Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules 37343
970.5204±17 [Removed and Reserved] (ii) The Department’s Board of Contract drainages within its former range. In 10. Section 970.5204–17, Political Appeals or a court has previously ruled as areas where it is still present, activity cost prohibition is removed and unallowable; or populations are often few, small, and reserved. (iii) Was mutually agreed to be widely scattered. Known threats include 11. Section 970.5204–31 is amended unallowable. habitat alteration, destruction, and (d) If the contracting officer determines by revising the introductory paragraph that a cost submitted by the contractor in its fragmentation, predation by nonnative of clause paragraph (h) and adding submission for settlement of cost incurred is: organisms, and disease. Habitat loss clause paragraph (m) to read as follows: (1) Expressly unallowable, then the results from water diversions, dredging, contracting officer shall assess a penalty in livestock grazing, mining, degraded 970.5204±31 Insurance-litigation and an amount equal to the disallowed cost water quality, and groundwater claims. allocated to this contract plus interest on the pumping. Problems associated with * * * * * paid portion of the disallowed cost. Interest small population numbers and size also (h) In addition to the cost reimbursement shall be computed from the date of threaten the species. Evidence suggests limitations contained in FAR part 31, as overpayment to the date of repayment using that adverse effects from water-borne supplemented by DEAR 970.31, and the interest rate specified by the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to Public Law 92–41 contaminants may also threaten this notwithstanding any other provision of this species. This proposed rule, if made contract, the contractor’s liabilities to third (85 Stat. 97); or persons, including employees but excluding (2) Determined unallowable, then the final, would implement Federal costs incidental to worker’s compensation contracting officer shall assess a penalty in protection to this species and provide actions, (and any expenses incidental to such an amount equal to two times the amount of funding for development and liabilities, including litigation costs, counsel the disallowed cost allocated to this contract. implementation of recovery actions. fees, judgments and settlements) shall not be (e) The contracting officer may waive the DATES: We must receive comments from reimbursed if such liabilities were caused by penalty provisions when: all interested parties by September 12, contractor managerial personnel: (1) The contractor withdraws the submission before the formal initiation of an 2000. We must receive public hearing * * * * * requests by July 31, 2000. (m) Reasonable litigation and other legal audit of the submission and submits a expenses are allowable when incurred in revised submission; ADDRESSES: Send comments and accordance with the DOE approved (2) The amount of the unallowable costs materials to the Field Supervisor, contractor legal management procedures allocated to covered contracts is $10,000 or Arizona Ecological Services Field (including cost guidelines) as such less; or Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, procedures may be revised from time to time, (3) The contractor demonstrates to the 2321 West Royal Palm Road, Suite 103, and if not otherwise made unallowable by contracting officer’s satisfaction that: Phoenix, Arizona 85021–4951. law or the provisions of this contract. (i) It has established appropriate policies, personnel training, and an internal control Comments and information received will be available for public inspection, 970.5204±61 [Removed and Reserved] and review system that provides assurances that unallowable costs subject to penalties by appointment, during normal business 12. Section 970.5204–61, Cost are precluded from the contractor’s hours at the above address. prohibitions related to legal and other submission for settlement of costs; and FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim proceedings is removed and reserved. (ii) The unallowable costs subject to the Rorabaugh, Herpetologist, at the above penalty were inadvertently incorporated into address (telephone 602/640–2720; 970.5204±84 [Removed and Reserved] the submission. facsimile 602/640–2730). 13. Section 970.5204–84, Waiver of (End of clause) limitations on severance payments to SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: [FR Doc. 00–14866 Filed 6–13–00; 8:45 am] foreign nationals, is removed and Background reserved. BILLING CODE 6450±01±P 14. Section 970.5204–XX is added to Leopard frogs (Rana pipiens read as follows: complex), long considered to consist of DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR a few highly variable species, are now 970.5204–XX Penalties for recognized as a diverse assemblage of unallowable costs. Fish and Wildlife Service more than two dozen species (Hillis et As prescribed in 970.4207–3 use the al. 1983), with many species described following clause: 50 CFR Part 17 in the last 20 years. Mecham (1968) recognized two distinct variations of Penalties for unallowable costs (APR 2000) RIN 1018±AF41 (a) Contractors which include unallowable ‘‘Rana pipiens’’ in the White Mountains cost in a submission for settlement for cost Endangered and Threatened Wildlife of Arizona. One of these, referred to as incurred, may be subject to penalties. and Plants; Proposal to List the the ‘‘southern form,’’ was depicted as a (b) If, during the review of a submission for stocky frog with raised folds down both settlement of cost incurred, the contracting Chiricahua Leopard Frog as Threatened With a Special Rule sides of the back (dorsolateral folds) that officer determines that the submission were interrupted and deflected medially contains an expressly unallowable cost or a AGENCY towards the rear. The other form cost determined to be unallowable prior to : Fish and Wildlife Service, the submission, the contracting officer shall Interior. matched previous descriptions of Rana assess a penalty. ACTION: Proposed rule. pipiens. Based on morphology, mating (c) Unallowable costs are either expressly calls, and genetic analyses unallowable or determined unallowable. SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and (electrophoretic comparisons of blood (1) An expressly unallowable cost is a Wildlife Service (Service), propose protein samples), Platz and Platz (1973) particular item or type of cost which, under threatened status pursuant to the demonstrated that at least three distinct the express provisions of an applicable law, Endangered Species Act of 1973, as forms of leopard frogs occurred in regulation, or this contract, is specifically amended (Act), for the Chiricahua Arizona, including the southern form. named and stated to be unallowable. (2) A cost determined unallowable is one leopard frog (Rana chiricahuensis). The This southern form was subsequently which, for that contractor, Chiricahua leopard frog is now absent described as the Chiricahua leopard frog (i) Was subject to a contracting officer’s from many historical localities and (Rana chiricahuensis) (Platz and final decision and not appealed; numerous mountain ranges, valleys, and Mecham 1979).
