30, 2014, in Sacramento, species as any species that is ‘‘in danger significant portion of its range. The Act California. We also held two public of extinction throughout all or a does not define the term ‘‘foreseeable informational meetings, one in significant portion of its range’’ and a future’’ but it likely describes the extent Bridgeport, California, on January 8, threatened species as any species ‘‘that to which the Service could reasonably 2014, and the other in Fresno, is likely to become endangered rely on predictions about the future in California, on January 13, 2014. We also throughout all or a significant portion of making determinations about the future participated in several public forums, its range within the foreseeable future.’’ conservation status of the species. In one sponsored by Congressman We find that the Yosemite toad is likely considering the foreseeable future as it McClintock and two sponsored by to become endangered throughout all or relates to the status of the Yosemite Congressman LaMalfa. All substantive a significant portion of its range within toad, we considered the historical data information provided during comment the foreseeable future, based on the to identify any relevant existing trends periods has either been incorporated immediacy, severity, and scope of the that might allow for reliable prediction directly into this final determination or threats described above. These include of the future (in the form of addressed below. habitat loss associated with degradation extrapolating the trends). We also Peer Reviewer Comments of meadow hydrology following stream considered how current stressors are incision consequent to the cumulative affecting the species and whether we In accordance with our peer review effects of historic land management could reliably predict any future trends policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR activities, notably livestock grazing, and in those stressors that might affect the 34270), we solicited expert opinion also the anticipated hydrologic effects species recognizing that our ability to from five knowledgeable individuals upon habitat from climate change under make reliable predictions for the future with scientific expertise that included listing Factor A. Additionally, we find is limited by the quantity and quality of familiarity with the Sierra Nevada that disease under listing Factor C was available data. Thus the foreseeable yellow-legged frog, the northern DPS of likely a contributor to the recent historic future includes the species’ response to the mountain yellow-legged frog, the decline of the Yosemite toad, and may these stressors and any trends. Yosemite toad, and the habitat and remain an important factor limiting Under the Act and our implementing biological needs of, and threats to each recruitment in remnant populations. We regulations, a species may warrant species. We received responses from also find that the Yosemite toad is likely listing if it is endangered or threatened four of the peer reviewers. to become endangered through the throughout all or a significant portion of We reviewed all comments received direct effects of climate change its range. The Yosemite toad is highly from the peer reviewers for substantive impacting small remnant populations restricted in its range, and the threats issues and new information regarding under Factor E, likely compounded with occur throughout its range. Therefore, the listing of the Sierra Nevada yellow- the cumulative effect of other threat we assessed the status of the species legged frog, the northern DPS of the factors (such as disease). throughout its entire range. The threats mountain yellow-legged frog, and the We have carefully assessed the best to the survival of the species occur Yosemite toad. The peer reviewers scientific and commercial information throughout the species’ range and are generally concurred with our methods available regarding the past, present, not restricted to any particular and conclusions and provided and future threats to the species, and significant portion of that range, nor are additional information, clarifications, have determined that the Yosemite toad they concentrated in a specific portion and suggestions to improve the final meets the definition of threatened under of the range. Accordingly, our rule. However, one of the four peer the Act, rather than endangered. This assessment and final determination reviewers suggested the rationale for determination is because the impacts applies to the species throughout its listing Yosemite toad was poorly from the threats are occurring now at entire range. supported. Peer reviewer comments are high and moderate magnitudes, but are addressed in the following summary Summary of Comments all likely to become of high magnitude and incorporated into the final rule. in the foreseeable future across the In the proposed rule published on (1) Comment: Two peer reviewers species’ entire range, making the species April 25, 2013 (78 FR 24472), we recommended that we refer to Rana likely to become in danger of extinction. requested that all interested parties muscosa as the southern mountain While population decline has been submit written comments on the yellow-legged frog in order to reduce widespread, the rate of decline is not so proposal by June 24, 2013. Given the reader confusion in the final rule. severe to indicate extinction is large number of requests that we Our Response: We have clarified the imminent, but this rate could increase received to extend the public comment common names we are using in this as stressors such as climate change period, we reopened the comment final rule for each yellow-legged frog impact small remnant populations. period on July 19, 2013 (78 FR 43122), species (see Background and Taxonomy Further, the geographic extent of the requesting written comments on the sections in this final rule). While species remains rather widespread proposal by November 18, 2013, and Crother et al. (2008, p. 11) accepted the throughout its historic range, conferring again reopened the comment period on common name of southern mountain some measure of ecological and January 10, 2014 (79 FR 1805), with the yellow-legged frog for Rana muscosa, geographic redundancy. Therefore, on close of comment period on March 11, the use of this common name may the basis of the best available scientific 1014. We also contacted appropriate create additional confusion as the reader and commercial information, we Federal and State agencies, scientific may interpret the name to imply the finalize listing the Yosemite toad as experts and organizations, and other yellow-legged frogs in southern threatened in accordance with sections interested parties and invited them to California that are already listed as the 3(20) and 4(a)(1) of the Act. comment on the proposal. Newspaper southern DPS, rather than the R. The term ‘‘threatened species’’ means notices inviting general public comment muscosa in the Sierra Nevada. any species (or subspecies or, for were published in the Sacramento Bee Therefore, we continue to refer to the vertebrates, distinct population and Bakersfield Californian. We northern DPS of Rana muscosa as the segments) that is likely to become an received multiple requests for a public northern DPS of the mountain yellow- endangered species within the hearing. We held two public hearings on legged frog, as we did in the proposed

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:54 Apr 28, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\29APR3.SGM 29APR3 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 24301