VerDate 11
This new species was distinguished atmospheric ozone depletion, over- southern populations (Platz and from other members of the Rana pipiens collection, natural events such as severe Mecham 1979). This and other complex by a combination of characters, storms or floods, global warming or characteristics that differ regionally including a distinctive pattern on the other climatic events, and as a result of throughout the range of the species rear of the thigh consisting of small, the dynamics of small populations and suggest genetic differentiation. This raised, cream-colored spots or tubercles groups of small populations or differentiation is being investigated and on a dark background, dorsolateral folds metapopulations (Berger et al. 1998, may result in a description of the that were interrupted and deflected Lips 1998, Lind et al. 1996, Rosen et al. northern populations as a separate medially, stocky body proportions, 1996, 1994; Hale et al. 1995, Blaustein species from the southern populations relatively rough skin on the back and et al. 1994, Sredl and Howland 1994, (James Platz, Creighton University, pers. sides, and often green coloration on the Pounds and Crump 1994, Sredl 1993, comm. 1994). If the species is split into head and back (Platz and Mecham Bradford 1991, Wyman 1990, Clarkson two distinct taxa, fewer populations 1979). The species also has a distinctive and Rorabaugh 1989, Corn and would exist within each taxon. call consisting of a relatively long snore Fogleman 1984, Baxter and Meyer 1982, Chiricahua leopard frogs were either of 1 to 2 seconds in duration (Davidson Dimmitt 1979). collected or observed at 212 localities in 1996, Platz and Mecham 1979). Snout- The Chiricahua leopard frog is an Arizona (B. Kuvlesky, Buenos Aires vent lengths of adults range from inhabitant of cienegas (mid-elevation National Wildlife Refuge, pers. comm. approximately 54 to 139 millimeters wetland communities often surrounded 1997; Terry Myers, Apache-Sitgreaves (mm) (2.1 to 5.4 inches (in)) (Stebbins by arid environments), pools, livestock National Forest, pers. comm. 1997; 1985, Platz and Mecham 1979). The tanks, lakes, reservoirs, streams, and Sredl et al. 1997; Rosen et al. 1996; Ramsey Canyon leopard frog (Rana rivers at elevations of 1,000 to 2,710 Snyder et al. 1996; C. Schwalbe, subaquavocalis) is similar in meters (m) (3,281 to 8,890 feet (ft)) in University of Arizona, pers. comm. appearance to the Chiricahua leopard central and southeastern Arizona; west- 1995; R. Zweifel, Portal, Arizona, pers. frog, but it often grows to a larger size central and southwestern New Mexico; comm. 1995; Hale 1992; Clarkson and and has a distinct call that is typically and in Mexico, northern Sonora and the Rorabaugh 1989; Fish and Wildlife given under water (Platz 1993). Sierra Madre Occidental of Chihuahua Service files, Phoenix, Arizona). In New Recent articles in the scientific (Sredl et al. 1997, Degenhardt et al. Mexico, the species was either collected literature report the extirpation and 1996, McCranie and Wilson 1987, Platz or observed at 170 localities (Jennings extinction of amphibians in many parts and Mecham 1979). The taxonomic 1995; Randy Jennings, Western New of the world (Berger et al. 1998, Lips status of frogs in southern Chihuahua Mexico University, pers. comm. 1999; 1998, Laurence et al. 1996, Vial and and possibly Durango is in question. Charles Painter, New Mexico Game and Saylor 1993, Pechmann et al. 1991, The species has been reported from Fish Department, pers. comm. 1999). Blaustein and Wake 1990). Frogs in the southern Chihuahua and Durango Eleven historical localities were listed family Ranidae, which includes the (Hillis et al. 1983, Platz and Mecham by Platz and Mecham (1979) in Mexico, Chiricahua leopard frog, are particularly 1984, 1979); however, Webb and Baker mostly from the eastern base and affected (Sredl et al. 1997, Sredl 1993, (1984) concluded that frogs from foothills of the Sierra Madre Occidental Bradford 1991, Clarkson and Rorabaugh southern Chihuahua were not in Chihuahua and Durango, and one site 1989, Hayes and Jennings 1986, Corn Chiricahua leopard frogs, as expected. in northern Sonora, Mexico. Hillis et al. and Fogleman 1984). Although these The range of the species is divided into (1983) list another locality from population declines are thought to two parts, including—(1) a southern Durango. However, the presence of result in many cases from habitat loss, group of populations (the majority of the Chiricahua leopard frogs in the Sierra predation by introduced predators, or species’ range) located in mountains Madre Occidental of southern other factors, populations are sometimes and valleys south of the Gila River in Chihuahua was questioned by Webb extirpated from seemingly pristine southeastern Arizona, extreme and Baker (1984). Frogs at a locality on habitats or from areas where no obvious southwestern New Mexico, and Mexico; the Sonora-Chihuahua border have been cause of decline can be identified and (2) northern montane populations tentatively identified as Chiricahua (Meyer and Mikesic 1998, Sredl 1993, in west central New Mexico and along leopard frogs (Holycross 1998). Some Drost and Fellers 1993, Corn and the Mogollon Rim in central and eastern museums still have many southwestern Fogleman 1984, Hines et al. 1981). Arizona (Platz and Mecham 1979). leopard frogs catalogued as Rana Although natural long-term fluctuations There are historical records in Pima, pipiens. Once these specimens have in the size of populations and the Santa Cruz, Cochise, Graham, Apache, been reexamined, additional historical number of populations within a species Greenlee, Gila, Coconino, Navajo, and localities for Rana chiricahuensis may are often not well studied, increased Yavapai counties, Arizona; and Catron, result. Also, frogs observed at some extirpation rates and in some cases Grant, Hidalgo, Luna, Soccoro, and localities, which may have been Rana apparent extinction, coupled with Sierra counties, New Mexico (Sredl et chiricahuensis, were not positively recent declining trends in the status of al. 1997, Degenhardt et al. 1996). identified. many amphibian species is alarming Historical records for the Chiricahua Many collections of Chiricahua and may represent a very recent and leopard frog also exist from several sites leopard frogs were made before 1980 rapid global decline of an entire class of in northern and central Chihuahua, (Jennings 1995; Platz and Mecham 1979; vertebrates (Blaustein et al. 1994, Wake northern Sonora, and possibly southern Frost and Bagnara 1977; Mecham 1968). 1991). Chihuahua and Durango (Platz and Recent surveys to document the status Observers have speculated that these Mecham 1984, 1979; Webb and Baker and distribution of the species were declines may have resulted from one or 1984; Hillis et al. 1983). conducted primarily from the mid- more factors, including habitat Male Chiricahua leopard frogs exhibit 1980’s to the present (Sredl et al. 1997, disturbance, predation by introduced variable development of vestigial (small, 1995, 1994, 1993; Rosen et al. 1996; predators such as nonnative fish and nonfunctional) oviducts. Vestigial Fernandez and Bagnara 1995; Jennings amphibians, disease, drought, oviducts are absent in most specimens 1995; Rorabaugh et al. 1995; Rosen pesticides, acid rain, heavy metals, from the northern populations but are 1995; Zweifel 1995; Sredl and Howland increased ultraviolet radiation due to generally present in specimens from 1994, 1992; Hale 1992; Scott 1992;
VerDate 11