rule, to minimize confusion for the better suited to meet the species’ needs exposures to contaminants from upwind public. if two separate DPSs are retained. sources. (2) Comment: Two peer reviewers (3) Comment: One peer reviewer Our Response: In our proposed rule, suggested that we utilize a rangewide indicated that the frogs within the we included a discussion of analysis for listing Rana muscosa and Spanish and Bean Creek areas of Plumas environmental factors that affect the thereby combine the northern and County (low-elevation areas within the mountain yellow-legged frog complex, southern DPSs of the mountain yellow- northern portion of the Sierra Nevada) including contaminants. Based on our legged frog into one listed entity. in which Wengert (2008) conducted analysis in the proposed rule, we did Clarifying discussions with one peer telemetry studies of frog movement not identify this environmental factor as reviewer suggested that we not complete distances, may actually be foothill a threat to the species. Upon our review a rangewide analysis, but rather keep yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii) rather of additional literature, including a the DPSs separate (Knapp, pers. comm.). than Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frogs study focused specifically on the Our Response: Given the geographic (Rana sierrae) (see Habitat and Life mountain yellow-legged frog complex, isolation, different habitat requirements, History section in Background for the our initial discussion remains valid, differences in threats, and different mountain yellow-legged frogs of this which indicated that the potential threat management needs between Rana final rule). posed by contaminants is not a factor in muscosa in the Sierra Nevada compared Our Response: We acknowledge and the listing of this species. We refer to with southern California, we have understand some of the challenges in the proposed rule for the discussion of decided to retain the DPS analysis in the correctly identifying the species in areas the effects of contaminants on the proposed rule and to maintain the where the ranges of Sierra Nevada and mountain yellow-legged frog. northern and southern DPSs of foothill yellow-legged frogs overlap. (5) Comment: One peer reviewer mountain yellow-legged frog as separate Recent genetic analysis of samples suggested that recent genetic studies listed entities. Within the Sierra collected from frogs in Spanish and (Shaffer et al. 2000, Stevens 2001, and Nevada, R. muscosa is predominantly Bean Creeks has identified the frogs Goebel et al. 2009) do not support our found within high-elevation lake occurring in Bean Creek as both Sierra conclusion that Yosemite toad is a valid habitats that freeze during the winter Nevada and foothill yellow-legged frogs species. months, while in southern California, (Lind et al. 2011a, pp. 281–282), while Our Response: When conducting our Rana muscosa populations occupy Spanish Creek frogs were identified as review of the Yosemite toad as a listable stream habitats that are not typically foothill yellow-legged frog (Poorten et entity under the Act, we incorporated subject to winter freezing. The al. 2013, p. 4). However, given the small the results of the studies mentioned by differences in the habitats utilized by sample size, Poorten et al. (2013, p. 4) the peer reviewer. In addition to the the northern and southern DPSs of the suggested that followup investigation previously included literature on the mountain yellow-legged frog and the was needed to determine whether Sierra genetics of Yosemite toad, we have differences in the threats to each Nevada yellow-legged frogs also occur included in this final rule results from population segment indicate that in Spanish Creek. Switzer et al. (2009), which provide management actions needed to recover While it is not clear whether Wengert genetic data supporting the Yosemite the northern California and southern (2008) studied Sierra Nevada or foothill toad as a valid species. While we California populations will also be yellow-legged frogs, given the stream- acknowledge that the evolutionary different and are most expediently based ecological setting of the study, we history of the Yosemite toad is addressed separately by DPS (see expect that the movement distances complicated and not fully understood, Distinct Vertebrate Population Segment recorded are applicable to the Sierra given our conclusions after reviewing Analysis in this final rule). Nevada yellow-legged frog within a the taxonomy of the species, and given The factors that are threats to the stream-based system, as the ecology is that the scientific community as a whole species also differ between the two comparable between the two sister taxa continues to recognize the Yosemite DPSs. We have identified fish stocking in regard to stream systems. toad as a valid species, we continue to and presence of fish as a threat for both Additionally, a study conducted by recognize Yosemite toad as a valid the northern and southern DPSs. Fellers et al. (2013, p. 159) documented species (for further discussion, see However, the other threats we identified Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog Taxonomy section above). for the northern DPS are primarily movement distances up to 1,032 m in a (6) Comment: One peer reviewer habitat degradation, disease, and 29-day period, suggesting the season- provided information regarding the climate change, whereas the main long movement distance documented by number of localities of Yosemite toad threats for the southern DPS consist of Wengert (2008, p. 20) is applicable. within two National Parks, and recreational activities, roads, and (4) Comment: One peer reviewer suggested that, had we included these wildfire. While there is some overlap in provided comment that our proposed locations, the analysis may have had a the threats identified for the two DPSs, rule did not include more-recent different outcome. the threats that are important to the literature on the effects of airborne Our Response: When we conducted species status vary substantially contaminants on the mountain yellow our analysis for the proposed rule to between the Sierra Nevada and southern legged frog, including Bradford et al. determine whether the Yosemite toad California. 2011, which measured contaminant warrants listing under the Act, we The differences between the northern concentrations at multiple sites in the utilized the best available scientific and and southern DPSs of the mountain southern Sierra Nevada and compared commercial information. Part of that yellow-legged frog in both habitat use their distribution with population information included the geospatial data and the factors affecting the species declines of mountain yellow-legged for Yosemite toad locations within both results in differences in the actions and frogs, finding no association between Yosemite and Sequoia National Parks. activities that would be needed to the two. The peer reviewer further These data were subsequently used for conserve the species in each of the two recommended that we state that frogs the proposed critical habitat DPSs. Conservation planning, including are sensitive to contaminants, but designation. While we did have (and identifying actions and setting priorities measured contaminant concentrations used) the information on Yosemite toad for recovery, will be more effective and in multiple media indicate very low locations within the National Parks in

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:54 Apr 28, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\29APR3.SGM 29APR3 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES 24302 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

our analysis, we did not cite to this population trends and threats to frog are not applicable and that the information into the text of the Yosemite toad and that these protections under the SNFPA will proposed rule. This was updated with uncertainties should be explicitly continue as a result of consultation with the data included in Berlow et al. described. the Service. (2013), as well as information received Our response: As required by the Act, Our Response: We did not identify from Sequoia National Park staff. we based our proposed rule and this Factor D as a threat to the mountain Regardless, we utilized the geospatial final rule on the best available scientific yellow-legged frog, and we incorporated data in the proposed rule, determining and commercial data. While there are an analysis of the protection that the that the information suggests that the some uncertainties in the information, current Forest Plans offer the species. Yosemite toad has disappeared from we clearly articulated these While there is some uncertainty as to approximately 47–69 percent of uncertainties when conducting our whether these protections will remain formerly occupied sites (Berlow et al. analysis for the rule. (See Population in the revised Forest Plans, the USFS is 2013, p. 2). In addition, at many of the Estimate and Status and Meadow not required to consult with the Service remaining sites, Yosemite toads exist in Habitat Loss and Degradation sections on the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog very low numbers, indicating that many for examples.) and northern DPS of the mountain remaining populations are vulnerable to Federal Agency Comments yellow-legged frog in the absence of the extirpation. Our use of the data from protections afforded under the Act. As both National Forests and National (9) Comment: The Forest Service such, we must evaluate the adequacy of suggested that the rule does not Parks led us to our proposed status existing regulatory mechanisms from represent the best available scientific determination, which is affirmed here. the baseline of the species not being and commercial information in (7) Comment: One peer reviewer federally listed under the Act. proposing a determination. stated that there is scant evidence (12) Comment: The USFS suggested available to argue that there has been a Our Response: In conducting our analysis, we rely on the best available the final rule include a discussion of the decline in abundance of the Yosemite impacts of bullfrog predation on the toad and that the difficulty in accurately scientific and commercial information, as required by the Act. On occasion, we mountain yellow-legged frog. quantifying toad abundance, coupled Our Response: We have limited with the fact that the proposed rule did are not aware of certain information that is available at the time we issue a information on the presence of bullfrogs not include locality data from the in the Sierra Nevada, but we have National Parks, has weakened the proposed rule or new information included a section on the potential argument for our determination. becomes available around the time of threat of American bullfrogs where they Our Response: While we agree that no publication, which is part of the reason studies have documented a rangewide we request public comment, as well as are known to occur in the Lake Tahoe decline in population abundances in peer review. That portion of the process Basin (see discussion under Factor C for Yosemite toads, and we do not have helps to inform our final decision by mountain yellow-legged frogs). sufficient data to conduct a robust trend soliciting input and seeking additional (13) Comment: The USFS and several analysis or detect negative population available information. As a result of this other commenters suggested that the growth rates, we relied on published process, we have received new scientific information presented as it relates to the literature for our determination. At a and commercial information that we impacts of grazing on Yosemite toad minimum, the published literature have reviewed and incorporated into was inaccurate. Specifically, they provides anecdotally documented this final rule. suggested that we did not include the declines in numbers of individual (10) Comment: The USFS noted that results of peer-reviewed journal articles Yosemite toads at the respective study the proposed rule did not identify in our analysis of the impacts posed by sites. The best available information mining activities as a threat to the livestock grazing. shows that the Yosemite toad mountain yellow-legged frog. Our Response: At the time of the populations have declined, and that the Our Response: We acknowledge that proposed rule, we were aware of the remnant populations comprise low there is some overlap between current peer-reviewed literature related to the numbers of individual adult toads. For mining activities and areas occupied by impacts of livestock grazing on our analysis, we did utilize the data on the mountain yellow-legged frogs, Yosemite toad, and inadvertently toad locations in the National Parks (see particularly in the northern part of the omitted the literature from the rule. We our response to comment 6) and range; however, we do not have have reviewed and included the included it as part of our analysis on the information to assess the impact that relevant articles in this final rule. estimated loss of historically occupied mining has on the species in those areas Additionally, while we did not sites (47–69 percent of formerly where mining occurs, and how it acts as incorporate all of the specifics of the occupied sites (Berlow et al. 2013, p. 2)). either an historical or current threat to journal articles, we did incorporate the We mainly focused our analysis on the the species. Within designated results of a 5-year study that potential drivers of population stability wilderness, new mining claims have investigated the impacts of cattle and identified the predominate threats been prohibited since January 1, 1984. grazing on Yosemite toad in our to the species as the continuing effects Additionally, while suction dredge analysis, as they were presented in of degradation of meadow hydrology mining may have the potential to alter Allen Diaz et al. 2010, and subsequently associated with historical land microhabitat uses by the species, the in the Lind et al. (2011b, addendum). management practices and the effects of current moratorium on this practice (14) Comment: The USFS and several climate change and anthropogenic removes this potential threat. However, other commenters suggested that our stressors acting on the small remnant we acknowledge that this situation may reliance on a single non-peer-reviewed populations. (For complete discussion change in the future. study to assess the impacts of cattle see Summary of Factors Affecting the (11) Comment: The USFS suggested grazing on Yosemite toads, through Species section above.) that the uncertainties we presented direct mortality or the modification of (8) Comment: One peer reviewer under Factor D as it relates to their their habitat, was inappropriate. stated that there are scientific Forest Plan revision process and Additionally, they suggested we uncertainties regarding the long-term protections for mountain yellow-legged discounted the peer-reviewed published