Wood 1991; Clarkson and Rorabaugh denied access to biologists (the privately sites in southeastern Arizona, Rosen et 1989; Rosen and Schwalbe 1988). These owned Gray and Ladder ranches are al. (1994) reported the Chiricahua surveys were summarized by Jennings notable exceptions). As in Arizona, leopard frog was extant at 19 historical (1995) for New Mexico and Sredl et al. potential habitat within the range of the and new sites, but was not found at 32 (1997) for Arizona. In 1995, Jennings southern populations has been surveyed historical localities. Throughout reported Chiricahua leopard frogs at 11 more extensively than that of the Arizona, Sredl et al. (1997) found the sites in New Mexico. An additional 16 northern populations. From 1990–1991, species present at 21 of 109 historical populations have been found since 1995 Scott (1992) conducted extensive localities. (R. Jennings, pers. comm. 1999, C. surveys of the Gray Ranch, which Determining whether a species is Painter, pers. comm. 1999), for a total of contains much of the Chiricahua declining based on its presence or 27. Twenty-two of these occur north of leopard frog habitat in southwestern absence at historical sites is difficult. Interstate 10 (northern populations), and New Mexico. Observations from Where frogs are observed at a particular five are in the southwestern corner of numerous other herpetologists were site, they are considered extant. the state (southern populations). Sredl included within his reports, and However, a failure to find frogs does not et al. (1997) reported that during 1990– cowboys and ranch hands were necessarily indicate the species is 1997 Chiricahua leopard frogs were interviewed to locate potential habitats. absent. Corn (1994) notes that leopard found at 61 sites in southeastern Jennings (1995) surveyed other potential frogs may be difficult to detect, museum Arizona (southern populations) and 15 habitats in southwestern New Mexico records do not always represent sites in central and east-central Arizona outside of the Gray Ranch in the breeding localities, collections have (northern populations). As a means to Peloncillo Mountains. Other occurred from marginal habitat, and make the Arizona and New Mexico herpetologists working in that area, museum and literature records often status information more comparable, the including Charles Painter (pers. comm. represent surveys over long periods of number of sites at which Chiricahua 1998) and Andy Holycross, Arizona time, which ignores natural processes of leopard frogs were observed from 1995 State University (pers. comm. 1997), geographical extinction and to the present in Arizona were tallied. also worked extensively in this area. recolonization. The natural processes of Based on available data, particularly Probably few if any unknown extinction and recolonization may be Sredl et al. (1997) and Rosen et al. populations of Chiricahua leopard frogs particularly important for the (1996), Chiricahua leopard frogs were occur in southwestern New Mexico. Chiricahua leopard frog because its observed at 52 sites in Arizona from Surveys in the northern portion of the habitats are often small and very 1995 to the present, including 9 species’ range in New Mexico have been dynamic. Because the Chiricahua northern localities and 43 southern less complete. Jennings (1995) believed leopard frog and other southwestern localities. that the wilderness areas of the Gila leopard frogs exhibit a life history that Recent surveys of potential habitats in National Forest have the greatest predisposes them to high rates of Arizona are more complete than surveys potential for supporting additional extirpation and recolonization (Sredl done in New Mexico. Sredl et al. (1997) extant populations and for securing an and Howland 1994), its absence from at conducted 656 surveys for ranid frogs intact metapopulation that would have least some historical sites is expected. (frogs in the family Ranidae) within the a good chance of long-term persistence. The failure of experienced observers range of the Chiricahua leopard frog in In Mexico systematic or intensive to find frogs indicates that frogs are southeastern Arizona. Rosen et al. surveys for Chiricahua leopard frogs probably absent, particularly in (1996, 1994), Hale (1992), Wood (1991), were not conducted. However, it is relatively simple aquatic systems such Clarkson and Rorabaugh (1989), and expected that the species almost as most stock tanks and stream others have also surveyed wetlands in certainly occurs or occurred at more segments. Howland et al. (1997) southeastern Arizona extensively. It is than the 12 (or 13) reported localities in evaluated visual encounter surveys at unlikely that many additional new Chihuahua, Sonora, and Durango (Platz five leopard frog localities. At sites with populations will be found there. A and Mecham 1979, Hillis et al. 1983, known populations that were not dry, greater potential exists for locating frogs and Holycross 1998). However, the frogs were detected in 93 of 100 surveys at additional localities in Arizona’s identity of leopard frogs in southern conducted during the day from April northern region. Sredl et al. (1997) Chihuahua (and perhaps Durango) is in through October. During a drought in conducted 871 surveys for ranid frogs in some question (Webb and Baker 1984). 1994, Rosen et al. (1996, 1994) surveyed the range of the northern localities, but Only one locality has been documented all known localities of the Chiricahua report that only 25 of 46 historical in Sonora, yet populations occur or leopard frog in southeastern Arizona Chiricahua leopard frog localities were occurred in the mountain ranges and and other accessible waters, and surveyed during 1990–1997. valleys adjacent to the Sonora border in discussed locations of waters and faunal Unsurveyed historical localities are Arizona. Other localities probably occur occurrence with landowners. By primarily located on the San Carlos and or occurred in Sonora. focusing on aquatic sites that did not go Fort Apache Reservations, in areas that The Chiricahua leopard frog is dry, and through careful and often have generally not been accessible to reported absent from a majority of multiple surveys at each site, the State and Federal biologists. Additional historical localities. In Arizona, authors were able to define distribution populations of Chiricahua leopard frogs Clarkson and Rorabaugh (1989) found at a time when aquatic faunal patterns of which we are currently unaware may the species at only 2 of 36 sites that were clear. The authors believed that occur on these tribal lands. supported Chiricahua leopard frogs in nearly all potential habitat was Of the historical localities in New the 1960s and 1970s. In New Mexico, surveyed, and, if frogs were present, Mexico, 80 of 170 were not revisited Jennings (1995) found Chiricahua they would be detectable at most sites. since frogs were last collected or leopard frogs at 6 of 33 sites supporting Although survey data strongly suggest observed. Twenty-four of these the species during the previous 11 that the species is absent at a high unvisited sites have imprecise locality years. Sredl and Howland (1994) percentage of historical sites (absent information that precludes locating or reported finding Chiricahua leopard from 76 and 82 percent of historical revisiting them. Many others are on frogs at only 12 of 87 historical sites. In sites in New Mexico and Arizona, private lands to which the owners have 1994, during surveys of 175 wetland respectively) (Sredl et al. 1997, Jennings
VerDate 11
1995), additional analyses are warranted and East Fork of the Gila River, where populations of Chiricahua leopard frogs, to determine whether extirpations the species occurred historically at and were likely stable source represent natural fluctuations or long- many localities. populations for dispersal to smaller term declines caused by human impacts In Arizona, the species is still extant sites, are almost all inhabited by (Blaustein et al. 1994, Pechman et al. in all major drainages of historical nonnative predators and are unsuitable 1991). occurrence (Little Colorado, Salt, Verde, as habitat for this species (Sredl et al. Numerous studies indicate that Gila, San Pedro, Santa Cruz, Yaqui/ 1997, Sredl and Howland 1994). The declines and extirpations of Chiricahua Bavispe, and Magdalena river currently extant smaller populations leopard frogs are at least in part caused drainages), but was not found recently almost certainly exhibit greater by predation and possibly competition in some major tributaries and/or from extinction rates than these larger by nonnative organisms, including fish river mainstems. For instance, the populations did historically. in the family Centrarchidae species was not reported from 1995 to Rosen et al. (1996) hypothesized that (Micropterus spp., Lepomis spp.), the present from the following drainages ‘‘the ongoing restriction of Chiricahua bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana), tiger or river mainstems where it historically leopard frogs to shallow, marginal salamanders (Ambystoma tigrinum occurred: White River, East Clear Creek, habitat types means that eventually the mavortium), crayfish (Oronectes virilis West Clear Creek, Silver Creek, Tonto species will be wiped out by a drought and possibly others), and several other Creek, Verde River mainstem, San (see Fellers and Drost 1993, Corn and species of fish (Fernandez and Rosen Francisco River, San Carlos River, upper Fogelman 1984) that it would readily 1998, Rosen et al. 1996, 1994; Snyder et San Pedro River mainstem, Santa Cruz have weathered in refugia now pre- al. 1996; Fernandez and Bagnara 1995; River mainstem, Aravaipa Creek, empted by nonnative species. Our Sredl and Howland 1994; Clarkson and Babocomari River mainstem, and hypothesis clearly predicts that this Rorabaugh 1989). For instance, in the Sonoita Creek. In southeastern Arizona, species will go extinct in southern Chiricahua region of southeastern no recent records (1995 to the present) Arizona, and probably elsewhere, unless Arizona, Rosen et al. (1996) found that exist for the following mountain ranges appropriate action is taken.’’ In New almost all perennial waters investigated or valleys: Pinaleno Mountains, Mexico, Painter (1996) reported similar that lacked introduced predatory Peloncillo Mountains, Sulphur Springs findings: ‘‘Rana chiricahuensis is vertebrates supported Chiricahua Valley, Huachuca Mountains, and rapidly disappearing from southwest leopard frogs. All waters except three Canelo Hills. In many of these regions, New Mexico (Jennings 1995, pers. obs.). that supported introduced vertebrate Chiricahua leopard frogs were not found Unless these unexplainable trends are predators lacked Chiricahua leopard for a decade or more despite repeated quickly reversed, I expect the species to frogs. The authors noted an alarming surveys. be extirpated from 90–100 percent of its expansion of nonnative predatory These apparent regional extirpations former range in New Mexico within the vertebrates over the last 2 decades. In provide further evidence that the next decade * * *’’. the Chiricahua region, Chiricahua species is disappearing from its range. Previous Federal Action leopard frogs were primarily limited to Once extirpated from a region, natural habitats subject to drying or near drying, recolonization of suitable habitats is Based on status information such as stock tanks, which discourages unlikely to occur in the near future. indicating the species was recently the establishment of nonnative Where the species is still extant, extirpated from historical localities predatory fish and bullfrogs. These sometimes several small populations are (Clarkson and Rorabaugh 1989), the habitats are highly dynamic and may be found in close proximity suggesting Chiricahua leopard frog was added to marginal habitats for leopard frogs metapopulations are important for the list of category 2 candidate species (Rosen et al. 1994). preventing regional extirpation (Sredl et with the publication of a comprehensive Additional evidence that the observed al. 1997). Notice of Review on November 21, 1991 absence of Chiricahua leopard frogs Disruption of metapopulation (56 FR 58804). We also included the from historical sites is not the result of dynamics is likely an important factor species as a category 2 candidate in the a natural phenomenon emerges from the in regional loss of populations (Sredl et November 15, 1994, Notice of Review analyses of regional occurrence. If the al. 1997, Sredl and Howland 1994). (59 FR 58982). Category 2 candidates extirpation of the Chiricahua leopard Chiricahua leopard frog populations are were those taxa for which we had some frog were a natural artifact of often small, and habitats are dynamic, evidence of vulnerability and threats, metapopulation dynamics or other resulting in a relatively low probability but for which we lacked sufficient data population-level processes, then an of long-term population persistence. to support a listing proposal. observer would not expect to find the However, if populations are relatively Beginning with our February 28, species absent from large portions of its close together and numerous, extirpated 1996, candidate notice of review (61 FR range. Rather, Chiricahua leopard frogs sites can be recolonized. 7596), we discontinued the designation might be absent from some historical Human disturbances can result in of multiple categories of candidates, and sites, but would still be found at other increased rates of extinction and only those taxa meeting the definition new or historical sites in the region. In decreased rates of recolonization. If the for former category 1 candidates are New Mexico, Jennings (1995) reported extinction rate for a given population now considered candidates for listing extant Chiricahua leopard frog exceeds the colonization rate, that purposes. Category 1 candidates were populations in each of the six major population will go extinct (Hanski taxa for which we had on file sufficient drainages where the species was found 1991). Various human impacts (see information on biological vulnerability historically (Tularosa/San Francisco, Summary of Factors Affecting the and threats to support proposals to list Mimbres, Alamosa/Seco/Rio Grande, Species) can result in increased them as endangered or threatened, but Gila, Playas, and Yaqui). However, all extinction rates and/or increased for which preparation of listing six are characterized by few, mostly isolation of populations within a proposals was precluded by higher small, isolated populations. Populations metapopulation with resulting priority listing actions. In the February in the Playas drainage are limited to two decreased colonization rates. In 28, 1996, notice, we identified the livestock tanks. The species was not addition, big rivers, lakes, and reservoirs Chiricahua leopard frog as a candidate found on the mainstem, Middle Fork, that once probably supported large species.
VerDate 11
On June 10, 1998, we received a Summary of Factors Affecting the Although the cumulative effect of petition dated June 4, 1998, from the Species such changes to its habitat is unknown, Southwest Center for Biological the extirpation of the Chiricahua Diversity to list the Chiricahua leopard Section 4 of the Act and regulations leopard frog may have occurred in some frog as endangered and to designate (50 CFR part 424) promulgated to major drainages prior to its occurrence critical habitat for the species. In a letter implement the listing provisions of the being documented. These large dated July 7, 1998, we informed the Act set forth the procedures for adding drainages connect many of the extant petitioner that, pursuant to the Service’s species to the Federal lists. A species and historical populations and may July 1996 Petition Management may be determined to be an endangered have served as important corridors for Guidance, we consider candidate or threatened species due to one or more exchange of genetic material and as a species to be under petition and covered of the five factors described in Section source of frogs for recolonization if by a ‘‘warranted but precluded’’ finding 4(a)(1). These factors and their extirpations occurred within under section 4(b)(3)(B)(iii) of the Act. application to the Chiricahua leopard populations (Sredl et al. 1997, Rosen et Because listing of candidates is, by frog (Rana chiricahuensis Platz and al. 1996). definition, already warranted, petitions Mecham) are as follows: Beavers (Castor canadensis) likely on candidates are redundant. A. The present or threatened promoted the creation of Chiricahua Accordingly, we do not prepare 90-day destruction, modification, or leopard frog habitat. The activities of findings for petitioned candidate curtailment of its habitat or range. beavers tend to inhibit erosion and species. We address the resolution of Riparian (in or associated with wetted downcutting of stream channels (Parker the conservation status of the areas) and wetland communities et al. 1985), and ponded water behind Chiricahua leopard frog and other throughout the range of the Chiricahua beaver dams is favored habitat for ranid candidates through the Listing Priority leopard frog are much altered and/or frogs. However, beavers were extirpated Guidance. reduced in size compared to early-to from some areas by the late 1800s and are still not abundant or are extirpated The processing of this proposed rule mid-19th century conditions (Arizona from other areas where they were once conforms with the Fiscal Year 2000 Department of Water Resources 1994; common (Hoffmeister 1986). For Listing Priority Guidance, published on Brown 1985; Hendrickson and Minckley example, in Arizona beavers are October 22, 1999 (64 FR 57114). The 1984; Minckley and Brown 1982). Dams, extirpated from the Santa Cruz River guidance clarifies the order in which we diversions, groundwater pumping, and, before recent reintroductions, were will process rulemakings. Highest introduction of nonnative organisms, extirpated from the San Pedro River. priority is processing emergency listing woodcutting, mining, urban and Loss of this large mammal and the dams rules for any species determined to face agricultural development, road it constructed likely resulted in loss of a significant and imminent risk to its construction, overgrazing, and altered fire regimes all contributed to reduced backwater and pool habitat favored by well-being (Priority 1). Second priority the Chiricahua leopard frog. (Priority 2) is processing final quality and quantity of riparian and wetland habitat (Belsky and Blumenthal These changes occurred before determinations on proposed additions leopard frogs were widely collected; to the lists of endangered and 1997; Wang