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:54 Apr 28, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\29APR3.SGM 29APR3 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 24303

journal articles related to the impacts of Comments From States more than 45 days. Take that does not cattle grazing on Yosemite toad. (17) Comment: The California meet these four conditions would Our Response: In conducting our Department of Fish and Wildlife require a section 10(a)(1)(A) permit. We analysis, we rely on the best available (CDFW) originally commented that the acknowledge and appreciate the scientific and commercial information, threats presented in the proposed rule important role that CDFW will play in as required by the Act. This information suggested that a determination of the recovery of the Sierra Nevada does not need to be specifically threatened status would be more yellow-legged frog, and look forward to continuing collaborative conservation published in a scientific journal. The appropriate than endangered for the actions with CDFW for this and other Martin (2008) study that is being Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog. However, CDFW reconsidered this listed species in California. referred to by the commenters is a (19) Comment: CDFW agreed that we suggestion after discussions with doctoral dissertation that was, in fact, should retain the northern DPS and the Service staff and submitted a followup reviewed prior to release. We relied on southern DPS designations for the the information presented by Martin in comment letter that agrees with the mountain yellow-legged frog (Rana assessing the potential for direct Service determination and supports muscosa). They provided updates to our mortality of Yosemite toad that is listing the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged discussion of take related to State-listing attributed to livestock. We also relied on frog as endangered. of the mountain yellow-legged frog Our Response: We find that an Martin for the potential impacts of complex. livestock grazing on overwintering and endangered status for the Sierra Nevada Our Response: We appreciate the upland areas utilized by Yosemite toad, yellow-legged frog is an appropriate support, and we have retained the two as the peer-reviewed publications that determination and appreciate CDFW’s DPSs in the final determination (see the commenters referred to were based reconsideration of their initial Distinct Vertebrate Population Segment on a study that only assessed grazing comments. Analysis). We have also revised our effects on breeding. As such, the best (18) Comment: CDFW commented discussion of CESA to provide the available scientific and commercial that they remain concerned that listing updated information on take related to information includes Martin (2008). In the species as endangered could hinder State-listing of the mountain yellow- our proposed rule, we evaluated the timely implementation of the legged frog complex (see Factor D for information that ran contrary to Martin Department’s recovery and restoration mountain yellow-legged frog). (2008), and we have subsequently efforts for the species pursuant to its (20) Comment: CDFW provided incorporated the information presented State-listing under CESA. CDFW notes comments on our discussion of the in the peer-reviewed journal articles in that they have a responsibility to following threats to the mountain this final rule. Please also see response continue activities and expand efforts yellow-legged frog complex: to comment #13. that will contribute to the recovery of Recreational activities, past trout the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog stocking versus continued trout (15) Comment: The USFS commented and hope that such efforts can be stocking, and pesticide detection in the that chytrid fungus, fish stocking, and fostered through the 1991 Cooperative Sierra Nevada. They commented that climate change pose the greatest threats Agreement between the California the evidence presented in the to the mountain yellow-legged frogs, Department of Fish and Game and the Recreation section did not support the and that threats from authorized U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. They conclusion, urging us to readdress the management activities are insignificant also comment that, in his June 13, 2012, section and remove claims unsupported threats to the species. memo to the Service’s Regional by appropriate citations, and noted that Our Response: We have concluded in Directors, the Director of the Fish and recreation effects to the environment this final rule that, in general, Wildlife Service acknowledged the were supported, but no evidence authorized activities on public lands Federal-State collaborative nature of indicates that such activities affect the managed by the USFS and the NPS are conservation activities for listed species. frog populations. In the Recreation not significant threats to the mountain Our Response: We note that, for section, they also noted several errors yellow-legged frogs, but we also research activities that aid in the and inaccuracies in citing other authors. recognize that there may be limited site- recovery of the species, and that may CDFW provided extensive comments on specific conditions where authorized result in take, a permit issued under our discussion of dams and water activities could have population-level section 10a(1)A of the Act is the diversions, commenting that they were effects, especially where populations are appropriate mechanism. However, our of the opinion that dams and diversion small or habitat areas are limited (see regulations at 50 CFR 17.21 state that posed a threat of low significance to the Summary of Factors Affecting the any qualified employee or agent who is continued existence of the mountain Species in this final rule). designated by CDFW for such purposes, yellow-legged frogs and suggesting that may, when acting in the course of his the section required significant (16) Comment: The USFS noted that official duties, take endangered wildlife amendments to accurately capture the recent publications indicate that species covered by a Cooperative degree of potential impacts. They noted livestock grazing that meets current Agreement (developed pursuant to that most dams were constructed below USFS standards and guidelines is less of Section 6 of the Act) between the the range of extant frog populations, and a threat to the Yosemite toad than was Service and the State provided such that some information was misapplied described in the proposed rule. take is not reasonably anticipated to from research on lower-elevation Our Response: We have revised our result in: (1) The death or permanent amphibian species, such as the foothill discussion of grazing in this final rule disabling of the specimen; (2) the yellow-legged frog, which resulted in to clarify the conditions under which removal of the specimen from the State overstatement of the potential impact of we consider current grazing activities to of California; (3) the introduction of the dams and water diversions on the pose habitat-related threats to the specimen or any of its progeny into an mountain yellow-legged frog complex. Yosemite toad (see Summary of Changes area beyond the historical range of the They provided numerous smaller and Factor A discussion for the species; or (4) the holding of the specific comments on text within the Yosemite toad). specimen in captivity for a period of section.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:54 Apr 28, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\29APR3.SGM 29APR3 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES 24304 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