et al. 1997; DeBano and Neary 1996; Bahre 1995; Brown 1985; thus, hypotheses concerning threatened wildlife and plants. Third correlations between extirpations of Hadley and Sheridan 1995; Ohmart priority is processing new proposals to beaver and Chiricahua leopard frogs 1995; Stebbins and Cohen 1995; add species to the lists. The processing cannot be tested by comparing historical Hendrickson and Minckley 1984; of administrative petition findings versus extant frog populations. Where Arizona State University 1979; Gifford (petitions filed under section 4 of the beavers occur within the range of the and Hawkins 1978). Act) is the fourth priority. This Chiricahua leopard frog today, beaver proposed rule is a Priority 3 action and Many of these changes began before ponds are often inhabited by nonnative is being completed in accordance with ranid frogs were widely collected or predators, such as introduced fish and the current Listing Priority Guidance. studied in Arizona and New Mexico. bullfrogs, that prey upon and likely The Chiricahua leopard frog may have Peer Review preclude colonization by Chiricahua been much more widely distributed in leopard frogs. Because nonnative In accordance with the policy pre-settlement times than is indicated species often thrive in beaver ponds, the promulgated July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), by historical collections. Extant presence of beavers could actually we will solicit the expert opinions of at localities are generally located in stream hinder recovery of the Chiricahua least three appropriate and independent and river drainage headwaters, springs, leopard frog in some systems. specialists regarding this proposed rule. and stock tanks. However, historical Stock tanks, constructed as water The purpose of such review is to ensure records exist for the Verde, San Pedro, sources for livestock, are very important listing decisions are based on Santa Cruz, Mimbres, and Gila Rivers, habitats for the Chiricahua leopard frog scientifically sound data, assumptions, and the species is extant in the throughout its range. In some areas, and analyses, including input of mainstem of the San Francisco River in stock tanks replaced natural springs and appropriate experts and specialists. Peer New Mexico and on the Blue River in cienegas and provide the only suitable reviewers will be mailed copies of this Arizona. These findings suggest that it habitat available to the Chiricahua proposed rule to list the Chiricahua may have occurred in other major leopard frog. For instance, the only leopard frog as a threatened species drainages, such as the mainstems of the known localities of the Chiricahua immediately following publication in Salt, White, Black, and Little Colorado leopard frog in the San Rafael and San the Federal Register. We solicit peer Rivers. Habitat degradation, diversions, Bernardino Valleys, Fossil Creek reviewers to comment during the public loss or alteration of stream flows, drainage, and in the Patagonia comment period upon the specific groundwater pumping, introduction of Mountains of Arizona are stock tanks. assumptions and conclusions regarding nonnative organisms, and other changes Sixty-one percent of extant Chiricahua this proposed listing. In the preparation are often most apparent on these larger leopard frog localities in Arizona are of the final rule, we consider all drainages (Sredl et al. 1997, State of stock tanks, versus only 35 percent of comments received. Arizona 1990). extirpated localities (Sredl and Saylor
VerDate 11
1998), suggesting Arizona populations provide cover for frogs, and loss of establishment of bullfrogs (Lind et al. of this species have fared better in stock wetland and riparian vegetation and 1996). Dispersal of nonnative fish from tanks than in natural habitats. However, backwater pools (Belsky et al. 1999, impoundments to either downstream or this generalization may not be true for Ohmart 1995; Hendrickson and upstream reaches may have resulted in New Mexico, where in recent years Minckley 1984; Arizona State further adverse effects to frog many stock tank populations were University 1979). Eggs and tadpoles of populations. extirpated. Sredl and Saylor (1998) also the Chiricahua leopard frog are probably Only a few extant or historical found that stock tanks are occupied less trampled by cattle on the perimeter of Chiricahua leopard frog localities are frequently by nonnative predators (with stock tanks and in pools along streams. thought to be directly affected by the exception of bullfrogs) than natural Cattle can also contribute to degraded current mining operations. Active sites. Therefore, a high probability exists water quality at stock tanks, including mining occurs in California Gulch, that the Chiricahua leopard frog would elevated hydrogen sulfide Pajarito Mountains, Arizona, but is be extirpated from many more areas if concentrations, which are toxic to frogs limited to a short reach of the drainage. ranchers had not built and maintained (Sredl et al. 1997). The recently proposed Gentry Iron Mine stock tanks for livestock production. Many large impoundments or lakes may be located within 1.6 km (1.0 mi) Although stock tanks provide refugia were created within the range of the of two Chiricahua leopard frog for frog populations and are very Chiricahua leopard frog for water populations on the Tonto National important for this species, only small storage, recreation, and as a source of Forest, Arizona. The resulting effects of populations are supported by such hydroelectric power. Historical records the proposed mining activities on these tanks, and these habitats are very exist for the species from Luna Lake, populations are uncertain at this time, dynamic. Tanks often dry out during Nelson Reservoir, Hawley Lake, and but may include changes in water drought, and flooding may destroy Rainbow Lake north of the Gila River in quality and flow rates. Populations of downstream impoundments or cause Arizona; and Lake Roberts, Patterson Chiricahua leopard frog northeast of siltation, either of which may result in Lake, and Ben Lilly Lake in New Hurley, Grant County, New Mexico, loss of aquatic habitat and extirpation of Mexico, but surveys at these sites since may also be affected by mining. frog populations. Periodic maintenance 1985 located no frogs (Jennings 1995, Evidence of mining can be found at or to remove silt from tanks may also cause Arizona Game and Fish Department near many other localities, but few a temporary loss of habitat. Populations (AGFD) 1997). Currently, large mines are currently active and most do of nonnative introduced predaceous fish impoundments invariably support not directly affect the wetland and and bullfrogs, although less prevalent populations of nonnative fish and/or riparian habitats occupied by the than in natural habitats, sometimes bullfrogs. Predation and possibly species. Although mining activities become established in stock tanks and competition with leopard frogs by these were more widespread historically and are implicated in the decline of the introduced predators likely contributed may have constituted a greater threat in Chiricahua leopard frog (Rosen et al. to the disappearance of the Chiricahua the past, the mining of sand and gravel, 1996, 1994). Stock tanks may facilitate leopard frog from reservoir habitats. iron, gold, copper, or other materials spread of nonnative organisms by Construction and operation of remains a potential threat to the habitat providing aquatic habitats in arid reservoirs also alter downstream flows of the Chiricahua leopard frog. In landscapes that otherwise may have and can result in dramatic changes in addition, as noted in Factor C of this served as barriers to the spread of such stream hydrology, rates of erosion and section, mining also has indirect organisms. In New Mexico, stock tank sedimentation, riparian vegetation, and adverse effects to this species. populations in some areas were other components of riparian Fire frequency and intensity in the eliminated by disease (Declining ecosystems (Johnson 1978). The effects mountain ranges of southeastern Amphibian Populations Task Force of these changes on Chiricahua leopard Arizona and southwestern New Mexico 1993). frog populations are unknown. are much altered from historic Grazing by domestic livestock occurs However, downstream effects of such conditions. Before 1900, surface fires throughout the range of the Chiricahua impoundments are implicated in the generally occurred at least once per leopard frog. The effects of livestock decline of other anurans (frogs and decade in montane forests with a pine grazing on leopard frog populations are toads), including the endangered arroyo component. Beginning about 1870– not well studied. As discussed, toad (Bufo