Our Response: We thank the CDFW Yosemite toad is threatened under the pursuant to the Mining Law of 1872 (30 for the additional information provided Act. U.S.C. 21 et seq.), which was enacted to to strengthen our analysis. We have (23) Comment: Several commenters promote exploration and development addressed these comments through suggest that it is necessary for the of domestic mineral resources, as well changes to the Fish Stocking, Service to conduct an analysis of the as the settlement of the western United Recreation, and Dams and Water impacts that listing a species may have States. It permits U.S. citizens and Diversions sections for the Sierra on local economies prior to issuance of businesses to prospect hardrock Nevada and mountain yellow-legged a final rule. (locatable) minerals and, if a valuable frogs in this final rule. We re-checked Our Response: Under the Act, the deposit is found, file a claim giving references and revised the sections Service is not required to conduct an them the right to use the land for mining noted to state more clearly the potential analysis regarding the economic impact activities and sell the minerals effects of these activities, to rely on of listing endangered or threatened extracted, without having to pay the appropriate citations, and to refine our species. However, the Act does require Federal Government any holding fees or conclusions in agreement with CDFW’s that the Service consider the economic royalties (GAO 1989, p. 2). Gold and comments. Please see Factor A in impacts of a designation of critical other minerals are frequently mined as Summary of Factors Affecting the habitat. A draft of this analysis is locatable minerals, and, as such, mining Species for updated information. available to the public on http:// is subject to the Mining Law of 1872. www.regulations.gov (79 FR 1805). However, Federal wilderness areas were Public Comments (24) Comment: Several commenters closed to new mining claims at the (21) Comment: Several commenters suggested that the decline of the Sierra beginning of 1984 (see Factor D under suggested that the Service does not have Nevada yellow-legged frog, northern mountain yellow-legged frogs above), the authority or jurisdiction to designate DPS of the mountain yellow-legged frog, thereby precluding the filing of new the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog and the Yosemite toad is a natural mining claims in those areas designated and the northern DPS of the mountain evolutionary process, and that the as Federal wilderness (a large part of the yellow-legged frog as endangered nor presence of environmental stressors is a area in which the species occur). the Yosemite toad as threatened. normal driver of evolution and/or Authorization of mining under the extinction. Our Response: The authority for the Mining Law of 1872 is a discretionary Our Response: Under the Act, we are agency action pursuant to section 7 of Service to issue this rulemaking comes required to use the best available from the Endangered Species Act of the Act. Therefore, Federal agencies scientific and commercial information with jurisdiction over land where 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), as to assess the factors affecting a species amended, through the 108th Congress. mining occurs will review mining and in order to make a status determination. other actions that they fund, authorize, The Service is designated as the lead The Act requires the Service to consider Federal agency for implementing the or carry out to determine if listed all threats and impacts that may be species may be affected in accordance Act for terrestrial and freshwater responsible for declines as potential species. Authority to implement the Act with section 7 of the Act. listing factors. The evidence presented (26) Comment: Numerous does not require Federal jurisdiction or suggests that the threats to the species commenters suggested that the listing of land ownership are both natural and manmade (see the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog, (22) Comment: Multiple commenters Factor E—Other Natural or Manmade the northern DPS of the mountain indicated that existing Federal and State Factors Affecting the Species), but that yellow-legged frog, and the Yosemite legislation and regulations, such as the they are primarily the result of toad are being misused to restrict or Wilderness Act, CESA, and CDFW anthropogenic influences (see Summary prohibit access for fishing, hiking, regulations, provide sufficient of Factors Affecting the Species in this camping, and other recreational uses, protection for these amphibians, and final rule). Thus, the threats associated and implement land use restrictions, thereby eliminate the need for listing with the declines of these species are management requirements, and personal the species. not part of a natural evolutionary liabilities on the public that are not Our Response: We agree that existing process. prudent, clearly defined, or necessary. Federal and State legislation and (25) Comment: Several commenters Our Response: The listing of the regulations, such as the Wilderness Act, were concerned about the effects of Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog, the CESA, and CDFW regulations provide listing on mining and associated northern DPS of the mountain yellow- some protection for the Sierra Nevada activities conducted under the General legged frog, and the Yosemite toad does yellow-legged frog, the northern DPS of Mining Law of 1872. They suggested not prevent access to any land, whether the mountain yellow-legged frog, and that the listing of these species will private, tribal, State, or Federal. The the Yosemite toad. However, while remove 5 million acres from mining and listing of a species does not affect land existing legislation and regulations other productive uses of the land. One ownership or establish a refuge, provide some level of protection for the commenter was concerned that there wilderness, reserve, or other Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog, the would be no assurances that conservation area. A listing does not northern DPS of the mountain yellow- development of a mining claim will allow the government or public to legged frog, and the Yosemite toad, they result in the ability to mine it. access private lands without the do not require that Federal agencies Our Response: In the proposed rule, permission of the landowner. It does not ensure that actions that they fund, we identified unauthorized discharge of require implementation of restoration, authorize, or carry out will not likely chemicals or fill material into any water recovery, or enhancement measures by jeopardize the species’ continued upon which the Sierra Nevada yellow- non-Federal landowners. Federal existence (for further information see legged frog, the northern DPS of the agencies will review actions that they discussions under Factor D). Therefore, mountain yellow-legged frog, and the fund, authorize, or carry out to we have determined that the Sierra Yosemite toad are known to occur as a determine if any of these three Nevada yellow-legged frog and the potential threat to these species. On amphibians, and other listed species as northern DPS of the mountain yellow- National Forests outside of designated appropriate, may be affected by the legged frog are endangered and that the wilderness, new mining may occur Federal action. The Federal agency will

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:54 Apr 28, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\29APR3.SGM 29APR3 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 24305