californicus) (Service 1993) 1900, these frequent ground fires ceased construction of tanks for livestock has and the foothill yellow-legged frog to occur due to intensive livestock created important leopard frog habitat, (Rana boylii) (Lind et al. 1996). grazing that removed fine fuels, and in some cases has replaced On the Trinity River in California, the followed by effective fire suppression in destroyed or altered natural wetland extent of riparian vegetation increased the mid to late 20th century (Swetnam habitats. A large and healthy population with an accompanying decrease in and Baisan 1996). Absence of ground of Chiricahua leopard frogs coexists sandbar habitat, of which the latter was fires allowed a buildup of woody fuels with cattle and horses on the Tularosa breeding habitat of the yellow-legged that precipitated infrequent but intense River, New Mexico (Randy Jennings, frog. Unseasonably high flows from dam crown fires (Danzer et al. 1997, Western New Mexico University, pers. releases also resulted in loss of entire Swetnam and Baisan 1996). Absence of comm. 1995). cohorts or age groups of larval frogs vegetation and forest litter following Maintenance of viable populations of (Lind et al. 1996). Similar effects may intense crown fires exposes soils to Chiricahua leopard frogs is thought to occur in Chiricahua leopard frog habitat. surface and rill erosion during storms, be compatible with well-managed Water temperatures are often colder often causing high peak flows, livestock grazing. However, adverse below dams than in similar unaltered sedimentation, and erosion in effects to the species and its habitat may systems (Lind et al. 1996), which may downstream drainages (DeBano and occur under certain circumstances. retard development of frog eggs and Neary 1996). Following the 1994 These effects to habitats include larvae (Stebbins and Cohen 1995). Lack Rattlesnake fire in the Chiricahua deterioration of watersheds, erosion of scouring flood flows below dams may Mountains, Arizona, a debris flow filled and/or siltation of stream courses, also create relatively stable pool habitat in Rucker Lake, a historic Chiricahua elimination of undercut banks that with established vegetation that favors leopard frog locality. Leopard frogs
VerDate 11
(either Chiricahua or Ramsey Canyon in the decline of ranid frogs in western Mecham 1979) commonly coexist with leopard frogs) apparently disappeared North America (Bradford et al. 1993, the Chiricahua leopard frog. Tiger from Miller Canyon in the Huachuca Hayes and Jennings 1986, Moyle 1973), salamanders are native to the following Mountains, Arizona, after a 1977 crown and may be the most important factor portions of the Chiricahua leopard frog’s fire in the upper canyon and subsequent identified so far in the current decline range: San Rafael Valley in southeastern erosion and scouring of the canyon of the Chiricahua leopard frog (Rosen et Arizona (Ambystoma tigrinum during storm events (Tom Beatty, Miller al. 1994, 1996). In southeastern Arizona, stebbinsi), the northern portion of the Canyon, pers. comm. 2000). Leopard Rosen et al. (1994, 1996) documented 13 species’ range (Ambystoma tigrinum frogs were historically known from nonnative predaceous vertebrate species nebulosum), and the mountains of many localities in the Huachuca in aquatic habitats in the range of the Sonora, Chihuahua, and Durango Mountains; however, natural pool and Chiricahua leopard frog, including (Ambystoma rosaceum). Native fishes, pond habitat is largely absent now, and bullfrog, tiger salamander, and 11 fish such as trout (Oncorhynchus), chub the only breeding leopard frog species including bass, trout, and (Gila), and topminnow (Poeciliopsis), populations occur in man-made tanks catfish, among others. also occur within the range of the and ponds. Bowers and McLaughlin Rosen et al. (1994, 1996) found that Chiricahua leopard frog. (1994) list six riparian plant species Chiricahua leopard frogs were replaced The Rio Grande leopard frog (Rana they believed might have been by bullfrogs and centrarchid fish. eliminated from the Huachuca Sixteen of 19 localities where berlandieri) is a recent introduction to Mountains as a result of floods and Chiricahua leopard frogs occurred southwestern Arizona, (Platz et al. debris flow following destructive fires. lacked nonnative vertebrates. All 1990). Although the species does not Other activities have also affected the historical frog localities that lacked presently occur within the range of the habitat of the Chiricahua leopard frog. Chiricahua leopard frogs supported Chiricahua leopard frog, the Rio For instance, in an attempt to increase nonnative vertebrates. At the three sites Grandes leopard frog is rapidly flow, explosives were used at Birch where Chiricahua leopard frogs expanding its distribution and currently Springs in the Animas Mountains to occurred with nonnatives (one site with occurs as far east as the Phoenix area open up the spring. The explosion green sunfish, Lepomis cyanellus, and (Rorabaugh et al. in prep.). If it resulted in destruction of aquatic two with tiger salamanders), either the continues to spread eastward, the ranges habitat, flows were reduced rather than frog or the nonnative vertebrate was of the Rio Grande and Chiricahua increased, and Chiricahua leopard frogs rare. In two of the three cases, frogs may leopard frogs may overlap in the future. subsequently disappeared (N. Scott, have derived from other nearby This large, introduced leopard frog pers. comm. 1994). localities (Rosen et al. 1996), and thus might prey on small Chiricahua leopard B. Overutilization for commercial, may have represented immigrants rather frogs (Platz et al. 1990), and tadpoles of recreational, scientific, or educational than a viable population. the two species may compete. purposes. The collection of Chiricahua In the San Rafael Valley, Arizona, In June 1994, a die-off of Chiricahua leopard frogs in Arizona is prohibited Chiricahua leopard frogs were found leopard frogs occurred at a stock tank in by Arizona Game and Fish Commission only at sites that lacked nonnative fish the Chiricahua Mountains, Arizona, that Order 41, except where such collection and bullfrogs (Snyder et al. 1996). In the reduced the frog population from 60–80 is authorized by special permit. White Mountains of Arizona, adults to fewer than 10 (Sredl et al. Collection of Chiricahua leopard frogs is disappearance of Chiricahua leopard 1997). Analysis of dead and moribund also prohibited in Mexico. The frogs from most historical localities frogs and water from the tank indicated collection of Chiricahua leopard frogs is correlated with the appearance of tiger that disease was unlikely to be the cause not prohibited in the State of New salamanders and nonnative crayfish of the die-off, however, levels of Mexico. (Fernandez and Bagnara 1995). Crayfish hydrogen sulfide were high enough to Over-collection for commercial were found to prey upon Chiricahua be toxic to wildlife. The authors purposes is known to be a contributing leopard frog larvae, metamorphs, and suspected that high detritus loads factor in the decline of other ranid frogs adults. Crayfish recently spread to the (including cattle feces), low water (Jennings and Hayes 1985, Corn and breeding pond of one of the last and levels, high water temperature, and low Fogelman 1984). Although collection is possibly the most robust populations of concentrations of dissolved oxygen not documented as a cause of Chiricahua leopard frogs in the White created a suitable environment for population decline or loss in the Mountains, Arizona (M. Sredl, pers. Chiricahua leopard frog, the collection sulphur-producing bacteria that comm. 1999, Fernandez and Rosen produced toxic levels of hydrogen of large adult frogs for food, scientific, 1998). or other purposes, particularly after a Sredl and Howland (1994) noted that sulfide. Chiricahua leopard frogs were winter die-off or other event that Chiricahua leopard frogs were nearly not found at this site in 1998. severely reduces the adult population, always absent from sites supporting The disease Postmetamorphic Death can hasten the extirpation of small bullfrogs and nonnative predatory fish; Syndrome (PDS) was implicated in the populations. The listing of the however, Rosen et al. (1996) suggested extirpation of Chiricahua leopard frog Chiricahua leopard frog and its further study was needed to evaluate the populations in Grant County, New recognition as a rare species is effects of mosquitofish, trout, and Mexico, as well as in other frog and toad reasonably expected to increase its catfish on frog presence. Rosen et al. species (Declining Amphibian value to collectors. In 1995, many large (1996) suspected that catfish would Populations Task Force 1993). All stock adult Ramsey Canyon leopard frogs almost always exclude Chiricahua tank populations of the Chiricahua (closely related to the Chiricahua leopard frogs, and that trout may leopard frog in the vicinity of Gillette leopard frog) were illegally collected exclude leopard frogs. and Cooney tanks in Grant County from a site in the Huachuca Mountains, In contrast to nonnative aquatic disappeared within a 3-year period, Arizona, following publicity about the vertebrates, numerous species of native apparently as a result of PDS (Declining rare status of the frog. fish, the Sonoran mud turtle Amphibian Populations Task Force C. Disease or predation. Predation by (Kinosternon sonoriense), other species 1993). The syndrome is characterized by introduced, nonnative bullfrogs and fish of native ranid frogs, and native garter death of all or most recently was implicated as a contributing factor snakes (Rosen et al. 1996, Platz and metamorphosed frogs in a short period