consult with the Service, in accordance these stressors on small populations. potential overlap with this illegal with Section 7 of the Act (see also Neither the Wilderness Act nor the activity and areas occupied by mountain response to comment 25). protections afforded within National yellow-legged frogs; however, not (27) Comment: Several commenters Parks ameliorates these threats to levels enough information is available at this suggested that listing the Sierra Nevada that would preclude the need to list the point to assess the impact that illegal yellow-legged frog and the northern DPS species under the Act (see discussion cultivation of marijuana has on the of the mountain yellow-legged frog under Factor D). species. under the Act is not necessary given (29) Comment: One commenter stated (32) Comment: Several commenters that a majority of the range of these that we failed to consider the suggest that there is insufficient species is within wilderness areas effectiveness of restoration activities evidence to make a listing afforded protection under the being conducted by CDFW as part of determination for the mountain yellow- Wilderness Act and by the protections their High Mountain Lakes Project and legged frog in accordance with the Act. afforded under CESA. plans for Yosemite and Sequoia and Our Response: As we have presented Our Response: We agree that existing Kings National Parks that are intended in both the proposed rule and this final Federal and State legislation and to implement restoration actions. rule, a substantial compilation of regulations, such as the Wilderness Act Our Response: We are aware of the scientific and commercial information is and CESA, provide some protection for activities, including the High Mountain available to support listing both the the Sierra Nevada mountain yellow- Lakes Project (see Factor A discussions Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog and legged frog, the northern DPS of the above in this final rule), being the northern DPS of the mountain mountain yellow-legged frog, and the conducted by CDFW, USFS, NPS, and yellow-legged frog under the Act. We Yosemite toad. However, we identified researchers aimed at restoring habitat have presented evidence that there has the main threats to the two frog species for the mountain yellow-legged frog. been a curtailment in range and as habitat degradation and While efforts of interested parties have numbers attributed to habitat fragmentation, predation and disease, resulted in the restoration of habitat for degradation and fragmentation under climate change, and the interactions of these species, the restored habitat Factor A, predation and disease under these stressors on small populations. represents a small portion of the range Factor C, and climate change and the Neither the Wilderness Act nor the of the species, and has occurred only in interaction of these various stressors State’s listing status under CESA localized areas. As such, these activities, cumulatively impacting small remnant ameliorates these threats to levels that while beneficial and important for the populations under Factor E (see would preclude the need to list the recovery of the species, do not Determination for the Sierra Nevada species under the Act. (See discussion significantly counter the threats of Yellow-legged Frog and Determination under Factor D). introduced predators, disease, or for the Northern DPS of the Mountain (28) Comment: One commenter climate change. Additionally, we are Yellow-legged Frog sections above for a suggested that habitat and range of the aware of planning efforts by Yosemite synopsis and see the Summary of mountain yellow-legged frog is not and Sequoia and Kings National Parks, Factors Affecting the Species for a threatened with destruction or partially implemented, and we are detailed analysis). modification based on a large portion aware that these restoration plans have (33) Comment: Numerous being located in wilderness, and the not been finalized. commenters purported that the greatest proposed rule stating ‘‘physical habitat (30) Comment: One commenter threat to the mountain yellow-legged destruction does not appear to be the provided information suggesting frog is Bd, and since listing the species primary factor associated with the livestock are responsible for the will not alleviate the threat, the species decline of the mountain yellow-legged transportation of Bd in the environment. should not be listed. Additionally, it frogs.’’ Our Response: While livestock may was suggested that these species should Our Response: While we agree that provide a vector for the transmission of be reared in captivity until the threat of the loss, destruction, or conversion of amphibian disease within the Sierra Bd is resolved. physical habitat is not a primary factor Nevada, there are numerous other Our Response: We agree that Bd is in the decline of the mountain yellow- mechanisms of transport, including one of the primary contributing factors legged frogs, we discuss both the wildlife, as well as anthropogenic in the current decline of these species; biological modification of habitat due to vectors. Since the importance of however, it is not the only factor changes in predator communities, prey differing disease vectors related to Bd is responsible for their decline or the only communities, and in nutrient levels, poorly understood, we did not include one forming the basis of our and due to the habitat fragmentation a discussion of disease transport determination. All Factors are associated with the presence of associated with livestock grazing in this considered when making a listing introduced fish. Although the presence rule (see Factor C for discussion of determination (see the Summary of of introduced fish does not result in disease). Factors Affecting the Species for a conversion or loss of the physical (31) Comment: One commenter detailed discussion). We have also attributes of habitat (for example, provided information to suggest that identified habitat fragmentation and removal or filling of lakes, ponds, etc.), activities associated with illicit predation attributed to the introduction fish presence does effectively preclude cultivation of marijuana on National of fish and climate change as threats to the use of the habitat by the mountain Forest System lands should be the species. We are required to evaluate yellow-legged frog (see our discussion identified as a potential threat to the all the threats affecting a species, under Factor A). While a large portion mountain yellow-legged frog. including disease under Factor C. of the range of the mountain yellow- Our Response: We agree that aspects With respect to the prospect of legged frog is within federally associated with illegal cultivation of captive breeding, we acknowledge that designated wilderness, or on National marijuana on National Forest System this activity is one of the suite of tools Parks, we identified the main threats to lands may pose a risk to the mountain that can be utilized for the conservation the species as habitat degradation and yellow-legged frogs, such as dewatering of the species. Captive breeding is fragmentation, predation and disease, of habitats and contamination from currently being conducted for the climate change, and the interactions of pesticides and fertilizers. There is southern DPS of the mountain yellow-

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:54 Apr 28, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\29APR3.SGM 29APR3 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES 24306 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

legged frog, and we are currently consider the majority of the impacts The commenter further suggested the working with various facilities to associated with livestock grazing are the text of the rule specifying two major explore this option. Additionally, when legacy effects of historically high genetic lineages and four groups does a species is listed as either endangered grazing intensities. not support listing of the frogs as or threatened, the Act provides many (35) Comment: One commenter stated separate genetic groups. tools to advance the conservation of that the discussion of the effects of Our Response: Vredenburg et al. listed species; available tools including global climate change in the proposed (2007, p. 317) did not rely solely on recovery planning under section 4 of the rule for the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged DNA evidence in the recognition of two Act, interagency cooperation and frog, northern DPS of the mountain distinct species of mountain yellow- consultation under section 7 of the Act, yellow-legged frog, and Yosemite toad legged frog in the Sierra Nevada, but and grants to the States under section 6 was not appropriate. The commenter instead used a combination of DNA of the Act. All of these mechanisms believed that the Service ‘‘pushes’’ the evidence, morphological information, assist in the conservation of the species. climate models, both spatially and and acoustic studies. The taxonomy of (34) Comment: Several commenters temporally, beyond what the commenter the mountain yellow-legged frogs as two provided information to suggest that considered to be reliable, and ignores distinct species in the Sierras has been livestock grazing is not detrimental to their uncertainty. In addition, the widely accepted in the scientific amphibian species and that the commenter claims that no credible community and by species experts. We proposed rule did not adequately models can project potential climate are not listing a subspecies but rather capture the neutral or beneficial effects change in the Sierra Nevada. The two separate, recognized species, the of livestock grazing on amphibian commenter stated the Act is not an Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog and species. appropriate mechanism to regulate the northern DPS of the mountain Our Response: We have revised our global climate change and greenhouse yellow-legged frog. discussion of grazing in this final rule gases. Finally, the commenter suggested (37) Comment: Several commenters to clarify the conditions under which if the Service does list the three suggested that activities such as timber we consider current grazing activities to amphibians, that they be designated as harvest, road construction, recreation, pose habitat-related threats (see Factor threatened species with a section 4(d) and livestock grazing are in decline in A above). In addition, research with a rule that excludes lawful greenhouse the Sierras compared with historical related ranid frog of western montane gases from the prohibitions of the Act. levels and should not be included as environments, (the Columbia spotted Our Response: We used the best potential threats to the Sierra Nevada frog, Rana luteiventris) has indicated available scientific and commercial yellow-legged frog, the northern DPS of that livestock grazing may reduce information available as it pertains to the mountain yellow-legged frog, or the vegetation levels in riparian and wet climate change. In addition to the peer- Yosemite toad. meadow habitat, but does not have reviewed scientific journal articles and Our Response: In conducting our short-term effects on the frog reports that were utilized in our analysis analysis of the factors affecting the populations, although they caution that and cited in the proposed rule, recently species, we did include timber harvest, the length of the study may not capture published studies have presented data road construction, recreation, and potential long-term effects (Adams et al. and conclusions that increase the level livestock grazing, as potential threats to 2009, pp. 132, 137). However, George et of confidence that global climate change the species, but acknowledge that the al. (2011, pp. 216, 232) in a review of is the result of anthropogenic actions major impact on the species was the the effectiveness of management actions (summarized in Blaustein et al. 2010 result of the legacy effects of historical on riparian areas, noted that continuous and discussed above). A recent paper practices, and that these activities grazing often results in heavy grazing (Kadir et al. 2013) provides specific currently pose a lower intensity, use of riparian areas, even if an area is information on the effects of climate localized threat. We have attempted to lightly stocked, because livestock are change in the Sierra Nevada and is clarify the distinction in this final rule attracted to the areas from adjacent discussed above. While the Service is (see Factor A discussions above). uplands. They note substantial literature concerned about the effects of global (38) Comment: Numerous that documents that livestock grazing climate change on listed species, commenters stated that listing the could damage riparian areas, and the wildlife, and their habitats, to date, we mountain yellow-legged frogs and the resulting move, beginning in the 1980s, have not used the Act to regulate Yosemite toad would prevent fuels- in Federal and State resource agencies greenhouse gases. We evaluated the reduction activities, leading to fires and to apply conservation practices to suggestion that the three amphibians be loss of habitat. protecting and improving riparian listed as threatened species with a Our Response: In this final rule under habitats (George et al. 2011, p. 217). section 4(d) rule excluding prohibitions Factor A for the mountain yellow-legged They note that studies provide sufficient or restrictions on greenhouse gases. frogs and Yosemite toad, we address evidence that riparian grazing However, our determination is that the potential habitat changes that may be management that maintains or enhances Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog and related to timber harvest activities, key vegetation attributes will enhance the northern DPS of the mountain including harvests for fuels reduction stream channel and riparian soil yellow-legged frog meet the definition of purposes. We found that most stability, although variable biotic and endangered, the Yosemite toad meets populations of the three species occur at abiotic conditions can have site-specific the definition of threatened, and a high elevations above areas where effects on results (George et al. 2011, pp. section 4(d) rule for greenhouse gases is timber harvests are likely. At lower 217–227). not appropriate. elevations, forest standards and In our proposed rule, we focused on (36) Comment: One commenter guidelines would be expected to limit livestock grazing as a potential listing suggested that the discussion of genetics potential threats to the species in most factor, and while there are potentially for the mountain yellow-legged frog cases, although limited site-specific some current, localized effects to the does not support the taxonomy of the situations might result in habitat effects Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog, the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog and with population consequences. We also northern DPS of the mountain yellow- the northern DPS of the mountain found that changed fire regimes have, in legged frog, and the Yosemite toad, we yellow-legged frog as separate species. some of the same lower elevation areas,

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:54 Apr 28, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\29APR3.SGM 29APR3 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 24307

led to an increased potential for high- historical context as a potential populations had markedly different intensity fires, which could alter habitat contributor to meadow degradation. genetics characteristics. and, therefore, pose relatively localized There is a great deal of information, Our Response: The commenters population-level effects to the species. while not specific to Yosemite toad, on correctly noted that, to recognize a For the Yosemite toad, we found that the negative impacts of high-intensity population of a species as a DPS, we although ground-disturbance due to grazing regimes on ecosystem dynamics. must establish that the population is (1) timber harvest activities has the Grazing under current Forest Service discrete from the remainder of the potential to have population-level standards does not appear to impact populations to which the species effects at lower elevations, especially Yosemite toad breeding, however when belongs, and (2) if determined to be where habitat is limited, currently the inappropriate levels of grazing do occur, discrete, it is also found to be significant best available information indicates grazing may still present a localized to the species to which it belongs. toads might achieve long-term benefits impact on Yosemite toads via direct However, the commenters incorrectly from activities that reduce mortality or through practices that conclude that the population must meet encroachment of trees into breeding prevent the hydrologic recovery of all three criteria for significance. We sites. Therefore, we expect that fuels- historically wet meadow systems. While find the northern population of the reduction activities in lower elevation the documented declines of Yosemite mountain yellow-legged frog to be areas will be generally beneficial to toad have occurred in areas that are not discrete from the southern population these species. currently subject to livestock grazing, because it is separated from the (39) Comment: A number of historical grazing occurred throughout southern frogs by a 225-km (140-mi) commenters suggested that, given the the Sierra Nevada. We did not implicate barrier of unsuitable habitat. The results of more-recent studies that were livestock grazing in the decline in primary basis for our finding that the not included in the proposed rule, population sizes, rather as a potential northern population is significant to the livestock grazing should be removed as historical driver in meadow degradation species as a whole is that loss of the a threat to the Yosemite toad (See also rangewide. We have clarified this northern population would mean the comment 13 from the USFS). distinction in the final rule (see Factor loss of the species from a large portion Our Response: In our proposed rule, A discussion and Summary of Factors of its range and reduce the species to we addressed the potential impacts of Affecting the Species for the Yosemite small isolated occurrences in southern grazing on Yosemite toad based on toad). California. The population also meets Allen-Diaz et al. (2010). The more- (41) Comment: One commenter two additional criteria for significance: recent studies referenced (such as Roche suggested that livestock grazing (1) Evidence of the persistence of the et al. 2012a and 2012b, and McIlroy et continues to provide a threat to the discrete population segment in an al. 2013) are different publications but Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog and ecological setting unusual or unique for are based on the results of the Yosemite toad and provided the taxon, and (2) evidence that the companion studies whose initial report, information documenting habitat discrete population segment differs and subsequent addendum, we degradation attributed to current markedly from the remainder of the referenced as Allen-Diaz et al. (2010) livestock grazing and utilization above species in its genetic characteristics. We and Lind et al. (2011b). The study the standards of the SNFPA. have revised the language in our DPS conducted determined that livestock Our Response: As we have presented analysis to clarify the basis for the grazing in accordance with the USFS’s in the proposed and final rules, the determination (see Distinct Vertebrate standards and guidelines does not affect impact of livestock grazing on these Population Segment Analysis). Yosemite toad breeding success. While species is primarily one of historical (43) Comment: Numerous appropriately managed levels of grazing significance, with the potential for commenters commented that we were do not impact breeding success, these future localized impacts to the species required to complete a NEPA analysis of grazing standards are not always met. and/or their habitat. Based on the the proposed listing. Additionally, the main impact of information provided regarding habitat Our Response: We have determined grazing on Yosemite toad is due to the conditions and potential impacts to that environmental assessments and legacy effects of historical grazing habitat, we have maintained our environmental impact statements, as intensities on Yosemite toad habitat. position that current livestock grazing defined under the authority of the Given the limitations of the study (see poses a localized impact to the National Environmental Policy Act discussion under Factor A) and the mountain yellow-legged frogs and a (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not documentation that these standards are prevalent threat with moderate impacts be prepared in connection with listing not always met, livestock grazing may to the Yosemite toad. a species as an endangered or continue to pose a localized threat to the (42) Comment: One party commented threatened species under the species. that we have not demonstrated that the Endangered Species Act. We published (40) Comment: One commenter Sierra Nevada population of the a notice outlining our reasons for this provided several comments suggesting mountain yellow-legged frog is a DPS. determination in the Federal Register that livestock grazing is not a threat to They indicate that we have not shown on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244) (see Yosemite toad in light of the results of that the population is significant to the Required Determinations section of this a current study, the documentation of taxon as a whole because we have not rule). Yosemite toads existing in areas that shown whether other populations of the (44) Comment: One commenter asked have been subject to grazing for species could persist in the high- that, if we determine that the three centuries, and because the population elevation Sierra Nevada portion of the amphibian species under consideration declines cited in our proposed rule species’ range or discussed how the are endangered or threatened under the occurred in an area not subject to Sierra Nevada populations are adapted Act, then we enter into a cooperative grazing. to the area. In addition, they indicate agreement with the State of California Our Response: See response to that we failed to show that extirpation under section 6 of the Act. comments 13, 14, and 39. In our of the northern population would result Our Response: We have been proposed rule, we identified the impacts in a significant gap in the range of the operating under such a cooperative of livestock grazing primarily from an species, and we did not show that the agreement with the California