VerDate 11
VerDate 11
At least 47 of 79 localities confirmed are not subject to the same strict extirpation from random variations in as supporting extant populations of the regulations as in the United States (Hale such factors as the demographics of age Chiricahua leopard frog from 1995 to et al. Blanchard and Stromberg 1987). structure or sex ratio, and from disease the present occur entirely, or in part, on Wetland values and water quality of and other natural events (Wilcox and National Forest Lands. Thirty-four aquatic sites inhabited by the Murphy 1985). Inbreeding depression extant localities occur entirely, or in Chiricahua leopard frog are afforded and loss of genetic diversity may also part, on the Coronado National Forest, varying protection under the Federal occur in small populations of less than Arizona. Additional localities occur on Water Pollution Control Act of 1948 (33 a few hundred individuals; such loss the Gila, Apache-Sitgreaves, Tonto, and U.S.C. 1251–1376), as amended, and may reduce the fitness of individuals Coconino National Forests. As a result, Federal Executive Orders 11988 and the ability of the population to Forest Service land management plans (Floodplain Management) and 11990 adapt to change (Frankel and Soule are particularly important in guiding the (Protection of Wetlands). The protection 1981). Both of these genetic management of Chiricahua leopard frog afforded by these and other Federal laws considerations result in an increased habitat. However, these plans have not and regulations discussed herein is likelihood of extirpation (Lande and always adequately protected this inadequate to halt population Barrowclough 1987). species’ habitat. Many activities that extirpation and the degradation of the The dynamic nature of stock tank affect the Chiricahua leopard frog and habitat of this species. habitats and the small size of the its habitat are beyond Forest Service The AGFD included the Chiricahua populations that inhabit them suggest control. For instance, the Forest Service leopard frog on their draft list of species that many of these populations are not does not have the authority to regulate of concern (AGFD 1996); however, this likely to persist for long periods. As an off-site activities such as atmospheric designation affords no legal protection example, siltation and drought pollution from copper smelters or other to the species or its habitat. Collection dramatically reduced the extent of actions that may be responsible for of Chiricahua leopard frogs is prohibited aquatic habitat at Rosewood Tank in the global amphibian declines, including in Arizona, except by special permit. San Bernardino Valley, Arizona (Matt that of the Chiricahua leopard frog. The The Chiricahua leopard frog is not a Magoffin, San Bernardino National Forest Service has only limited ability to State-listed species, nor is collection Wildlife Refuge, pers. comm. 1997). regulate introductions or stockings of prohibited in New Mexico. Aquatic habitat was reduced in June nonnative species that prey on The New Mexico Department of Game 1994, to a surface area of approximately Chiricahua leopard frogs. Despite and Fish adopted a wetland protection 60 square feet (sq. ft) that supported a extensive planning efforts by the Forest policy in which the Department does population of approximately eight adult Service and implementation of not endorse nor take any action that Chiricahua leopard frogs and several management actions to maintain viable would promote any private or public hundred tadpoles. In this instance, the populations of native species on Forest project that would result in a net landowner was only able to prevent the Service lands, loss of Chiricahua decrease in either wetland acreage or population from being extirpated by leopard frog populations and wetland habitat values. This policy repeated efforts to intervene on behalf of metapopulations continues. affords only limited protection to the Chiricahua leopard frog in trucking The National Environmental Policy Chiricahua leopard frog habitat because water to the site, rebuilding the tank, Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321– it is advisory only; destruction or and constructing a small permanent 4370a) requires Federal agencies to alteration of wetlands is not regulated pond to maintain habitat for the species. consider the environmental impacts of by State law. Some larger populations occurring in their actions. NEPA requires Federal State of Arizona Executive Order stream courses or other non-stock tank agencies to describe the proposed Number 89–16 (Streams and Riparian habitats also experience dramatic action, consider alternatives, identify Resources), signed on June 10, 1989, changes in population size, such as in and disclose potential environmental directs State agencies to evaluate their Sycamore Canyon in the Pajarito impacts of each alternative, and involve actions and implement changes, as Mountains, Arizona, and on the eastern the public in the decision-making appropriate, to allow for restoration of slope of the Santa Rita Mountains, process. Federal agencies are not riparian resources. Implementation of Arizona (S. Hale, pers. comm. 1994). required to select the alternative having this regulation may reduce adverse These habitats, although much larger the least significant environmental effects of some State actions on the than a stock tank, experience dramatic impacts. A Federal action agency may habitat of the Chiricahua leopard frog. environmental phenomena such as select an action that will adversely E. Other natural or manmade factors floods, drought, and in the case of affect sensitive species provided that affecting its continued existence. Sycamore Canyon, varied zinc to these effects were known and identified Because of the inherent dynamic nature cadmium ratios, all of which may cause in a NEPA document. Most actions of southwestern wetland and riparian populations to crash. This finding taken by the Forest Service, the Bureau habitats, coupled with the increased suggests that even these relatively large of Land Management, and other Federal likelihood of extirpation characteristic and natural habitats and the frog agencies that affect the Chiricahua of small populations, the viability of populations they support are very leopard frog are subject to the NEPA extant populations of the Chiricahua dynamic. As a result of this dynamic process. leopard frog is thought, in many cases, nature, leopard frog populations are State and Federal air quality to be relatively short. Approximately 38 susceptible to extirpation. regulations strictly regulate emissions of 79 extant localities found from 1995 As discussed in the ‘‘Background’’ from copper smelters, a major source of to the present were located in artificial section of this proposed rule, atmospheric cadmium and arsenic, tanks or impoundments constructed for metapopulations are more likely to pollutants that may adversely affect the watering livestock. These environments persist over time than small, more Chiricahua leopard frog (Hale and are very dynamic due to flooding, isolated populations, because Jarchow 1988). However, a major source drought, and human activities such as individuals and genetic material can be of airborne pollutants likely affecting maintenance of stock tanks. In addition, exchanged among populations within this species has been copper smelters in stock tank populations are often quite the metapopulation, resulting in Cananea and Nacozari, Sonora, which small. Small populations are subject to increased recolonization rates and fewer
VerDate 11
VerDate 11
VerDate 11
Recognition through listing encourages of the Act (discussed below) would We are also exploring other and results in conservation actions by apply. opportunities to permit conservation Federal, State, and private agencies, Important regional efforts are activities. In particular, we encourage groups, and individuals. The Act currently under way to establish viable the public to comment on the provides for possible land acquisition metapopulations of Chiricahua leopard desirability of promulgating a special and cooperation with the States and frogs. We are currently working with the rule under section 4(d) of the Act that requires that recovery actions be carried Arizona Game and Fish Department, would exempt from the section 9 take out for all listed species. The protection New Mexico Department of Game and prohibitions activities associated with required of Federal agencies and the Fish, and several Federal and private conservation plans. Eligible prohibitions against taking and harm are landowners in these efforts. An ongoing conservation plans would need to discussed, in part, below. regional conservation planning effort in promote recovery and be approved by Section 7(a) of the Act, as amended, the San Bernardino Valley, Arizona, us and the appropriate State game and requires Federal agencies to evaluate being undertaken by this agency, the fish agency. Activities potentially their actions with respect to any species Forest Service, State, and private addressed under such a plan, and which that is proposed or listed as endangered individuals is a good example of such would be exempt from the section 9 take or threatened and with respect to its efforts. Owners of the Magoffin Ranch, provisions, could include, but are not critical habitat, if any is designated or in particular, have devoted extensive limited to, construction of new habitats proposed. Regulations implementing efforts to conserving leopard frogs and or modification of existing habitats, this interagency cooperation provision habitat at stock tanks on that ranch. As fencing, enhancement or control of of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part part of the San Bernardino Valley vegetation, translocation of frogs, and 402. Section 7(a)(4) requires Federal conservation effort, a high school monitoring of frog populations. agencies to confer with us on any action teacher and his students rear tadpoles in The Act and its implementing that is likely to jeopardize the continued Douglas, Arizona, and established regulations set forth a series of general existence of a proposed species or result populations of Chiricahua leopard frogs prohibitions and exceptions that apply in destruction or adverse modification in small constructed wetlands at to all threatened wildlife. These of proposed critical habitat. If a species Douglas area public schools (Biology prohibitions, codified at 50 CFR 17.31, is listed or critical habitat is designated 150 Class, Douglas High School 1998). in part, make it illegal for any person subsequently, Section 7(a)(2) requires In another regional conservation effort, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to take (including harass, harm, Federal agencies to ensure that activities the Tonto National Forest, Arizona, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, they authorize, fund, or carry out are not Arizona Game and Fish Department, or collect, or attempt any such conduct), likely to jeopardize the continued and the Phoenix Zoo have developed a import or export, transport in interstate existence of such a species or to destroy Chiricahua leopard frog ‘‘conservation or foreign commerce in the course of a or adversely modify its critical habitat. and management zone’’ in which frogs commercial activity, or sell or offer for If a Federal action may affect a listed have been reared and released into the sale in interstate or foreign commerce species or its critical habitat, the wild to establish new populations (Sredl any threatened species unless provided responsible Federal agency must enter and Healy 1999). A similar regional for under a special rule. To possess, sell, into consultation with us. conservation plan, involving The Nature deliver, carry, transport, or ship any The Chiricahua leopard frog occurs on Conservancy, Randy Jennings, and the such wildlife that has been taken Federal lands managed by the New Mexico Game and Fish illegally is also illegal. Certain Coronado, Apache-Sitgreaves, Tonto, Department, is under way on the exceptions will apply to persons acting Coconino, and Gila National Forests; the Mimbres River, New Mexico. in an agency capacity on the behalf of Bureau of Land Management; and our We commend the individuals the Service and to activities associated refuges. Examples of Federal actions involved in these efforts. These regional with cooperative State conservation that may affect the Chiricahua leopard conservation plans are proving grounds agencies. frog include dredge-and-fill activities, for developing the techniques to recover Permits may be issued to carry out grazing programs, construction and the species rangewide. As such, we otherwise prohibited activities maintenance of stock tanks, logging and strongly support them and encourage involving threatened wildlife species other vegetation removal activities, others to develop regional conservation under certain circumstances. management of recreation, road plans; we will provide assistance and Regulations governing permits are construction, fish stocking, issuance of use our authorities to help develop and codified at 50 CFR 17.32. Such permits rights-of-ways, prescribed fire and fire implement site-specific conservation are available for scientific purposes, to suppression, and discretionary actions activities for this species. If the enhance the propagation or survival of authorizing mining. These and other Chiricahua leopard frog is listed, the species, and/or for incidental take in Federal actions require Section 7 handling, rearing, translocation or other connection with otherwise lawful consultation if the action agency forms of direct or incidental take activities. For threatened species, determines that the proposed action resulting from conservation activities permits also are available for zoological may affect listed species. can continue under section 10 permits exhibition, educational purposes, or Development on private or State lands from us. Incidental take associated with special purposes consistent with the requiring permits from Federal agencies, conservation plans may also be purposes of the Act. such as permits from the U.S. Army permitted pursuant to an incidental take Our policy (July 1, 1994; 59 FR 34272) Corps of Engineers under section 404 of statement in a biological opinion for is to identify to the maximum extent the Clean Water Act, would also be activities under Federal jurisdiction. If practicable at the time a species is listed subject to the Section 7 consultation the species is listed, we will work with those activities that would or would not process. Federal actions not affecting the individuals involved in these likely constitute a violation of section 9 the species, as well as actions that are conservation efforts to ensure that of the Act. The intent of this policy is not federally funded or permitted would permits are issued promptly and that to increase public awareness of the not require Section 7 consultation. the process does not interrupt or hinder effect of the listing on proposed and However, prohibitions under Section 9 ongoing recovery actions. ongoing activities within a species’
VerDate 11
VerDate 11
Species Vertebrate popu- lation where Critical Historic range endangered or Status When listed habitat Special rules Common name Scientific name threatened
AMPHIBIANS
******* Frog, Chiricahua Rana U.S.A. (AZ, NM), Entire ...... T ...... NA § 17.43(b) leopard. chiricahuensis. Mexico.
*******
VerDate 11
3. We propose to amend 50 CFR 17.43 by adding paragraph (b) to read as follows: § 17.43 Special rulesÐamphibians. * * * * * (b) What species is covered by this special rule? Chiricahua leopard frog (Rana chiricahuensis). (1) What activities are prohibited? Except as noted in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, all prohibitions of § 17.31 will apply to the Chiricahua leopard frog. (2) What activities are allowed on private or tribal land? Incidental take of the Chiricahua leopard frog will not be considered a violation of section 9 of the Act, if the incidental take results from livestock use of or maintenance activities at livestock tanks located on private or tribal lands. A livestock tank is defined as an existing or future impoundment in an ephemeral drainage or upland site constructed primarily as a watering site for livestock. Dated: May 19, 2000. Donald J. Barry, Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks. [FR Doc. 00–14972 Filed 6–13–00; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310±55±P
VerDate 11