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:54 Apr 28, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\29APR3.SGM 29APR3 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES 24308 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

Department of Fish and Game (now regarding available time in which to prohibitions against certain activities Department of Fish and Wildlife publish a final rule. are discussed, in part, below. (CDFW)) since 1991. http:// (48) Comment: One commenter noted The primary purpose of the Act is the www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/nongame/ that the Act authorizes the Secretary to conservation of endangered and publications/docs/CDFGCooperative extend the time available for publication threatened species and the ecosystems AgreementWithUSFWS.pdf of a final rule by up to 6 months if upon which they depend. The ultimate (45) Comment: One commenter stated ‘‘there is substantial disagreement goal of such conservation efforts is the that if the three amphibians considered regarding the sufficiency or accuracy of recovery of these listed species, so that are listed as threatened or endangered, the available data.’’ The commenter they no longer need the protective then research should continue into the stated that such substantial measures of the Act. Subsection 4(f) of causes of population decline. disagreement does exist and so the Act requires the Service to develop Our Response: We expect research on requested that the available time be and implement recovery plans for the these issues to continue into the future. extended by 6 months. Specifically, the conservation of endangered and Once the three amphibians are listed as commenter indicated that the available threatened species. The recovery threatened or endangered species under data are not sufficient to support listing planning process involves the the Act, additional funding for research after taking into account various Federal identification of actions that are and other conservation programs for and State statutes and programs necessary to halt or reverse the species’ those species will become available currently benefiting the three species. decline by addressing the threats to its through grants established under section Such statutes and programs include the survival and recovery. The goal of this 6 of the Act. Such grants are provided Wilderness Act, the Sierra Nevada process is to restore listed species to a to State agencies with which we have Forest Plan, the Clean Water Act, the point where they are secure, self- established cooperative agreements. California Endangered Species Act, and sustaining, and functioning components (46) Comment: One commenter the discontinuation of fish stocking by of their ecosystems. Recovery planning includes the indicated that because of a County CDFW in much of the range of the two development of a recovery outline resolution, we must coordinate with the frogs. shortly after a species is listed and board of supervisors of that County Our Response: While we agree that preparation of a draft and final recovery prior to publishing a final rule. these efforts aid in the conservation of plan. The recovery outline guides the Our Response: We provide all the three amphibians, we do not immediate implementation of urgent interested parties an equal opportunity consider substantial disagreement to recovery actions and describes the to submit comments or information exist regarding our conclusion that the process to be used to develop a recovery prior to publication of a final rule, and Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog and plan. Revisions of the plan may be done we give equal consideration to all such the northern DPS of the mountain to address continuing or new threats to information and comments, regardless yellow-legged frog meet the definition of the species, as new substantive of source. Our requirements for ‘‘endangered species’’ under the Act. information becomes available. The ‘‘coordination,’’ however, are We considered the existing Federal and recovery plan identifies site-specific established by the Act, by other Federal State statutes and programs in our management actions that set a trigger for statutes such as the Administrative determination. The data documenting review of the five factors that control Procedure Act, and by executive order. population declines and extirpations whether a species remains endangered (47) Comment: Several commenters associated with Bd and the presence of or may be downlisted or delisted, and asked for additional time to provide introduced fish are sufficient for the methods for monitoring recovery comments. One commenter added that Service to determine that the two progress. Recovery plans also establish we provided little public outreach. species are ‘‘in danger of extinction a framework for agencies to coordinate Our Response: As discussed in the throughout all or a significant portion of their recovery efforts and provide first paragraph of the Summary of [their] range[s].’’ Data also show that the estimates of the cost of implementing Comments and Recommendations Yosemite toad is vulnerable to habitat recovery tasks. Recovery teams section (above), we provided two changes and climate change, and thus (composed of species experts, Federal additional public comment periods for a merits listing as a threatened species, and State agencies, nongovernmental total of 240 days (approximately 8 which is defined as ‘‘likely to become organizations, and stakeholders) are months) of public comment. We also an endangered species within the often established to develop recovery hosted two public hearings and two foreseeable future within all or a plans. When completed, the recovery public informational meetings at various significant portion of its range.’’ outline, draft recovery plan, and the locations within the range of the species Available Conservation Measures final recovery plan will be available on under consideration. We also attended our Web site (http://www.fws.gov/ two additional public meetings hosted Conservation measures provided to endangered), or from our Sacramento by Congressmen representing districts species listed as endangered or Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR within the range of the species. We threatened under the Act include FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). contacted and sought input from recognition, recovery actions, Implementation of recovery actions appropriate Federal and State agencies, requirements for Federal protection, and generally requires the participation of a scientific experts and organizations, and prohibitions against certain practices. broad range of partners, including other other interested parties. We also Recognition through listing results in Federal agencies, States, Tribal, published notices in the newspapers public awareness, and conservation by nongovernmental organizations, with the largest readerships within both Federal, State, Tribal, and local businesses, and private landowners. the northern and southern portions of agencies, private organizations, and Examples of recovery actions include the ranges of the species. Additional individuals. The Act encourages habitat restoration (e.g., restoration of public comment periods or outreach cooperation with the States and requires native vegetation), research, captive were not feasible given limitations that recovery actions be carried out for propagation and reintroduction, and imposed by available funds and all listed species. The protection outreach and education. The recovery of requirements imposed by the Act required by Federal agencies and the many listed species cannot be

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:54 Apr 28, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\29APR3.SGM 29APR3 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 24309

accomplished solely on Federal lands 9(a)(2) of the Act, codified at 50 CFR (5) Unauthorized discharge of because their range may occur primarily 17.21 for endangered wildlife, in part, chemicals or fill material into any or solely on non-Federal lands. To make it illegal for any person subject to waters in which the Sierra Nevada achieve recovery of these species the jurisdiction of the United States to yellow-legged frog, the northern DPS of requires cooperative conservation efforts take (includes harass, harm, pursue, the mountain yellow-legged frog, or the on private, State, and Tribal lands. hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, Yosemite toad are known to occur. Following publication of this final or collect; or to attempt any of these), Questions regarding whether specific listing rule, funding for recovery actions import, export, ship in interstate activities would constitute a violation of will be available from a variety of commerce in the course of commercial section 9 of the Act should be directed sources, including Federal budgets, activity, or sell or offer for sale in to the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife State programs, and cost share grants for interstate or foreign commerce any Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION non-Federal landowners, the academic listed species. Under the Lacey Act (18 CONTACT). community, and nongovernmental U.S.C. 42–43; 16 U.S.C. 3371–3378), it organizations. In addition, pursuant to is also illegal to possess, sell, deliver, Under section 4(d) of the ESA, the section 6 of the Act, the States of carry, transport, or ship any such Secretary has discretion to issue such California and Nevada would be eligible wildlife that has been taken illegally. regulations as he deems necessary and for Federal funds to implement Certain exceptions apply to agents of the advisable to provide for the management actions that promote the Service and State conservation agencies. conservation of threatened species. Our protection or recovery of the Sierra We may issue permits to carry out implementing regulations (50 CFR Nevada mountain yellow-legged frog, otherwise prohibited activities 17.31) for threatened wildlife generally Northern Distinct Population Segment involving endangered and threatened incorporate the prohibitions of section 9 of the mountain yellow-legged frog, and wildlife species under certain of the Act for endangered wildlife, the Yosemite toad. Information on our circumstances. Regulations governing except when a ‘‘special rule’’ grant programs that are available to aid permits are codified at 50 CFR 17.22 for promulgated pursuant to section 4(d) of species recovery can be found at: http:// endangered species, and at 17.32 for the Act has been issued with respect to www.fws.gov/grants. threatened species. With regard to a particular threatened species. In such Please let us know if you are endangered wildlife, a permit must be a case, the general prohibitions in 50 interested in participating in recovery issued for the following purposes: for CFR 17.31 would not apply to that efforts for the Sierra Nevada yellow- scientific purposes, to enhance the species, and instead, the special rule legged frog, the northern DPS of the propagation or survival of the species, would define the specific take mountain yellow-legged frog, or the and for incidental take in connection prohibitions and exceptions that would Yosemite toad. Additionally, we invite with otherwise lawful activities. apply for that particular threatened you to submit any new information on It is our policy, as published in the species, which we consider necessary these species whenever it becomes and advisable to conserve the species. available and any information you may Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR The Secretary also has the discretion to have for recovery planning purposes 34272), to identify to the maximum extent practicable at the time a species prohibit by regulation with respect to a (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). Section 7(a) of the Act requires is listed, those activities that would or threatened species any act prohibited by Federal agencies to evaluate their would not constitute a violation of section 9(a)(1) of the ESA. Exercising actions with respect to any species that section 9 of the Act. The intent of this this discretion, which has been is listed as an endangered or threatened policy is to increase public awareness of delegated to the Service by the species and with respect to its critical the effect of a listing on proposed and Secretary, the Service has developed habitat, if any is designated. Regulations ongoing activities within the range of general prohibitions that are appropriate implementing this interagency listed species. The following activities for most threatened species in 50 CFR cooperation provision of the Act are could potentially result in a violation of 17.31 and exceptions to those codified at 50 CFR part 402. Section section 9 of the Act; this list is not prohibitions in 50 CFR 17.32. Since we 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal comprehensive: are not promulgating a special section agencies to ensure that any action (1) Unauthorized collecting, handling, 4(d) rule, all of the section 9 authorized, funded or carried out by possessing, selling, delivering, carrying, prohibitions, including the ‘‘take’’ such agency is not likely to jeopardize or transporting of the species, including prohibitions, will apply to the Yosemite the continued existence of the species or import or export across State lines and toad. international boundaries, except for destroy or adversely modify its critical Required Determinations habitat. If a Federal action may affect a properly documented antique listed species or its critical habitat, the specimens of these taxa at least 100 National Environmental Policy Act (42 responsible Federal agency must enter years old, as defined by section 10(h)(1) U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) into consultation with the Service. of the Act; Federal agency actions within the (2) Introduction of species that We have determined that species’ habitat that may require compete with or prey upon the Sierra environmental assessments and consultation, as described in the Nevada yellow-legged frog, the northern environmental impact statements, as preceding paragraph, include DPS of the mountain yellow-legged frog, defined under the authority of the management and any other landscape- or the Yosemite toad; National Environmental Policy Act altering activities on Federal lands (3) The unauthorized release of (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not administered by the USFS, NPS, and biological control agents that attack any be prepared in connection with listing other Federal agencies as appropriate. life stage of these species; a species as an endangered or The Act and its implementing (4) Unauthorized modification of the threatened species under the regulations set forth a series of general mountain meadow habitats or Endangered Species Act. We published prohibitions and exceptions that apply associated upland areas important for a notice outlining our reasons for this to all endangered and threatened the breeding, rearing, and survival of determination in the Federal Register wildlife. The prohibitions of section these species; and on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:54 Apr 28, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\29APR3.SGM 29APR3 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES 24310 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

Government-to-Government remain sensitive to Indian culture, and PART 17—[AMENDED] Relationship With Tribes to make information available to tribes. In accordance with the President’s References Cited ■ 1. The authority citation for part 17 memorandum of April 29, 1994 continues to read as follows: A complete list of references cited in (Government-to-Government Relations this rulemaking is available on the Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 1531– with Native American Tribal Internet at http://www.regulations.gov 1544; 4201–4245; unless otherwise noted. Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive and upon request from the Sacramento Order 13175 (Consultation and ■ 2. Amend § 17.11(h), the List of Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR Coordination With Indian Tribal Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, by FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). Governments), and the Department of revising the entry for ‘‘Frog, mountain the Interior’s manual at 512 DM 2, we Authors yellow-legged (southern California readily acknowledge our responsibility The primary authors of this final rule DPS)’’ and adding entries for ‘‘Frog, to communicate meaningfully with are the staff members of the Sacramento mountain yellow-legged (northern recognized Federal Tribes on a Fish and Wildlife Office. California DPS)’’, ‘‘Frog, Sierra Nevada government-to-government basis. In yellow-legged’’, and ‘‘Toad, Yosemite’’ accordance with Secretarial Order 3206 List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 to the List of Endangered and of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Endangered and threatened species, Threatened Wildlife in alphabetical Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Exports, Imports, Reporting and order under Amphibians to read as Responsibilities, and the Endangered recordkeeping requirements, follows: Species Act), we readily acknowledge Transportation. our responsibilities to work directly § 17.11 Endangered and threatened with tribes in developing programs for Regulation Promulgation wildlife. healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that Accordingly, we amend part 17, * * * * * tribal lands are not subject to the same subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the controls as Federal public lands, to Code of Federal Regulations, as follows: (h) * * *

Species Vertebrate popu- Historic range lation where endan- Status When listed Critical Special Common name Scientific name gered or threatened habitat rules

******* AMPHIBIANS

******* Frog, mountain yel- Rana muscosa ...... U.S.A. (CA) ...... U.S.A., northern E 834 NA NA low-legged (north- California. ern California DPS). Frog, mountain yel- Rana muscosa ...... U.S.A. (CA) ...... U.S.A., southern E 728 17.95(d) NA low-legged (south- California. ern California DPS).

******* Frog, Sierra Nevada Rana sierrae ...... U.S.A. (CA, NV) ..... Entire ...... E 834 NA NA yellow-legged.

******* Toad, Yosemite ...... Anaxyrus canorus ... U.S.A. (CA) ...... Entire ...... T 834 NA NA

*******

* * * * * Dated: April 21, 2014. Daniel M. Ashe, Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. [FR Doc. 2014–09488 Filed 4–25–14; 1:30 pm] BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:54 Apr 28, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\29APR3.SGM 29APR3 sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES