Vol. 77 Tuesday, No. 54 March 20, 2012

Part II

Department of the Interior

Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing and Designation of Critical Habitat for the Chiricahua Leopard Frog; Final Rule

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:12 Mar 19, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\20MRR2.SGM 20MRR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 16324 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Background submitting the critical habitat rules to the Federal Register. Fish and Wildlife Service It is our intent to discuss in this final We published a proposed rule to rule only those topics directly relevant reassess the listing status and propose 50 CFR Part 17 to the listing and development and critical habitat for the Chiricahua designation of critical habitat for the leopard frog in the Federal Register on [Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2010– Chiricahua leopard frog under the Act 0085;4500030114] March 15, 2011 (76 FR 14126) with a (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). For more request for public comments. On RIN 1018–AX12 information on the biology and ecology September 21, 2011, we made available of the Chiricahua leopard frog refer to the draft environmental assessment and Endangered and Threatened Wildlife the final listing rule (67 FR 40790; June draft economic analysis for the and Plants; Listing and Designation of 13, 2002) or our April 2007 final proposed designation of critical habitat Critical Habitat for the Chiricahua recovery plan, which are available from and reopened the public comment on Leopard Frog the Arizona Ecological Services Field the proposed rule (76 FR 58441). AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Office (see ADDRESSES section). For information on Chiricahua leopard frog Summary of Comments and Interior. Recommendations ACTION: Final rule. critical habitat, refer to the proposed rule to reassess the listing status and We requested written comments from SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and propose critical habitat for the the public on the reassessment of listing Wildlife Service (Service), are Chiricahua leopard frog published in status and proposed designation of designating critical habitat for the the Federal Register on March 15, 2011 critical habitat for the Chiricahua Chiricahua leopard frog (Lithobates (76 FR 14126). Information on the leopard frog during two comment chiricahuensis) under the Endangered associated draft economic analysis for periods. The first comment period Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). the proposed rule to designate critical associated with the publication of the In total, we are designating habitat was published in the Federal proposed rule (76 FR 14126) opened on approximately 10,346 acres (4,187 Register on September 21, 2011 (76 FR March 15, 2011, and closed on May 16, hectares) as critical habitat for the 58441). 2011. We also requested comments on Chiricahua leopard frog in Apache, the reassessment of listing status, Previous Federal Actions Cochise, Gila, Graham, Greenlee, Pima, proposed critical habitat designation, Santa Cruz, and Yavapai Counties, We published a proposed rule to list associated draft economic analysis, and Arizona; and Catron, Grant, Hidalgo, the Chiricahua leopard frog as associated draft environmental Sierra, and Socorro Counties, New threatened in the Federal Register on assessement during a comment period Mexico. In addition, because of a June 14, 2000 (65 FR 37343). We that opened September 21, 2011, and taxonomic revision of the Chiricahua published a final rule listing the species closed on October 21, 2011 (76 FR leopard frog, we reassessed the status of as threatened on June 13, 2002 (67 FR 58441). We did not receive any requests and threats to the currently described 40790). Included in the final rule was a for a public hearing. We also contacted species Lithobates chiricahuensis and special rule (see 50 CFR 17.43(b)) to appropriate Federal, Tribal, State, and are listing the currently described exempt operation and maintenance of local agencies; scientific organizations; species as threatened. livestock tanks on non-Federal lands and other interested parties and invited DATES: This rule is effective on April 19, from the section 9 take prohibitions of them to comment on the proposed rule, 2012. the Act. The special rule remains in draft economic analysis, and draft environmental assessment during these ADDRESSES: This final rule and the place and is not affected by this final rule, except that we are making an comment periods. associated final economic analysis and During the first comment period, we editorial change to revise the heading of final environmental assessment are received 48 submissions from the 50 CFR 17.43(b) to reflect the currently available on the Internet at http:// public. During the second comment described species Lithobates www.regulations.gov. Comments and period, we received 14 submissions. chiricahuensis. For further information materials received, as well as supporting Most submissions addressed the on actions associated with listing the documentation used in preparing this proposed critical habitat designation, species, please see the final listing rule final rule, are available for public the draft environmental assessment, or (67 FR 40790; June 13, 2002). inspection, by appointment, during the draft economic analysis, while normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish In a May 6, 2009, order from the others provided no substantive and Wildlife Service, Arizona Ecological Arizona District Court, the Secretary of information useful to the development Services Field Office, 2321 West Royal the Interior was required to publish a of this final rule. All substantive Palm Road, Suite 103, Phoenix, AZ critical habitat prudency determination information provided during comment 85021; telephone 602–242–0210; for the Chiricahua leopard frog and, if periods has either been incorporated facsimile 602–242–2513. found prudent, a proposed rule to directly into this final rule or is FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: designate critical habitat by December 8, addressed below. Comments we Steve Spangle, Field Supervisor, U.S. 2010. Because of unforeseen delays received were grouped into six general Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona related to species taxonomic issues, issues specifically relating to the Ecological Services Field Office, 2321 which required an inclusion of a threats proposed critical habitat designation for West Royal Palm Road, Suite 103, analysis, we requested a 3-month the Chiricahua leopard frog, and are Phoenix, AZ 85021; by telephone (602/ extension to the court-ordered deadlines addressed in the following summary 242–0210); or by facsimile (602/242– for both the proposed and final rules. and incorporated into the final rule as 2513). If you use a telecommunications On November 24, 2010, the extension appropriate. device for the deaf (TDD), call the was granted and new deadlines of Federal Information Relay Service March 8, 2011, for the proposed rule Peer Review (FIRS) at 800–877–8339. and March 8, 2012, for the final rule In accordance with our peer review SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: were established for completing and policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:12 Mar 19, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20MRR2.SGM 20MRR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 16325

34270), we solicited expert opinions history, and in particular, its dispersal the site from another occupied site from four knowledgeable individuals capabilities. This rationale is provided within the metapopulation. with scientific expertise that included in our discussion of the ‘‘1–3–5 rule’’ in Our Response: We exercised caution familiarity with the species or taxa, the the Dispersal section below. in expressing our understanding of the geographic region in which the species Comment 4: The peer reviewer stated Chiricahua leopard frogs’ ability to occurs, and conservation biology that the rationale for each primary withstand drought by amending this principles. We received responses from constituent element (PCE) is clear, but passage to state, ‘‘Because of their one of the peer reviewers. requiring critical habitat units to meet evolutionary history, southwestern We reviewed all comments we all of these relatively narrow criteria leopard frogs may be able to withstand received from the peer reviewer for may be too restrictive. The peer drying of stock tanks for a longer period substantive issues and new information reviewer also stated that other areas that of time than nonnative species that regarding critical habitat for the contain most of the elements and have evolved in wetter climates in the eastern Chiricahua leopard frog. The peer high restoration potential for ‘‘missing’’ United States, which could provide reviewer generally concurred with our elements should also be considered. southwestern leopard frog a selective methods and conclusions, and provided Our Response: We used the best advantage.’’ additional suggestions to improve the scientific information available in Comment 7: Under PCE 1(h), the final critical habitat rule. Peer reviewer determining the PCEs for the Chiricahua absence of the organism comments are addressed in the leopard frog. The PCEs are the elements Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis following summary and incorporated of physical or biological features that (chytrid fungus) is impossible to know into the final rule as appropriate. together provide for a species’ life- with certainty. history processes and are essential to Our Response: We amended the PCEs Peer Reviewer Comments the conservation of the species. We after the publication of the proposed Comment 1: The peer reviewer amended the PCEs after the publication rule and included the amended PCEs in suggested we provide clarification on of the proposed rule, and included the our September 21, 2011, publication (76 the geographic range and distribution of amended PCEs in our September 21, FR 58441). The amended PCEs, while the species by defining what is meant by 2011, publication (76 FR 58441). In providing necessary specificity, are the term ‘‘major drainage’’ and how designating critical habitat, we based general enough to account for the their current and historical distribution our evaluation of areas on those that inherent level of uncertainty that regarding ‘‘localities’’ relate to these contain the physical or biological pertains to the presence or absence of areas. features essential to the conservation of Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis. PCE Our Response: The term ‘‘major the Chiricahua leopard frog and which 1(d) currently states, ‘‘Absence of drainage’’ refers to rivers that are large may require special management. In this chytridiomycosis, or if present, then and are perennial or were historically designation, we include only areas that environmental, physiological, and perennial. Examples of major drainages contain one or more of the PCEs, and genetic conditions are such that allow include the upper Gila, Verde, Salt, and note within each unit description the persistence of Chiricahua leopard San Pedro Rivers, etc. Because habitat special management actions needed for frogs.’’ This change applies the best for the Chiricahua leopard frog could that unit. scientific and commercial data available include a variety of wetted Comment 5: The peer reviewer stated in addressing a known, serious threat to environments, we use the term that it appeared as though the recovery the Chiricahua leopard frog. ‘‘localities’’ to incorporate habitat plan formed the basis for the proposed including stock tanks, streams, cienegas, critical habitat units and suggested Comment 8: We received a and other similar areas in a general making this clear in the beginning of the recommendation to state the level of sense so as to avoid an unnecessarily section entitled ‘‘Criteria Used To uncertainty that exists regarding the inclusive description of occupied or Identify Critical Habitat.’’ current knowledge of how exactly the formerly occupied habitat. A more Our Response: In this final rule, we defined metapopulations function in detailed account of the species’ current emphasize the use of the recovery plan reality, compared to how we describe and historical distribution can be found in the designation of critical habitat. metapopulations. Our Response: Our current in the original listing of the species in Comments From States 2002 (67 FR 40790) and in the 2007 understanding of metapopulations is an recovery plan (Service 2007). Section 4(i) of the Act states, ‘‘the amalgamation of past field observations, Comment 2: The peer reviewer and Secretary shall submit to the State the literature, and how unoccupied, but others suggested various editorial agency a written justification for his suitable, habitat can contribute to the changes to the final rule. failure to adopt regulations consistent metapopulation dynamic. Inevitably Our Response: We evaluated all of the with the agency’s comments or and over time, it is the species itself, in suggested editorial changes, and we petition.’’ Comments received from the the wild, which will define the incorporated them, as appropriate, into States regarding the proposal to configuration of any given this final rule. designate critical habitat for the metapopulation, which may or may not Comment 3: The peer reviewer stated Chiricahua leopard frog are addressed comport with our current understanding that our discussion of dispersal habitat below. of existing metapopulations. We have focuses on protection of areas to Comment 6: In the discussion of revised the language in this final rule to facilitate movement among local climate change, it was stated that better describe our understanding of populations and asked how longer Chiricahua leopard frog ‘‘can often metapopulation function. distance dispersal corridors will be withstand drying of stock tanks for 30 Comment 9: One comment stated that protected (e.g., among populations in days or more.’’ Caution should be used Pen˜ a Blanca Lake should not be different habitat units) to maintain the in making this claim as it is an untested included as critical habitat because the species throughout its range. hypothesis. Chiricahua leopard frogs long-term persistence of Chiricahua Our Response: We treated dispersal may appear during the rainy season at leopard frogs there, in the wake of habitat within the context of our current a site that has been dry for 30 days or planned warm-water fish stockings, knowledge of the species’ natural fewer, but they may have recolonized remains uncertain. Therefore, the lake is

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:12 Mar 19, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20MRR2.SGM 20MRR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 16326 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

not essential to the conservation of the should be commensurate with their Creek Unit within the Right and Left species. persistence. Prongs of Dix Creek to include the Our Response: Pen˜ a Blanca Lake Comment 12: Designate critical following tanks: Draw Tank, Bull currently meets the definition of critical habitat in springs, and intermittent or Canyon Tank, Bobby Tank, Middle habitat as defined in section 3 of the Act perennial (or both) streams, on a more Tank, Rattlesnake Gap Tank, because it occurs within the landscape- or watershed-level to better Rattlesnake Tank No. 1, Rattlesnake geographical area occupied by the address the risk of habitat Tank No. 2, and Buckhorn Tank. species at the time it was listed, in fragmentation, offer more connectedness Connect the designations along the accordance with the Act, and it has the for metapopulation dynamics, protect drainages between the above tanks with features essential to the conservation of habitat, and manage against nonnatives extant populations from the Rattle the species and which may require to achieve the necessary landscape-level Snake Gap Complex, then continue up special management considerations or opportunity to recover the Chiricahua Dix Creek Left Prong proposed critical protection. Our rationale for retaining leopard frog. One commenter suggested habitat, and continue upstream through this unit’s designation is provided that we designate critical habitat for all Bull Canyon and unnamed drainages to below in the ‘‘Final Critical Habitat sites that have been occupied since connect occupied or seasonal habitats or Designation’’ section. 1990. both. It is also recommended to include Our Response: As required by section Comment 10: Trail Tank in the the short segment of Dix Creek Right 4(b) of the Act, we used the best Prong/Left Prong confluence up the Crouch, Gentry, and Cherry Creeks, and scientific and commercial data available Parallel Canyon Unit have had a history Right Prong of Dix Creek to Sycamore in determining areas within the Canyon. Further, it is recommended that of bullfrog (Lithobates catesbeianis) geographical area occupied at the time occupation and no previous records of the Service designate critical habitat of listing that contain the features from Highway 78 southward along Coal Chiricahua leopard frog. It should be essential to the conservation of the excluded from critical habitat. Bullfrog Creek to include habitat where frogs Chiricahua leopard frog and may require may retreat seasonally or during periods eradication efforts in 2010 proved special management considerations or unsuccessful. of low water availability. The protection, and areas outside of the commenter noted that both lowland Our Response: We view Trail Tank as geographical area occupied at the time leopard frogs (Lithobates yavapaiensis) an important component to critical of listing that are essential for the and Chiricahua leopard frogs were habitat in the Crouch, Gentry, and conservation of the species. We also identified in surveys, and not all Cherry Creeks, as well as Parallel relied heavily on the recovery criteria observations of leopard frogs in this area Canyon Unit, because of their potential formulated in collaboration and were identified to species. to support a robust population of outlined in the 2007 recovery plan for Chiricahua leopard frogs in a unit where the Chiricahua leopard frog. The Our Response: Please see our occupied sites tend to be of small size suggestions identified immediately response to Comments 12. with small numbers of frogs. While we above were not specifically Comment 15: Expand critical habitat acknowledge that May 2010 bullfrog commensurate with these criteria and designation into the tributary adjacent removal efforts were unsuccessful at were therefore not used in the to and west of Three Forks near the Trail Tank, additional removal efforts designation process. Campbell Blue and Coleman Creeks occurred in May of 2011, and appear to Comment 13: A commenter requested Unit. have been successful. Our discussion of expansion of critical habitat in the Our Response: Please see our Trail Tank, in our rationale for eastern slope of the Santa Rita response to Comments 12. designating the Crouch, Gentry, and Mountains and in the vicinity of the Comment 16: Expand critical habitat Cherry Creeks, and Parallel Canyon Unit proposed Rosemont Mine to include designation in the Peloncillo Mountains as critical habitat, is provided below California Tank, East Tank, and Upper Unit on the Diamond A Ranch, Western under ‘‘Final Critical Habitat Enzenberg, Box, Sycamore, Sawmill, Division (Canoncito Ranch) to include Designation.’’ and Gardner Canyons, because these more dispersal habitat. sites were either occupied at the time of Our Response: The Diamond A Public Comments listing, are currently occupied, or may Ranch, Western Division (Canoncito be essential to the conservation of the General Comments Issue 1: Expansion Ranch) in the Peloncillo Mountains Unit of Critical Habitat species. Our Response: We are not aware of is excluded as designated critical habitat Comment 11: Expand designation of any records that document breeding of under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. Please critical habitat to include 8 miles of the Chiricahua leopard frog at these review our rationale and analysis for Cienega Creek north of the confluence of sites. The lack of historical records that this exclusion under the section Cienega Creek and Empire Gulch, which document breeding in these areas may ‘‘Exclusions’’ below. is important flood plain habitat where demonstrate that, while they may be Comment 17: Expand critical habitat ephemeral sinkholes and semi- important for metapopulation dynamics designation in the following units: permanent marshes exist. as demonstrated by intermittent Garcia Tank, Buenos Aires National Our Response: In the Las Cienegas occupation over time, they may not be Wildlife Refuge Central Tanks, Bonita, National Conservation Area Unit, we suitable as breeding habitat and Upper Turner, and Mojonera Tanks, designated areas where the Chiricahua therefore are not essential to the Sycamore Canyon, and Pen˜ a Blanca leopard frog maintained breeding conservation of the species. Therefore, Lake and Spring and associated tanks to populations, or was suspected to, at the these sites are not included in our include the California Gulch, Ruby, time of listing or currently. Our records critical habitat designation because they Chimney Canyon, Arivaca Lake, and do not indicate the recommended area do not meet the definition of critical Airvaca Cienega to protect Chiricahua of expansion meets these predetermined habitat under the Act for the Chiricahua leopard frogs against nonnative criteria. Furthermore, should this area leopard frog. predators. support breeding populations in the Comment 14: Expand critical habitat Our Response: Please see our future, ongoing management of the area designation in the Left Prong of Dix response to Comments 12.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:12 Mar 19, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20MRR2.SGM 20MRR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 16327

General Comments Issue 2: Exclusion or commenter provides no additional under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. Please Reduction of Critical Habitat rationale to indicate the unit does not review our rationale and analysis for Comment 18: The High Lonesome meet the definition of critical habitat or this exclusion under the section Well Unit does not provide any more does meet exclusion criteria under ‘‘Exclusions’’ below. Comment 24: All critical habitat conservation benefit than a zoo and section 4(b)(2) of the Act. Comment 21: The proposal speaks to should be excluded in Recovery Unit 1 should not be considered critical a dry section of the West Fork dividing (Tumacacori-Atascosa-Pajarito habitat. the proposed segment: ‘‘the Upper West Mountains, Arizona and Mexico) and Our Response: We reevaluated the Fork is divided into two perennial portions of Recovery Unit 2 (Santa Rita- High Lonesome Well Unit and have segments by a 1.2-mi (2.0-km) long Huachuca-Ajos Bavispe, Arizona and determined that it does not meet the ephemeral reach between Turkeyfeather Mexico). definition of critical habitat, because it Creek and Whiskey Creek.’’ Whiskey Our Response: We carefully reviewed does not have the physical or biological Creek is upstream of the proposed the best available scientific and features that are essential for the segment of stream, and this statement is commercial data and concluded that conservation of the species. After not relevant to the proposal. In addition, critical habitat we are designating further evaluation, the unit does not Turkeyfeather Creek was not occupied within Recovery Units 1 and 2 both contain the terrestrial habitat that at time of listing, and there are no meets the definition of critical habitat provides opportunities for foraging and historic records from the ephemeral described in the ‘‘Critical Habitat’’ basking, and that is immediately stream. The only intermittent part of the section below and meets the goals and adjacent to or surrounding breeding stream is at the spring itself and objectives outlined in the final recovery aquatic and riparian habitat, which is a extending approximately 0.10 mi plan for this species. No further component of primary constituent downstream of the spring. The outflow justification as to why these units do not element 1. Therefore, we have removed from the spring is captured in a small meet the definition of critical habitat or the High Lonesome Well Unit from this cement spring box with a 1-inch pipe do meet exclusion criteria under section final critical habitat designation. extending out of the box as an overflow. 4(b)(2) of the Act was provided. Please Comment 19: The West Fork Gila The flow from the spring seldom makes review our rationale and analysis for River Unit is within the Gila Wilderness it to Turkeyfeather Creek itself. We do designating these units under the Area on the Gila National Forest, and not believe that Turkeyfeather Creek is section ‘‘Final Critical Habitat designating it as critical habitat provides suitable habitat for the frog. Designation’’ below. no further conservation value for the Our Response: White Creek was Comment 25: The Concho Bill and species. In addition, this population is mistakenly identified as Whiskey Creek Deer Creek Unit is not essential to the known to have chytridiomycosis, and in our proposed rule. This has been conservation of the Chiricahua leopard the most recent surveys in 2009 failed corrected in this final rule. Our records frog. to detect any Chiricahua leopard frogs, indicate that the area within this unit as Our Response: We carefully reviewed therefore precluding this unit from described was occupied at the time of the best available scientific and meeting PCE (1). listing and has the features essential to commercial data and concluded that the Our Response: We carefully reviewed the conservation of the species and Concho Bill and Deer Creek Unit both the best available scientific and which may require special management meets the definition of critical habitat commercial data and concluded that the considerations or protection to described in ‘‘Critical Habitat’’ section West Fork Gila River Unit both meets minimize impacts to existing threats. No below and meets the goals and the definition of critical habitat further justification as to why the unit objectives outlined in the final recovery described in the ‘‘Critical Habitat’’ does not meet the definition of critical plan for this species. In addition, the section below and meets the goals and habitat or does meet exclusion criteria commenter provided no rationale to objectives outlined in the final recovery under section 4(b)(2) of the Act was indicate the unit does not meet the plan for this species. In addition, the provided. definition of critical habitat or does commenter provides no rationale to Comment 22: Exclude from critical meet exclusion criteria under section indicate the unit does not meet the habitat designation all private lands 4(b)(2) of the Act. Please review our definition of critical habitat or does (Ladder Ranch) in the Seco Creek, rationale and analysis for designating meet exclusion criteria under section Cuchillo Negro Warm Springs and this unit under the section ‘‘Final 4(b)(2) of the Act. Please review our Creek, and South Fork Palomas Creek Critical Habitat Designation’’ below. rationale and analysis for designating Units. this unit under the section ‘‘Final Our Response: The Ladder Ranch is General Comments Issue 3: Threats Critical Habitat Designation’’ below. excluded from designated critical Analysis Comment 20: The threat of habitat under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. Comment 26: Chiricahua leopard chytridiomycosis in the Ash and Bolton Please review our rationale and analysis frogs are sensitive to cadmium and Springs Unit makes it unsuitable as for this exclusion under the section copper above certain levels according to critical habitat. ‘‘Exclusions’’ below. Little and Calfee (2008, pp. 6–10). The Our Response: The Ash and Bolton Comment 23: North Tank and Service should differentiate potential Springs Unit meets the definition of Rosewood Tank Unit should be effects to the species from the footprint critical habitat under the Act for the excluded from critical habitat of the Rosemont Mine versus the general Chiricahua leopard frog because it was designation because including them area of the mine. We are concerned that occupied at the time of listing and represents adverse effects to the grazing Eastern Slope of the Santa Rita contains the features essential to the operation on the Magoffin Ranch, and is Mountains and Las Cienegas National conservation of the species and requires a disincentive to promote conservation Conservation Area Units might be special management considerations or of endangered and threatened species adversely affected by pollution from protection. Not all PCEs are currently within the ranching community. Rosemont Mine, once in operation. present, or required to be present, for a Our Response: The Magoffin Ranch Our Response: We agree that given unit to meet the definition of (North Tank and Rosewood Tank Unit) Chiricahua leopard frogs are vulnerable critical habitat under the Act. The is excluded as designated critical habitat to effects from contaminants associated

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:12 Mar 19, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20MRR2.SGM 20MRR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 16328 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

with mining operations and provide for winter precipitation. Warmer and 2007, Appendix G), such as dedicating discussion on this issue under the dryer conditions will force more contact equipment, disinfecting equipment, etc., section ‘‘A. The Present or Threatened between Chiricahua leopard frogs and which are taught at annual survey Destruction, Modification, or nonnative predators, to the detriment of training workshops, required as permit Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range.’’ If Chiricahua leopard frogs. stipulations, and followed by surveyors the Rosemont Mine begins operation, Our Response: We used the best to prevent the accidental spread of potential effects to, and legal available scientific and commercial data chytrid fungus. These precautions are protections, for the Chiricahua leopard to inform our analysis of the effects of also mandated as permit conditions for frog will be evaluated, in accordance climate change on the Chiricahua those with section 10(a)(1)(A) permits with applicable provisions under the leopard frog, including the inherent authorized by the Service. Whatever Act, at that time, and are not uncertainty that pertains to evaluating small risk may be associated with this constrained to the footprint of the the effects of climate change. The effects form of disease transmission, it is proposed mine. of climate change are inextricably countered by the important data Comment 27: In discussing chytrid related to effects from other threats and collected by the surveys themselves, in presence in the Seco Creek Unit, it was are difficult to predict or interpret helping meet the conservation and stated that ‘‘no frogs have tested positive without more definitive data of higher recovery goals for the species. since then (i.e., 2001)’’. More accurately, resolution. This discussion was Comment 34: The Service should in June 2007, a single sample (out of 7) expanded upon in this final rule. Please clearly define what is meant by ‘‘poor’’ from Artesia Well and a single sample review our analysis below of the livestock management. (out of 9) from LM Bar Well tested potential effects of climate change under Our Response: We consider poor positive for chytrid. Both of these were listing Factor E, ‘‘Other Natural or livestock management to mean grazing considered ‘‘weak positive’’ by the Manmade Factors Affecting Its conducted in a manner not in laboratory and may have been false Continued Existence’’ below. accordance with approved allotment positives. Extensive testing since then Comment 31: The Service falsely management plans or otherwise has failed to produce additional positive relied on Fleischner (1994), Belsky considered adverse to maintaining tests. (1999), and Jones (2000) on describing natural habitat characteristics. We have Our Response: We have updated our the effects of livestock grazing on updated this discussion below in Factor analysis and discussion of this unit to Chiricahua leopard frogs. These studies A, ‘‘The Present or Threatened reflect this information. discuss uncontrolled grazing when Destruction, Modification, or Comment 28: The proposed rule grazing in endangered and threatened Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range’’ of stated that within the West Fork Gila species’ habitat is controlled. this final rule. River Unit ‘‘ * * * nonnative predators Our Response: These studies detail Comment 35: If Chiricahua leopard are present, including fish, crayfish, and potential effects of grazing to habitat. frogs do not persist in water affected by bullfrogs. Even though a cooperative We evaluated the effects of grazing on livestock feces, what steps will be restoration project between the Service, the Chiricahua leopard frog both required by livestock producers with the U.S. Forest Service, and New historically and present day. We waters that support the species? What Mexico Department of Game and Fish is appreciate the conservation actions about elk feces? underway to restore native fish and undertaken by the ranching community Our Response: We did not state that remove nonnative predatory fish in this and those partnerships we have formed Chiricahua leopard frogs do not persist unit, the frog population is currently in furthering the goals and objectives of in water affected by livestock feces. We threatened by nonnative predators and Chiricahua leopard frog conservation stated that Chiricahua leopard frogs chytridiomycosis (Service 2009, pp. 15– and recovery, and we recognize the likely do not persist in waters severely 16).’’ This statement is incorrect; there intrinsic value of their continued polluted with cattle feces (Service 2007, are no nonnative predatory fish (Gila participation in this effort. p. 34). We understand that in most trout and speckled dace are the only fish Comment 32: Regarding the Scotia circumstances where frogs occur in present), there are no crayfish, and there Canyon, Beatty’s Guest Ranch tanks actively used by livestock, are no bullfrogs in the unit. (excluded), and Carr Barn Pond Units, livestock feces are likely present in the Our Response: We have updated our the copper mine in Cananea, Sonora, water, and frogs are not appreciably analysis and discussion of this unit to pumps 10,000 to 12,000 acre feet of affected by their presence. We also reflect this information. groundwater and then redirects surplus acknowledge the potential that in tanks Comment 29: Periodic Chiricahua water into the Rio Sonora basin which that have limited water and are leopard frog die-offs resulting from flows to Hermosillo, Sonora. This subjected to intense livestock activity, chytridiomycosis have not been should be discussed. adverse affects to the Chiricahua observed in the Las Cienegas National Our Response: We understand leopard frog are likely from Conservation Area Unit. They probably (although not specifically stated) the concentrated amounts of livestock feces, do occur, and probably are a key factor, implication of groundwater pumping on which could limit a population’s but it is also possible that other factors potential effects to surface flows to the persistence. We are not aware of any are responsible for the rarity of the upper San Pedro River. However, these Chiricahua leopard frog populations Chiricahua leopard frog in the Cienega units do not rely on surface flow in the that are adversely affected as a result of Creek bottomlands. upper San Pedro River for their water elk feces, but presume similar adverse Our Response: The final recovery plan supply and are, therefore, unaffected by effects are likely under the same notes the presence of chytridiomycosis groundwater pumping activities in rationale. Furthermore, we are not in Cienega Creek (Service 2007, p. 61). Mexico. requiring ranchers to manage their We have amended our discussion of this Comment 33: The Service should livestock tanks specifically with this unit to remove the statement regarding focus on the threat of (Chiricahua factor in mind, but rather prefer to periodic die-offs. leopard frog) surveyors spreading the pursue opportunities to work with the Comment 30: Effects of climate chytrid fungus. ranching community to meet both the change are downplayed in the proposed Our Response: Several precautions are needs of the species and the needs of rule, with significant effects predicted listed in the final recovery plan (Service their livestock operations.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:12 Mar 19, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20MRR2.SGM 20MRR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 16329

General Comments Issue 4: General unable to verify its findings. However, species at the time it is listed in Biology upon receipt of this reference, we will accordance with the provisions of Comment 36: The Service must add this information to our current section 4 of the Act, upon a analyze whether Chiricahua leopard understanding of the species’ dispersal determination that such areas are frogs along Mogollon Rim are a separate capabilities. However, for this final essential for the conservation of the species. critical habitat rule, no changes have species. In this final designation, we Our Response: We specifically discuss been made based on this information. have identified two units that were not issues pertinent to Chiricahua leopard Comment 38: Specifically, on page known to be occupied at the time of 14151, the proposed rule states that frog taxonomy under the ‘‘Species listing, but which we consider essential ‘‘Chiricahua leopard frogs are known to Information’’ section below. Since the for the conservation of the species. Also, breed at all of the above mentioned publication of the proposed rule, the recovery criteria in the final wells except Sawmill and Johnson Hekkala et al. (2011) published a recovery plan (Service 2007, p. 55) for Wells * * * Frogs were extant at Davis phylogenetic analysis of the (considered the Chiricahua leopard frog was an Well, LM Bar Well, North Seco Well, extinct) Vegas Valley leopard frog important factor in our methodology Pague Well, and Sucker Ledge at the (Lithobates fisheri) and other North used to designate critical habitat. In time of listing.’’ We offer two order to meet recovery criteria outlined American Ranidae (North American corrections: Chiricahua leopard frog in the recovery plan, we designated frogs of the same family) DNA and reproduction has been documented at multiple critical habitat units in each placed L. fisheri within Chiricahua Johnson Well each of the last 3 years, recovery unit. leopard frog (Lithobates chiricahuensis) and Chiricahua leopard frogs were (using archival and contemporary extant and breeding at Fish Well, in General Comments Issue 5: PBFs, PCEs, nuclear and mitochondrial DNA). addition to the other sites listed, at the and Special Management Hekkala et al. (2011) ascribed the time of listing. Comment 41: The Service should northwestern-most populations of L. Our Response: The sites noted by the reconsider whether the buffer zones chiricahuensis from the Mogollon Rim commenter are on the Ladder Ranch proposed are to protect PCEs from to L. fisheri, although specific which is excluded as critical habitat effects caused by livestock grazing or populations were not identified. under section 4(b)(2) of the Act and from those posed by airborne pollution. Populations of L. chiricahuensis outside discussed below under ‘‘Exclusions.’’ Our Response: At this time, we feel this zone were not recommended for Comment 39: Chiricahua leopard that applying a buffer zone to protect taxonomic revision. Data likely support frogs in the Las Cienegas National against the effects of livestock grazing ascribing all known populations of L. Conservation Area Unit are less than 6 would be arbitrary, because we do not chiricahuensis to L. fisheri, although miles (10 km) from the nearest recently know how large to make the buffer to Hekkala et al. (2011) did not make that occupied site in the Eastern Slope of the protect from those effects. However, in recommendation. The phylogenetic tree Santa Rita Mountains Unit. In the 1970s, ponds designated as critical habitat, in Hekkala et al. (2011; Fig. 2b.) is a a key study site for the Chiricahua most of which are impoundments for subset of a larger phylogenetic tree that leopard frog was halfway between the watering cattle or other livestock, is still under construction by genetic nearest recently occupied sites. Thus, 35 designated critical habitat extends for 20 researchers. As a subset, the resolution years ago or less, there were likely ft (6.1 m) beyond the high water line or of the data is not sufficient to support metapopulation dynamics active to the boundary of the riparian and recognizing individual populations of L. between these units. upland vegetation edge, whichever is chiricahuensis as L. fisheri at this time. Our Response: While, historically, greatest. We used this 20-ft (6.1-m) Completion of ongoing rangewide such a metapopulation dynamic is extension because the frogs are research, with sufficient genetic feasible, we do not possess records to commonly found foraging and basking resolution, of the more comprehensive verify such a dynamic. Therefore, we within 20 feet of the shoreline of tanks. phylogeny of western leopard frogs is consider the Eastern Slope of the Santa In regards to effects posed by airborne expected to be available in 3 to 4 years Rita Mountains Unit as a disjunct pollution, no reasonable spatial distance and will provide additional information metapopulation and the Las Cienegas is guaranteed to protect PCEs from for analysis necessary to make informed National Conservation Area Unit as an airborne pollutants by the very nature of management or listing decisions. isolated population because of the their movement vector. Therefore, we Comment 37: The proposed rule distance between the nearest occupied did not consider airborne pollution as a states, ‘‘ * * * the maximum distance sites between units is more than 8.0 mi determinant in describing buffer areas. moved by a telemetered Chiricahua (13 km) straight-line distance away, Comment 42: Regarding the PCE that leopard frog in New Mexico was 2.2 mi which is not within a reasonable requires, ‘‘Emergent and or submerged (3.5 km) in one direction along a dispersal distance for the Chiricahua vegetation, root masses, undercut banks, drainage.’’ In a New Mexico State leopard frog. fractured rock substrates, or some Wildlife Grant Report entitled, Comment 40: How do the 43 proposed combination thereof; but emergent ‘‘Distribution and Movement of units (39 designated units) correspond vegetation does not completely cover Chiricahua leopard frog on the Ladder to the 85 percent reduction in occupied the surface of water bodies,’’ this PCE is Ranch and adjacent National Forest sites (in reference to statements made in not clearly essential in our experience, Lands, Sierra County, New Mexico,’’ the final listing rule and subsequent as sites with minimal vegetation cover authored by Carter Kruse and Bruce Service documents regarding rangewide can support substantial Chiricahua Christman in 2005, it was reported that reductions in occupied habitat), and leopard frog populations. Under the PCE a single frog moved at least 3.1 mi (5 how will the critical habitat designation that requires, ‘‘Absence of km), one way during a 3-day rain event achieve the recovery criteria in the chytridiomycosis, or if chytridiomycosis in the Seco drainage (page 18), which is recovery plan? is present, then conditions that allow substantially farther than discussed in Our Response: Under section persistence of Chiricahua leopard frogs the proposed rule. 3(5)(A)(ii) of the Act, we have authority with the disease (e.g., water Our Response: We did not receive a to designate specific areas outside the temperatures that do not drop below copy of this report, and we therefore are geographic areas occupied by the 20 °C (68 °F), pH of greater than 8

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:12 Mar 19, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20MRR2.SGM 20MRR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 16330 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

during at least part of the year),’’ the development) of offspring in our General Comments Issue 6: Legal/ temperature conditions stated are vague development of the PBFs 1 through 5 Policy/Economics and not clearly in line with and PCEs 1 and 2. Special management Comment 47: Designating critical observations, as we have populations that will result from critical habitat habitat might place a burden on where temperatures do drop below designation, such as nonnative species ranching. these values for several months per year. control, should promote these habitat Our Response: The designation of Our Response: According to our characteristics on a local level, if not critical habitat does not impose a legally review of the best available scientific landscape level. Such landscape-level binding duty on non-Federal and commercial data and the opinion of management against nonnatives has Government entities or private parties. species experts, the importance of already proven successful in several Under the Act, the only regulatory effect available cover (i.e., emergent and or areas within Recovery Units 1 and 2. is that Federal agencies must ensure that submerged vegetation, root masses, Comment 45: Why did you change their actions do not destroy or adversely undercut banks, fractured rock PCE (1)(a) to remove the minimum of modify critical habitat under section 7. substrates) for the Chiricahua leopard 6.0 foot in diameter and 20 inches in While non-Federal entities that receive frog cannot be overstated. Available depth for breeding pools and ponds? Federal funding, assistance, or permits, cover is a fundamental component in or that otherwise require approval or the defensive behavior of the species, Our Response: During periods of authorization from a Federal agency for provides varied thermoregulation drought, or less than average rainfall, an action, may be indirectly impacted opportunities, is an important breeding sites may not hold water long by the designation of critical habitat, the consideration in maintaining an enough for individuals to complete invertebrate prey base, and also serves metamorphosis, but they would still be legally binding duty to avoid as substrate for egg mass deposition. In considered essential breeding habitat in destruction or adverse modification of the presence of nonnative species, non-drought years. Regardless of the critical habitat rests squarely on the adequate cover becomes even more effects of drought on any given breeding Federal agency. Also, we conducted an critical to an individual frogs’ survival. site, we are aware of pools that fall short economic analysis of this critical habitat With respect to temperature conditions of the 6.0 foot in diameter and 20 inches designation, including analyzing the specified in the proposed rule, we in depth criteria that have regularly impacts to ranching. Even though there eliminated temperature-specific contained breeding populations in most may be some incremental costs to conditions in an amended PCE as stated years, such as the West Prong Gentry livestock management entities, because under the ‘‘Primary Constituent Creek in Recovery Unit 5. These sites of costs related to section 7 Elements for the Chiricahua Leopard still provide important habitat for the consultations in regards to grazing on Frogs’’ section below. species. Forest Service lands, we have found no Comment 43: The Service should significant economic impacts are likely Comment 46: If Chiricahua leopard to result from this designation focus on promoting disturbance in frogs are to persist in Pen˜ a Blanca Lake riparian habitat, such as controlled (Industrial Economics 2012, pp. ES–5, after stocking with predatory nonnative A–3, A–7). grazing, in order to accommodate the fish species, the vegetation should be native species’ advantage to a Comment 48: The Service should controlled to prevent suitable habitat for consider the cumulative impact of disturbance regime in riparian habitat. bullfrogs. Our Response: In the context of listings and critical habitat designations evaluating the response of native Our Response: We note that the in New Mexico on private agricultural species versus nonnative species to designation of critical habitat for the producers. disturbance regimes in riparian habitat, Chiricahua leopard frog does not require Our Response: For listing actions, the we consider, in an evolutionary context, this specific management, nor does any Act requires that we make disturbance from natural hydrological other critical habitat designation require determinations ‘‘solely on the basis of processes (such as flooding). Native management. Subsequent to draining the best available scientific and riparian species have evolved in the and dredging Pen˜ a Blanca Lake, a commercial data available’’ (16 U.S.C. presence of dynamic hydrologic concerted effort began in 2008 to clear 1533(b)(1)(A). So, we do not conduct processes over millions of years, and it the area of bullfrogs. The effort appears economic or environmental analyses or is these hydrological disturbance events to be successful, and Chiricahua leopard environmental assessments when that prepare seedbeds and provide frogs have benefited. We agree that, if making listing determinations. conditions for germination for native bullfrogs were to successfully recolonize However, for critical habitat riparian species. For purposes of this Pen˜ a Blanca Lake, shoreline habitat designations, including this one, we are critical habitat designation, the concept complexity would make their required to prepare draft and final of promoting disturbance in riparian elimination difficult if not impossible economic analyses and environmental habitat via controlled grazing in order to without another draining and dredging assesessment rules. However, we are accommodate native species is not effort. However, management of this required and have prepared draft and substantially useful information. area will continue to concentrate on final economic analysis and Comment 44: The PBFs and PCEs preventing bullfrogs from recolonizing environmental assessment documents, should include considerations for a the area and eliminating those that do which consider the impacts of critical landscape of appropriate size free from recolonize in habitat suitable for these habitat designation. Those documents known or likely populations of efforts. Furthermore, in a May 2011, consider impacts to private agricultural nonnative species highly deleterious to section 7 consultation for sportfish producers in Arizona and New Mexico populations of the Chiricahua leopard stocking of the lake, conservation and have generally found no significant frog. measures were established that require economic or environmental impacts due Our Response: We considered both shoreline habitat to be managed in a to this critical habitat designation. The the importance of space for individual manner to retain its complexity, which final economic analysis and final and population growth and for normal will provide some level of protection to environmental assessment are available behavior, and sites for breeding, resident Chiricahua leopard frogs from on the Internet at http:// reproduction, or rearing (or potential predation from sportfish. www.regulations.gov.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:12 Mar 19, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20MRR2.SGM 20MRR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 16331

In regards to considering the extends for 20 ft (6.1 m) beyond the high stigma effect on a property that is cumulative impact of listings and water line or to the boundary of the designated as critical habitat due to critical habitat designations, in 2001, riparian and upland vegetation edge, perceived limitations or restrictions, the U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals whichever is greatest. This definition of which may result in a lower market instructed the Service to conduct a full critical habitat, as it applies to private value than an identical property that is analysis of all of the economic impacts landowners, is vague and therefore not within the boundaries of critical of proposed critical habitat, regardless unenforceable. habitat. However, we have no evidence of whether those impacts are Our Response: The designation of that private land values will diminish attributable co-extensively to other critical habitat does not impose a legally with this designation. In fact, we believe causes. Since that decision, however, binding duty on non-Federal that, because this designation may courts in other cases have held that an Government entities or private parties. increase protection of scenic habitat, incremental analysis of impacts See our response to comment 47. there may be aesthetic values resulting stemming solely from the critical habitat Comment 52: Please do not let critical in increased properties values rulemaking is proper. Most recently, in habitat designation negatively affect the (Industrial Economics 2012, p. 2–17). 2010, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of ongoing environmental education Comment 55: We recommend the Appeals came to similar conclusions program at Brown Canyon Ranch. Service consider working with private during its review of critical habitat Our Response: One of the benefits to landowners proactively in conservation designations. In order to address the designating critical habitat is its value in and recovery versus enforcing divergent opinions of the courts and educating the public on endangered and restrictions, etc. provide the most complete information threatened species conservation. The Our Response: The Service has a long to decision-makers, the economic designation of critical habitat in Brown history of working proactively with analysis for this rule describes the Canyon will not impact the private and public land managers to baseline protections afforded the environmental education program at further conservation and recovery goals Chiricahua leopard frog absent critical Brown Canyon Ranch. Alternatively, for this species while simultaneously habitat designation, and monetizes the designating critical habitat may prove accounting for their multiple-use and/or potential incremental impacts beneficial to these purposes, and the commercial needs of these lands. precipitated specifically by the Service supports and promotes such Examples of such relationships are designation of critical habitat for the positive endeavors. numerous but perhaps none are more species. Comment 53: Control of nonnatives is pertinent that those discussed in detail Comment 49: The Service should difficult, if not impossible, in many under the section ‘‘Exclusions’’ below. invite coordination with local circumstances, but working with private Comment 56: The proposed rule does governmental entities in affected landowners could help further the goal not meet Data Quality Act standards, counties relative to any further if critical habitat were not designated. because it ignores the best scientific development of proposed rules. Our Response: As previously stated, information available and bases many of Our Response: We place a high the designation of critical habitat does its conclusions on supposition and priority on coordinating with local and not impose a legally binding duty on speculation about the future. State governments within the non-Federal Government entities or Our Response: In accordance with framework of relevant federal laws. private parties. Also, critical habitat section 4 of the Act, we are required to However, we do not understand exactly designation does not require property use, and we used, the best available what the commenter’s expectations are owners to undertake affirmative actions scientific and commercial information regarding coordination with local to promote the recovery of the species. to make this critical habitat decision. governmental entities in affected However, the majority of Chiricahua Further, we followed the criteria, counties relative to any further leopard frog habitat and localities are on established procedures, and guidance development of proposed rules. The Act Federal lands, mostly lands managed by from our Policy on Information does not delineate a unique role of the U.S. Forest Service. We believe that Standards Under the Endangered coordination with counties. However, building partnerships and promoting Species Act (published in the Federal when proposed rules are developed, we voluntary cooperation of landowners are Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271)), invite and encourage comments from essential to improving the status of the Information Quality Act (section 515 affected counties during the open public species on non-Federal lands, and are of the Treasury and General comment period. necessary for implementing recovery Government Appropriations Act for Comment 50: Designating critical actions, such as reestablishing listed Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106–554; H.R. habitat will incentivize landowners to species and restoring and protecting 5658)), and our associated Information allow bullfrogs to take over stock tanks habitat. Quality Guidelines. As such, we relied or allow tanks to dry up when not in use Comment 54: Designation of critical upon primary and original sources of to alleviate regulatory burden. Instead habitat could diminish private land information in this designation of the Service should not designate critical value. critical habitat. habitat and allow landowners to move Our Response: In this final critical In order to meet these ‘‘best available frogs around to tanks suitable for habitat designation, only 26 percent of scientific and commercial information’’ occupation. the lands designated as critical habitat standards, we found information from Our Response: The designation of are private lands, and there is no many different sources, including the critical habitat does not impose a legally evidence that designation of critical recovery plan, articles in peer-reviewed binding duty on non-Federal habitat in this case will diminish land journals, conservation plans developed Government entities or private parties. values (Industrial Economics 2012, by States and counties, scientific status See our response to comments 47 and p. 2–17). We acknowledge that public surveys and studies, biological 53. attitudes about the limits or restrictions assessments, other unpublished Comment 51: In ponds proposed as that critical habitat may impose can materials, or experts’ opinions or critical habitat, most of which are cause real economic effects to property personal knowledge. Also, in impoundments for watering cattle or owners, regardless of whether such accordance with our peer review policy other livestock, proposed critical habitat limits are likely. Thus, there may be a published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:12 Mar 19, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20MRR2.SGM 20MRR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 16332 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

34270), we solicited expert opinions and found that even though there may designation on land and water rights from knowledgeable individuals with be some incremental costs to livestock where appropriate. scientific expertise that included management entities related to section 7 Response: The draft economic familiarity with the species, the consultations, no significant economic analysis (DEA) discusses potential geographic region in which the species impacts on livestock and mining direct and indirect impacts of the occurs, and conservation biology industries are likely to result from this Chiricahua leopard frog critical habitat principles. Additionally, we requested designation (Industrial Economics 2012, designation in Chapters 2 and 4. In comments or information from other pp. ES–5, A–3, A–7). Chapter 2, the analysis discusses the concerned governmental agencies, Comment 60: We are concerned that possibility that the designation might Native American Tribes, the scientific the conservation efforts for the affect property values both positively community, industry, and any other Chiricahua leopard frog will become and negatively. Because of the extensive interested parties concerning the another Service action where new rules conservation efforts already in place for proposed rule. Comments and are put in place that limit or restrict the Chiricahua leopard frog, and information we received helped inform ‘‘multiple use’’ of land and resources. because the Service is already excluding this final rule. Throughout Apache County, once portions of 10 critical habitat units (due In conclusion, we believe that we productive private, State, or Federal to existing leopard frog protections in have used the best available scientific land has become so encumbered with these areas), neither direct nor indirect and commercial information for the use restrictions, requirements, and property value impacts are anticipated listing and designation of critical habitat liabilities that the natural resources they to result from the designation. The for the Chiricahua leopard frog. once provided are no longer analysis finds that any impacts to Comment 57: The Service stated that economically available or contributing property value or other property rights while Hermann et al. (2009, pp. 12–17) to the local economy. would occur regardless of critical indicates that Chiricahua leopard frogs Our Response: The designation of habitat designation and are therefore not do not currently suffer from a lack critical habitat does not impose a legally attributable to the Chiricahua leopard genetic variability, it does not preclude binding duty on non-Federal frog designation. the possibility that individual Government entities or private parties. Comment 63: One comment noted populations may suffer from genetic or Under the Act, the only regulatory effect that the DEA erroneously stated that the demographic problems. This is that Federal agencies must ensure that Chiricahua leopard frog was listed as speculation is a violation of the Data their actions do not destroy or adversely endangered rather than threatened in Quality Act. 2002. Our Response: The statement that modify critical habitat under section 7. ‘‘* * * it does not preclude the While non-Federal entities that receive Response: This is corrected in the possibility that individual populations Federal funding, assistance, or permits, final economic analysis (FEA). may suffer from genetic or demographic or that otherwise require approval or Comment 64: The DEA states that the problems’’ pertains to the inherent level authorization from a Federal agency for Service is considering portions of nine of uncertainty of how changes in the an action, may be indirectly impacted critical habitat units for exclusion, when species’ status and threats may by the designation of critical habitat, the in fact portions of 10 critical habitat influence population genetics in the legally binding duty to avoid units are being considered. With the foreseeable future. The Service’s use of destruction or adverse modification of addition of Unit 43 (Palomas) to the this information does not result in critical habitat rests squarely on the proposed rule, the Ladder Ranch lands speculation by the Service. Federal agency. within this unit are also being Comment 58: The Services’ Comment 61: The Apache County considered for exclusion (as stated in presumption that there are ‘‘future’’ Board of Supervisors requests we the draft environmental assessment). threats clearly fails to pass Data Quality coordinate with them to discuss the Response: This is corrected in the Act standards, because that consistencies, conflicts, opportunities FEA. presumption is based solely on for coordination, and coordinated Comment 65: The DEA did not speculation and surmise contradicted by monitoring associated with this adequately address potential impacts on the best scientific and commercial rulemaking. local businesses. The analysis also information available. Our Response: We accepted focused almost exclusively on the Our Response: See our response to comments on the proposed rule, draft administrative costs to the Federal comment 56. economic analysis, and draft agencies for consultation related to the Comment 59: The designation of environmental assessment during two designation of critical habitat, and did 5,200 acres of land in Arizona may comment periods for a total of 90 days. not examine the potential impact to place an economic burden on the As such, we complied with all local economies already struggling with livestock and mining industries in requirements for public participation in high unemployment and widespread Arizona and may also risk discouraging our rulemaking process, under the Act poverty. Finally, the DEA must analyze, private partnerships that could further and the Administrative Procedures Act fully disclose, and explain how the rule recovery of the species. (5 U.S.C. Subchapter II). may impact local businesses. Our Response: We discuss how the Response: Appendix A of the DEA Economic Analysis designation of critical habitat may or considers potential impacts of the may not affect the responsibilities of Comment 62: The Service should critical habitat designation on small land owners and managers under the provide a detailed assessment about entities and the energy industry. The ‘‘Background’’ under the section who will bear the costs in ‘‘management DEA considers publicly available ‘‘Critical Habitat’’ heading below. We changes, use reduction, or loss of information in estimating the recommend review of this section for property rights, such as depreciation of incremental costs of the proposed clarification of the actual, versus land values.’’ The comment also critical habitat designation on small perceived, effects of critical habitat suggested that the Service conduct a entities, including any information designation. Also, we conducted an takings implication assessment to about potential impacts to local economic analysis of this designation, analyze the effects of critical habitat communities.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:12 Mar 19, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20MRR2.SGM 20MRR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 16333

Environmental Assessment Data Quality Act of 2000 standards. is appropriate to focus the impact Comment 66: The potential impacts of Instead it blatantly ignored scientific discussion on the effects that critical climate change are complicated and information and based many of its habitat designation will have on the overly downplayed in the draft conclusions on supposition and number, types, and outcomes (including environmental assessment. speculation. conservation measures, project Response: The commenter does not Response: We have added a modifications, costs, or delays) of cite the ways the document violates the discussion of climate change in section consultations. Please see the final Data Quality Act, or the scientific 1.8.1 of the final environmental environmental assessment for more information that has been ignored. We assessment. information. believe that the draft environmental Comment 74: There is a lack of actual Comment 67: A proposed open pit assessment relied on the best available environmental consequence copper mine seriously threatens both scientific and commercial information. determinations for each of the proposed units 8 and 9. It based its conclusions on a reasonable critical habitat units. Per NEPA, the Response: In September 2011, assessment of the likely frequency, definition of effects clearly considers Coronado National Forest published a nature, and outcomes of incremental the ecological component to be the draft environmental impact statement section 7 consultations, and discussed backbone of effects determinations. (EIS) on the proposed mine. Using these in chapters 3 through 5. Response: The designation of critical information from that EIS, we added Comment 72: The draft environmental habitat is intended to provide for the section 3.11 Mining to the final assessment uses the term ‘‘unknown’’ protection of the physical or biological environmental assessment to address more than 18 times, yet page 96 of the features essential to the conservation of potential impacts. draft environmental assessment a listed species. Impacts from critical Comment 68: One commenter felt that concludes that ‘‘The impacts do not habitat designation occur through the we should elevate the National pose any uncertain, unique, or unknown outcomes of new, re-initiated, or Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 risks.’’ With the number of unknown expanded consultations under section 7 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) analysis to the level details listed throughout the draft of the Act, rather than through direct of an EIS. environmental assessment and the physical impacts on the ground. For this Response: The level of impacts to the overly general nature of this NEPA reason, we feel it is appropriate to focus environment from this critical habitat document, it is clear that there are the impact discussion in the designation do not rise to the level of unknown risks that the conclusion on environmental assessment on the effects significance to trigger the requirement to page 96 of the draft environmental critical habitat designation will have on produce an EIS. assessment fails to recognize. the number, types, and outcomes of Comment 69: One commenter quotes Response: The commenter’s examples consultations. from the Service’s Handbook on NEPA fall into two categories of unknowns: (1) Comment 75: One commenter Policies and Responsibilities: ‘‘We The number of section 7 consultations suggested that the Service revise the encourage public scoping for an likely to be conducted in the future environmental assessment to provide Environmental Assessment, because it affecting a given resource, agency, or information about how the helps satisfy NEPA’s purposes in activity (accounting for 9 of the 17 implementation of the proposed critical section 101(b).’’ specific instances mentioned); and (2) habitat will change the ecosystems that Response: In the proposed rule to the specific details and locations of such make up the proposed critical habitat designate critical habitat, dated March projects (accounting for 8 of the 17 areas. If it is determined that there will 15, 2011, and published in the Federal specific instances mentioned). Given the be no change in the environment Register (76 FR 14126), we requested consultation histories that are relevant conditions of the various proposed public review and comment on several (and cited throughout the draft critical habitat areas due to the critical aspects of the proposed designation, environmental assessment), we do not habitat designation, or that no true including a draft environmental believe that the frequency or nature of benefits will be realized from assessment. Also, we conducted public likely consultations will be such to designating critical habitat, then the outreach efforts, including posting cause significant impacts, regardless of Service should select the ‘‘No Action’’ information on the Service’s National, whether or not the precise number and alternative and not burden the public Regional, and Field Office Web sites. nature of those consultations can be with the cost of unnecessary Federal Comment 70: One commenter predicted. actions. suggested that the draft environmental Comment 73: The Service should Response: We do not believe that assessment did not have sufficient correct the draft environmental ecological impacts will occur because of information on the impacts of the assessment by including data that this critical habitat designation. The proposed designation, and that the support analysis of the effects of benefits of critical habitat include Secretary of the Interior should defer implementing critical habitat. The public awareness of Chiricahua leopard making a designation of critical habitat analysis should focus on the effects of frog presence and the importance of until such time as this information is critical habitat on each proposed critical habitat protection, and in cases where a available. habitat unit. Federal nexus exists, increased habitat Response: The commenter does not Response: The designation of critical protection for Chiricahua leopard frogs suggest what necessary information is habitat itself does not produce direct due to the protection from adverse lacking. The Act requires us to use the impacts on the natural environment, nor modification or destruction of critical best available scientific and commercial does it directly impose limits on land habitat. data in making decisions. We believe management activities on private this standard was met, and we are property. Its impacts occur through Summary of Changes From Proposed finalizing the critical habitat consultations conducted with Federal Rule designation. agencies (and, rarely, non-Federal In the March 15, 2011, proposed rule Comment 71: One commenter project proponents who request Federal (76 FR 14126), we proposed to designate suggested that the draft environmental funding or authorization) under section approximately 11,136 acres (4,510 assessment does not meet the requisite 7 of the Act. For this reason, we feel it hectares) in 40 units as critical habitat

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:12 Mar 19, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20MRR2.SGM 20MRR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 16334 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

for the Chiricahua leopard frog. Then, in subaquavocalis), found on the eastern and often green coloration on the head September 21, 2011 (76 FR 58441), we slopes of the Huachuca Mountains, and back (Platz and Mecham 1979, p. proposed approximately 331 acres (133 Cochise County, Arizona, has recently 347.1; Degenhardt et al. 1996, pp. 85– hectares) in three additional units, and been subsumed into L. chiricahuensis 87). The species also has a distinctive amended the PCEs to provide more (Crother 2008, p. 7) and was noted by call consisting of a relatively long snore clarification by making them more the Service as part of the listed entity in of 1 to 2 seconds in duration (Platz and objective and measurable. In this final a 90-day finding on 192 species from a Mecham 1979, p. 347.1; Davidson 1996, listing rule, we are designating petition to list 475 species (74 FR 66866; tracks 58, 59). Overall body lengths of approximately 10,386 acres (4,187 December 16, 2009). Goldberg et al. adults range from approximately 2.1 hectares) as critical habitat in 39 units (2004, pp. 313–319) examined the inches (in) (5.3 centimeters (cm)) to 5.4 for the Chiricahua leopard frog. relationships between the Ramsey in (13.7 cm) (Platz and Mecham 1979, We have fewer units in this final rule Canyon leopard frog (L. subaquavocalis) p. 347.1; Stebbins 2003, pp. 236–237). because we exclude the Pasture 9 Tank and the Chiricahua leopard frog (L. Life History Unit, Beatty’s Guest Ranch Unit, and chiricahuensis). Genetic analysis Ramsey and Brown Canyons Unit under showed no evidence that Ramsey The life history of the Chiricahua the provisions of section 4(b)(2) of the Canyon leopard frog was a separate leopard frog can be characterized as a Act (see the unit descriptions under the species from the Chiricahua leopard frog complex life cycle, consisting of eggs Final Critical Habitat Designation (Goldberg et al. 2004, p. 315). The and larvae that are entirely aquatic and section and the Exclusion section, Society for the Study of Amphibians adults who are primarily aquatic but below). Also, we reevaluated the High and Reptiles later adopted these leopard may be terrestrial at times. Females Lonesome Well Unit, and we have frogs as the same species, L. attach spherical masses of fertilized determined that it does not meet the chiricahuensis (Crother 2008, p. 7). eggs, ranging in number from 300 to definition of critical habitat (see our Therefore, we no longer recognize the 1,485 eggs, to submerged vegetation response to comment 18, above, and the Ramsey Canyon leopard frog (L. (Sredl and Jennings 2005, p. 547). Egg unit description under the Final Critical subaquavocalis) as a distinct species masses of Chiricahua leopard frogs have Habitat Designation section, below). and consider it to be synonymous with been reported in all months, but reports Therefore, we have removed the High the Chiricahua leopard frog (L. of egg laying (oviposition) in June and Lonesome Well Unit from this final chiricahuensis). In this final rule, we November through January are critical habitat designation. present our analysis of the threats to the uncommon (Zweifel 1968, pp. 45–46; species given this taxonomic revision to Frost and Bagnara 1977, p. 449; Frost Threatened Status for the Chiricahua determine if it is appropriate to list the and Platz 1983, p. 67; Scott and Leopard Frog Chiricahua leopard frog as threatened Jennings 1985, p. 16; Sredl and Jennings Background throughout its range (see Summary of 2005, p. 547). Frost and Platz (1983, p. 67) divided egg-laying activity into two Due to a taxonomic revision of the Factors Affecting the Species below). distinct periods with respect to Chiricahua leopard frog, we reassessed Northern populations of the elevation. Populations at elevations the status of and threats to the currently Chiricahua leopard frog in the Mogollon below 5,900 feet (ft) (1,798 meters (m)) described species. It is our intent to Rim region of east-central Arizona east tend to lay eggs from spring through late discuss below only those topics directly to the eastern bajada of the Black Range in New Mexico are physically separated summer, with most activity taking place relevant to the listing of the Chiricahua from populations to the south. Previous before June. Populations above 5,900 ft leopard frog as threatened in this work had suggested these two separate (1,798 m) bred in June, July, and section of the final rule. For more divisions might be distinct species August. Scott and Jennings (1985, p. 16) information on the Chiricahua leopard (Platz and Grudzien 1999, p. 51). found a similar seasonal pattern of frog, refer to the final listing rule Goldberg et al. (2004, p. 315) reproductive activity in New Mexico published in the Federal Register on demonstrated that frogs from these two (February through September), as did June 13, 2002 (67 FR 40790) and the regions showed a 2.4 percent average Frost and Platz (1983, p. 67), although species’ recovery plan (Service 2007). divergence in mitochondrial DNA they did not note elevational Species Information sequences. However, more recent work differences. Additionally, Scott and using both mitochondrial DNA and Jennings (1985, p. 16) noted reduced egg Description nuclear microsatellites from frog tissues laying in May and June. Zweifel (1968, When we listed the Chiricahua throughout the range of the species p. 45) noted that breeding in the early leopard frog as a threatened species on provides no evidence of multiple taxa part of the year appeared to be limited June 13, 2002 (67 FR 40790), we within what we now consider to be the to sites where water temperatures do not recognized the scientific name as Rana Chiricahua leopard frog (Herrman et al. get too low, such as spring-fed sites. chiricahuensis. Since that time, the 2009, p. 18). Chiricahua leopard frogs at warm genus name Lithobates was proposed by The Chiricahua leopard frog is springs may lay eggs year-round due to Frost et al. (2006, p. 249) and adopted distinguished from other members of elevated water temperatures as by the Society for the Study of the leopard frog complex by a compared to most breeding habitat Amphibians and Reptiles in their most combination of characters, including a (Scott and Jennings 1985, p. 16). recent listing of scientific and standard distinctive pattern on the rear of the Eggs hatch in approximately 8 to 14 English names of North American thigh consisting of small, raised, cream- days depending on temperature (Sredl amphibians and reptiles north of colored spots or tubercles (wart-like and Jennings 2005, p. 547). After Mexico (Crother 2008, p. 7). With the projections) on a dark background; folds hatching, tadpoles remain in the water, publication of this final rule, we on the back and sides that, towards the where they feed and grow. Tadpoles officially accept the new scientific name rear, are interrupted and deflected turn into juvenile frogs in 3 to 9 months of the Chiricahua leopard frog as towards the middle of the body; stocky (Sredl and Jennings 2005, p. 547). Lithobates chiricahuensis. body proportions; relatively rough skin Juvenile frogs are typically 1.4 to 1.6 in In addition, the Ramsey Canyon on the back and sides; eyes that are (35 to 40 millimeters (mm)) in overall leopard frog (Lithobates positioned relatively high on the head; body length. Males reach sexual

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:12 Mar 19, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20MRR2.SGM 20MRR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 16335

maturity at 2.1 to 2.2 in (5.3 to 5.6 cm), mavortium) have not yet invaded or Summary of Factors Affecting the a size they can attain in less than a year been introduced, or where the numbers Species (Sredl and Jennings 2005, p. 548). of nonnative predators are low and Section 4 of the Act and its The diet of the Chiricahua leopard habitats are complex, allowing implementing regulations (50 CFR part frog includes primarily invertebrates Chiricahua leopard frogs to coexist with 424) set forth the procedures for adding such as beetles, true bugs, and flies, but these species (Service 2007, p. 15). The species to the Federal Lists of fish and snails are also taken (Christman large valley-bottom cienegas (mid- Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Cummer 2006, pp. 9–18). An adult elevation wetland communities and Plants (Lists). A species may be was documented eating a hummingbird typically surrounded by relatively arid determined to be endangered or in southeastern Arizona (Field et al. environments), rivers, and lakes where threatened due to one or more of the 2003, p. 235). Chiricahua leopard frogs can be found active both day and night, the species occurred historically are five factors described in section 4(a)(1) but adults tend to be active more at populated with nonnative predators at of the Act: (A) The present or threatened night than juveniles (Sredl and Jennings densities with which the Chiricahua destruction, modification, or 2005, p. 547). Chiricahua leopard frogs leopard frog cannot coexist. curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, presumably experience very high Dispersal mortality (greater than 90 percent) in the recreational, scientific, or educational egg and early tadpole stages, high Although one of the most aquatic of purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mortality when the tadpole turns into a southwestern leopard frogs (Degenhardt mechanisms; and (E) other natural or juvenile frog, and then relatively low et al. 1996, p. 86), Chiricahua leopard manmade factors affecting its continued mortality when the frogs are adults (Zug frogs are known to move among aquatic et al. 2001, p. 303; Service 2007, pp. existence. The final listing rule for the sites, and such movements are crucial Chiricahua leopard frog (67 FR 40790; C10–C12). Under ideal conditions, for conserving metapopulations. A Chiricahua leopard frogs may live as June 13, 2002) contained a discussion of metapopulation is a set of local these five factors, as did the proposed long as 10 years in the wild (Platz et al. populations that interact via individuals 1997, p. 553). listing rule (65 FR 37343; June 14, moving between local populations 2000). Threats discussed in the previous Geographical Range and Distribution (Hanski and Gilpin 1991, p. 7). If local listing rules are still affecting the The range of the Chiricahua leopard populations are extirpated through Chiricahua leopard frog today. Please frog includes central and southeastern drought, disease, or other factors, the refer to these rules or the Chiricahua Arizona; west-central and southwestern populations can be recolonized via leopard frog recovery plan (Service New Mexico; and in Mexico, dispersal from adjacent populations. 2007, pp. 18–45) for a more detailed northeastern Sonora, the Sierra Madre Hence, the long-term viability of analysis of the threats affecting the Occidental of northwestern and west- metapopulations may be enhanced over species. Because we no longer recognize central Chihuahua, and possibly as far that of isolated populations, even the Ramsey Canyon leopard frog as a south as northern Durango (Platz and though local populations experience distinct species and consider it to be Mecham 1984, p. 347.1; Degenhardt et periodic extirpations. To determine synonymous with the Chiricahua al. 1996, p. 87; Sredl and Jennings 2005, whether metapopulation structure exists leopard frog, we reanalyzed factors p. 546; Brennan and Holycross 2006, p. in a specific group of local populations, relevant to the entire listed entity below. 44; Lemos-Espinal and Smith 2007, pp. the dispersal capabilities of the frog However, because all the threats from 287, 579; Rorabaugh 2008, p. 32). The must be understood. Based on a review the previous rules still apply, we distribution of the species in Mexico is of available information, the recovery provide a summary of those below. unclear due to limited survey work and plan (Service 2007, pp. D–2, D–3, K–3) A. The Present or Threatened the presence of closely related taxa provides a rule of thumb on dispersal Destruction, Modification, or (especially Lithobates lemosespinali (no capabilities. Chiricahua leopard frogs Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range common name)) in the southern part of are reasonably likely to disperse 1.0 the range of the Chiricahua leopard frog. The recovery plan lists the following Based on 2010 data, the species still mile (mi) (1.6 kilometers (km)) overland, threats to habitat or range of the occurs in most major drainages in 3.0 mi (4.8 km) along ephemeral or Chiricahua leopard frog: Mining, Arizona and New Mexico where it intermittent drainages (water existing including mining-related contaminants; occurred historically; the exception to only briefly), and 5.0 mi (8.0 km) along other contaminants; dams; diversions; this is the Little Colorado River drainage perennial water courses (water present stream channelization; groundwater in Arizona. In Arizona and New Mexico, at all times of the year), or some pumping; woodcutting; urban and the species likely occurs at about 14 and combination thereof not to exceed 5.0 agricultural development; road 16 to 19 percent of its historical mi (8.0 km). This is often referred to as construction; grazing by livestock and localities, respectively (Service 2007, p. the ‘‘1–3–5 rule’’ of dispersal. It should elk; climate change; and altered fire 6). be noted that inevitably and over time, regimes (Service 2007, pp. 31–37). it is the species itself, in the wild, which Although these threats are widespread Habitat will define the configuration of any and varied, a threats assessment that Within its geographical range, given metapopulation. Ultimately, the was accomplished as part of the breeding populations of this species resultant configuration of persistent recovery plan showed chytridiomycosis historically inhabited a variety of wild metapopulations may or may not and predation by nonnative species as aquatic habitats (Service 2007, p. 3); comport with our current understanding consistently more important threats however, the species is now limited of metapopulation dynamics. We will than these habitat-based factors (Service primarily to headwater streams and continue to examine metapopulation 2007, pp. 20–27). springs, and livestock tanks into which Chiricahua leopard frogs are fairly dynamics of wild populations and make nonnative fish, bullfrogs, crayfish tolerant of variations in water quality, management recommendations or (Orconectes virilis), and barred tiger but likely do not persist in waters modifications as required, over time. salamanders (Ambystoma mavortium severely polluted with cattle feces

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:12 Mar 19, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20MRR2.SGM 20MRR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 16336 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

(Service 2007, p. 34), or runoff from both occurred in the spring of 2011, that disease (chytridiomycosis) and mine tailings or leach ponds (Rathbun potentially affecting designated critical predation by nonnative species 1969, pp. 1–3; U.S. Bureau of Land habitat in the Santa Rita Mountains (bullfrogs, crayfish, fish, and barred Management 1998, p. 26; Service 2007, (Florida Canyon and Eastern Slope of tiger salamanders) are the most p. 36). Furthermore, variation in pH, the Santa Mountains Units) and Pajarito significant threats to the Chiricahua ultraviolet radiation, and temperature, Mountains (Sycamore Canyon and Pen˜ a leopard frog. as well as predation stress, can alter the Blanca Lake and Spring and Associated potency of chemical effects (Akins and Tanks Units), respectively. Disease Wofford 1999, p. 107; Monson et al. On June 12, 2011, the Monument Fire In some areas, Chiricahua leopard frog 1999, pp. 309–311; Reylea 2004, pp. started 4 miles east of Hereford, populations are known to be seriously 1081–1084). Chemicals may also serve Arizona, ultimately consuming 30,526 affected by chytridiomycosis. as a stressor that makes frogs more acres (12,353 ha) and significantly Chytridiomycosis is an introduced susceptible to disease, such as affecting a portion of the Huachuca fungal skin disease caused by the chytridiomycosis (see discussion under Mountains, including the Beatty Guest organism Batrachochytrium Factor C below) (Parris and Baud 2004, Ranch in Miller Canyon. On June 27, dendrobatidis or ‘‘Bd.’’ Voyles et al. p. 344). The effects of pesticides and 2011, over 120 adult and larvae (2009) hypothesized that Bd disrupts other chemicals on amphibians can be Chiricahua leopard frogs were salvaged normal regulatory functioning of frog complex because of indirect effects on from the Beatty Guest Ranch in skin, and evidence suggests that the amphibian environment, direct anticipation of destructive floods and electrolyte depletion and osmotic lethal and sublethal effects on sedimentation that occurred shortly imbalance that occur in amphibians individuals, and interactions between thereafter, filling with sediment the with severe chytridiomycosis are contaminants and other factors ponds that formerly contained a robust sufficient to cause mortality. This associated with amphibian decline population of Chiricahua leopard frogs. disease has been associated with (Sparling 2003, pp. 1101–1120; Reylea Chiricahua leopard frogs persist on numerous population extirpations, 2008, pp. 367–374). Beatty Guest Ranch but only as a small particularly in New Mexico, and with A copper mine (the Rosemont Mine) fraction of their former numbers in major die-offs in other populations of has been proposed in the northeastern habitat that has been severely adversely Chiricahua leopard frogs (Service 2007, portion of the Santa Rita Mountains, affected and faces an uncertain future. p. 26). Pima County, Arizona (Recovery Unit The Southwest Endangered Species 2), the footprint of which includes Act Team (2008, pp. iii–IV–5) published Predation several sites recently occupied by ‘‘Chiricahua leopard frog (Lithobates Prior to the invasion of predatory, Chiricahua leopard frogs. Recent [Rana] chiricahuensis) considerations nonnative species (bullfrog, crayfish, research indicates that Chiricahua for making effects determinations and fish species) into perennial waters, the leopard frog tadpoles are sensitive to recommendations for reducing and Chiricahua leopard frog was historically cadmium and copper above certain avoiding adverse effects,’’ which found in a variety of aquatic habitat levels (Little and Calfee 2008, pp. 6–10), includes detailed descriptions of how types. Today, leopard frogs in the making the introduction of copper into many different types of projects, southwestern United States are so Chiricahua leopard frog habitat a including fire management, strongly impacted by harmful nonnative possible significant threat. A draft construction, native fish recovery, and species, which are most prevalent in environmental impact statement was livestock management projects, may perennial waters, that the leopard frogs’ prepared by the U.S. Forest Service in affect the frog and its habitat. This occupied niche is increasingly restricted September 2011, which confirmed that document, in addition to the recovery to the uncommon environments that do Chiricahua leopard frogs could be plan (Service 2007, pp. 31–37), can be not contain these nonnative predators, adversely affected by direct and indirect referenced for more information about and these environments now tend to be impacts of the mining operation, habitat-related threats. Habitat-related ephemeral and unpredictable. Witte et including effects from mercury, threats to the Chiricahua leopard frog, al. (2008, p. 378) found that sites with cadmium, and selenium contamination while not the most important factors disappearances of Chiricahua leopard (U.S. Forest Service 2011, p. 396). threatening the species, currently affect frogs were 2.6 times more likely to have The continued threat of wildfire has and will continue to affect the species introduced crayfish than were control never been more visible than that in the future. represented by the 2011 fire season in sites. Unfortunately, few sites with Arizona. A minimum of five wildfires B. Overutilization for Commercial, bullfrogs were included in the Witte et occurred in Arizona that adversely Recreational, Scientific, or Educational al. (2008, pp. 375–383) study, and at affected the status of the Chiricahua Purposes many sites, there was no identification leopard frog. The largest wildfire in Even though the final listing rule (67 of the species of fish present. Arizona State history, the Wallow Fire, FR 40790; June 13, 2002) discussed Summary of Factor C started in the White Mountains on May over-collection for the pet trade as a 28, 2011. The Wallow Fire consumed possible threat, we have no information Overall, the Chiricahua leopard frog 538,049 acres (217,741 ha), including in that leads us to believe that has made modest population gains in the area around Cambell Blue and overutilization for commercial, Arizona in spite of disease and Coleman Creeks. The Horseshoe II Fire recreational, scientific, or educational predation, but is apparently declining in started on May 8, 2011, grew to 222,954 purposes is currently a threat to the New Mexico because of these threats acres (90,226 ha), and affected the Chiricahua leopard frog, or will become (Service 2011, pp. 25–27). We consider majority of land area in the Chiricahua a threat in the future. disease, specifically chytridiomycosis, Mountains. We are not certain how and predation by nonnative species to occupied habitat in Cave Canyon will C. Disease and Predation have significant impacts on Chiricahua respond to such a widespread fire and The threats assessment conducted leopard frog populations now, and we subsequent precipitation events. The during the preparation of the recovery anticipate those impacts will continue Murphey Complex and Greaterville fires plan (Service 2007, pp. 18–45) found in the future.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:12 Mar 19, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20MRR2.SGM 20MRR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 16337

D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory ratios, as well as from disease or other southwestern United States and Mechanisms natural events that a larger population is northwestern Mexico have been The Chiricahua leopard frog is more likely to survive. Inbreeding associated with La Nin˜ a events (Seager currently listed as a threatened species depression and loss of genetic diversity et al. 2007, p. 3), during which sea (67 FR 40790; June 13, 2002) with a in small populations can also reduce the surface temperatures in the tropical special rule (see 50 CFR 17.43(b)) to fitness of individuals and the ability of Pacific decline. Climate models predict exempt operation and maintenance of a population to adapt to change. The that drought driven by La Nin˜ a events livestock tanks on non-Federal lands recent genetic study revealed no will be deeper and more profound than from the section 9 take prohibitions of systemic lack of genetic diversity within any during the last several hundred the Act. Even with regulatory the Chiricahua leopard frog as a species years (Seager et al. 2007, p. 3). protections of the Act currently in place, (Herrmann et al. 2009, pp. 12–17). In Drought has likely contributed to loss nonnative species used for fishing baits fact, populations were quite variable; up of Chiricahua leopard frog populations in Chiricahua leopard frog habitats pose to 16 different genetic groupings were since the species was originally listed in a significant threat to the Chiricahua found. This does not preclude the 2002, and has likely affected the species leopard frog; use of these nonnative possibility that individual populations historically. Drought conditions in the species as fishing baits presents a may suffer from genetic or demographic southwestern United States have arisen vehicle for the distribution of these problems, but the study shows the over time, and can range from short often predatory or competitive bait species retains good genetic variability. term to long term in duration. Stock species into frog habitat and for the Climate Change tank populations are particularly dissemination of deadly diseases to the The Chiricahua leopard frog recovery vulnerable to loss, because they tend to frog. Picco and Collins (2008, pp. 1585– plan (Service 2007, pp. 40–43) describes dry out during periods of below normal 1587) found tiger salamanders infected anticipated effects of climate change on precipitation. These trends are likely to with chytridiomycosis in Arizona bait the Chiricahua leopard frog. The plan continue, but the situation is shops, and tiger salamanders infected cited literature indicating that complicated by interactions with other with ranavirus (a genus of viruses temperatures rose in the 20th century factors. For example, the effects of known to effect amphibians and and warming is predicted to continue drought cannot be separated from the reptiles) in Arizona, New Mexico, and over the 21st century (Service 2007, pp. effects of nonnative species, because Colorado bait shops. Furthermore, they 40–43). Climate models are less certain drought will affect those predators as found that 26 to 67 percent of anglers about predicted trends in precipitation, well as populations of Chiricahua released tiger salamanders bought as but the southwestern United States is leopard frogs. The interaction between bait into the waters where they fish, and expected to become warmer and drier. predators and drought resistance of frog 4 percent of bait shops released tiger Since the recovery plan was prepared, habitats is often a delicate balance. salamanders into the wild after they the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Stock tanks are likely an important were housed in shops with infected Change (IPCC) (2007, pp. 1–8) published habitat for Chiricahua leopard frogs in animals, despite the fact that release of a report stating that global warming is part because these sites dry out live salamanders is prohibited by occurring and that precipitation patterns periodically, which rids them of most Arizona Revised Statute 17–371. This are being affected. aquatic predators. Because of their study shows how current wildlife laws According to the IPCC report, global evolutionary history, southwestern and regulations fail to prevent the mean precipitation is anticipated to leopard frogs may be able to withstand spread of amphibian diseases via the increase, but not uniformly (IPCC 2007, drying of stock tanks for a longer period tiger salamander bait trade. Even though p. 8). In the American Southwest and of time than nonnative species that the Chiricahua leopard frog is currently elsewhere in the middle latitudes, evolved in wetter climates in the eastern listed under the Act as a threatened precipitation is expected to decrease. United States, which could provide species, additional regulation or There is also high confidence that many southwestern leopard frogs a selective increased enforcement of existing semi-arid areas like the western United advantage. However, if stock tanks regulations or both are needed to stem States will suffer a decrease in water remain dry for extended periods of time, the spread of amphibian diseases via resources due to climate change, as a neither leopard frogs nor introduced use of live salamanders as bait. result of less annual mean precipitation predators may be capable of persisting. Therefore, we consider the inadequacy and reduced length of snow season and Drought will reduce habitats of both of current regulatory mechanisms to snow depth (IPCC 2007, p. 8). Although leopard frogs and introduced predators, prevent the spread of amphibian most climate models predict a drying but exactly how that will affect the diseases via the bait trade to be a threat trend in the 21st century in the Chiricahua leopard frog will probably be to the Chiricahua leopard frog now and southwestern United States, these site-specific. Chiricahua leopard frogs in the future. predictions are less certain than can often withstand drying of stock E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors predicted warming trends. The models tanks for short to moderate periods of Affecting Its Continued Existence do not predict summer precipitation time, whereas fish and bullfrogs may well, and typically at least half of not (Service 2011; p. 29). At this time, Small Populations precipitation within the range of the it is difficult to predict how drought Among the potential threats in this Chiricahua leopard frog occurs in the will impact the overall species’ status, category discussed in the Chiricahua summer months (Brown 1982, pp. 58– but Chiricahua leopard frog sites could leopard frog recovery plan (Service 62; Guido 2008, p. 5). Furthermore, be buffered from the effects of drought 2007, pp. i–M–17) and the final listing there have been no trends either in by occupying sites that have alternative rule (67 FR 40790; June 13, 2002), are summer rainfall over the last 100 years supplies of water, such as wells. Even genetic and stochastic effects that in Arizona (Guido 2008, pp. 3–5), or though drought may contribute to loss manifest in small populations. since 1955 in annual precipitation in of site-specific populations, we do not Specifically, small populations are the western United States (van Mantgem consider short to moderate periods of vulnerable to extirpation due to random et al. 2009, p. 523). On the other hand, drought that causes stock tanks to dry variations in age structure and sex all severe, multi-year droughts in the out to be a threat to the species or its

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:36 Mar 19, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20MRR2.SGM 20MRR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 16338 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

habitat. However, we consider otherwise considered adverse to rule as defined under section 4(d) of the prolonged drought that appreciably maintaining natural habitat Act to ease the general take prohibitions affects habitat on a regional scale to be characteristics), altered fire regimes due for livestock use at or maintenance a threat to the species. to fire suppression, mining, activities of livestock tanks located on Additionally, the effects of contaminants, agricultural development, private, State, or Tribal lands (see 50 chytridiomycosis on frogs are related to and other human activities; and CFR 17.43(b)). Under section 4(d) of the water temperature. Sites where inadequate regulatory mechanisms Act, the Secretary may publish a special Chiricahua leopard frogs coexist with regarding introduction of nonnative bait rule that modifies the standard the disease are typically at lower species (Factors A and D) (67 FR 40790, protections for threatened species in the elevations and are warmer sites (Service June 13, 2002; Sredl and Jennings 2005, Service’s regulations at 50 CFR 17.31, 2007, p. 26). As a result, if temperatures pp. 546–549; Service 2007, pp. B1–B88). which implement section 9 of the Act, increase as predicted, it is possible that Since the time of listing, the species with special measures that are more populations will be able to persist has made modest population gains in determined to be necessary and with the disease. Thus climate change, Arizona as a result of cooperative head- advisable to provide for the particularly in the form of increased starting (rearing frogs in captivity from conservation of the species. Based on water temperatures, may not pose an eggs through metamorphosis) campaigns changes made to the listed entity, we impact to the Chiricahua leopard frog and active partnerships and cooperation reevaluated the existing 4(d) rule to see into the future. in management of occupied habitat. if its measures are still necessary and However the Chiricahua leopard frog Summary of Factor E advisable to the conservation of the continues to decline in New Mexico. species and appropriate to apply in the The Chiricahua leopard frog recovery Overall in the United States, the status expanded range of the species. We plan (Service 2007) describes genetic of the Chiricahua leopard frog is determined that the measures of the 4(d) and stochastic effects that manifest in improving. The status and trends for the rule are appropriate and should be small populations and the anticipated species are unknown in Mexico. A applied to the whole range. Therefore, effects of climate change on the recovery program is underway in the we are not changing any conditions of Chiricahua leopard frog as potential United States, and reestablishment of the June 13, 2002, special rule, and it threats to the species. Herrmann et al.’s populations, creation of refugial shall remain in effect as identified in recent genetic study (2009, pp. 12–17), populations, and habitat enhancement our regulations at 50 CFR 17.43(b). We however, revealed no systemic lack of and creation have helped stabilize or are, however, making an editorial genetic diversity within Chiricahua improve the status of the species in change to 50 CFR 17.43(b) to revise the leopard frog populations. Moreover, the some areas (Service 2011, pp. 6–9). paragraph’s heading to reflect to effects of climate change are Although progress has been made to inextricably related to effects from other currently described species Lithobates secure some existing populations and chiricahuensis. threats and are difficult to predict or establish new populations (Service interpret without more definitive data of 2011, pp. 6–9), the status of the species The special rule replaces the Act’s higher resolution. Therefore, we are continues to be affected by threats such general prohibitions against take of the unable to conclusively state that climate that the species is likely to become Chiricahua leopard frog with special change, in and of itself, will adversely endangered within the foreseeable measures tailored to the conservation of affect the Chiricahua leopard frog in the future throughout all or a significant the species on all non-Federal lands. foreseeable future. However, long-term portion of its range. Due primarily to Through the maintenance and operation periods of drought can be a factor ongoing conservation measures and the of the stock tanks for cattle, habitat is affecting the species’ continued existence of relatively robust provided for the leopard frogs; hence existence that poses significant impacts populations and metapopulations, we there is a conservation benefit to the to the Chiricahua leopard frog’s habitat have determined that the species is not species. Under the special rule, take of now and in the future. in immediate danger of extinction (i.e., Chiricahua leopard frog caused by livestock use of or maintenance Listing Determination on the brink of extinction) (Service 2011, p. 30). However, because we activities at livestock tanks located on We have carefully assessed the best believe that the present threats are likely private, State, or Tribal lands would be scientific and commercial information to continue in the future (such as exempt from section 9 of the Act. A available regarding the past, present, chytrid fungus and nonnative predators livestock tank is defined as an existing and future threats to the Chiricahua spreading and increasing in prevalence or future impoundment in an ephemeral leopard frog. In summary, the most and range, and affecting more drainage or upland site constructed significant threats to the Chiricahua populations of the leopard frog, thus primarily as a watering site for leopard frog include the effects of the increasing the threats in the foreseeable livestock. The rule targets tanks on disease chytridiomycosis, which has future), we have determined that the private, State, and Tribal lands to been associated with major die-offs in Chiricahua leopard frog is likely to encourage landowners and ranchers to some populations of Chiricahua leopard become endangered within the continue to maintain these tanks as they frogs (Service 2007, pp. B8–B88), foreseeable future throughout all or a provide habitat for the frogs. Livestock predation by nonnative species (Factor significant portion of its range. use and maintenance of tanks on C), and drought (Factor E). According to Therefore, we determine that the Federal lands will be addressed through the June 13, 2002, final listing rule (67 Chiricahua leopard frog meets the the section 7 process. When a Federal FR 40790) and 2007 recovery plan, definition of a threatened species under action, such as permitting livestock additional factors affecting the species the Act. grazing on Federal lands, may affect a include degradation and loss of habitat listed species, consultation between us as a result of water diversions and large- Special Rule Under Section 4(d) of the and the action agency is required under scale groundwater pumping, livestock Act section 7 of the Act. The conclusion of management practices (such that grazing The June 13, 2002, final rule (67 FR consultation may include mandatory is not in accordance with approved 40790) listing the Chiricahua leopard changes in livestock programs in the allotment management plans or frog as threatened included a special form of measures to minimize take of a

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:12 Mar 19, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20MRR2.SGM 20MRR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 16339

listed animal or to avoid jeopardizing prohibitions and exceptions that apply (5) Unauthorized activities that result the continued existence of a listed to all endangered wildlife. The in the introduction or spread of the species. prohibitions, codified at 50 CFR 17.21 chytrid fungus. for endangered wildlife and 50 CFR (6) Unauthorized recreational Available Conservation Measures 17.31 for threatened wildlife, in part, activities. Conservation measures provided to make it illegal for any person subject to (7) Unauthorized livestock grazing. species listed as endangered or the jurisdiction of the United States to (8) Unauthorized construction and threatened under the Act include take (includes harass, harm, pursue, maintenance of roads and utility recognition, recovery actions, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, corridors or various types of requirements for Federal protection, and or collect; or to attempt any of these), development. prohibitions against certain practices. import, export, ship in interstate (9) Unauthorized fire suppression, Recognition through listing results in commerce in the course of commercial fuels management, or use of prescribed public awareness and conservation by activity, or sell or offer for sale in fire. Questions regarding whether specific Federal, State, and local agencies; interstate or foreign commerce any activities would constitute a violation of private organizations; and individuals. listed species. It is also illegal to section 9 of the Act should be directed The Act provides for possible possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or to the Arizona Ecological Services Field cooperation with the States and requires ship any such wildlife that has been Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION that recovery actions be carried out for taken illegally. Certain exceptions apply CONTACT). Requests for copies of the all listed species. The protection to agents of the Service and State regulations concerning listed animals required of Federal agencies and the conservation agencies. prohibitions against certain activities and general inquiries regarding involving listed wildlife are discussed We may issue permits to carry out prohibitions and permits may be in Effects of Critical Habitat Designation otherwise prohibited activities addressed to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife and are further discussed, in part, involving endangered or threatened Service, Endangered Species Permits, below. wildlife species under certain P.O. Box 1306, Albuquerque, NM 87103; Section 7(a) of the Act requires circumstances. Regulations governing telephone: 505–248–6633; facsimile: Federal agencies to evaluate their permits are codified at 50 CFR 17.22 for 505–248–6788. endangered species and 50 CFR 17.32 actions with respect to any species that Critical Habitat is proposed or listed as endangered or for threatened wildlife. You may obtain threatened and with respect to its permits for scientific purposes, to Background enhance the propagation or survival of critical habitat, if any is being Critical habitat is defined in section 3 the species, and for incidental take in designated. Regulations implementing of the Act as: this interagency cooperation provision connection with otherwise lawful (1) The specific areas within the of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part activities. geographical area occupied by the 402. Section 7(a)(4) requires Federal It is our policy, as published in the species, at the time it is listed in agencies to confer with the Service on Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR accordance with the Act, on which are any action that is likely to jeopardize 34272), to identify to the maximum found those physical or biological the continued existence of a species extent practicable at the time a species features; proposed for listing or result in is listed, those activities that will or will (a) Essential to the conservation of the destruction or adverse modification of not constitute a violation of section 9 of species; and proposed critical habitat. If a species is the Act. The intent of this policy is to (b) Which may require special listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) increase public awareness of the effect management considerations or requires Federal agencies to ensure that of a listing on proposed and ongoing protection; and activities they authorize, fund, or carry activities within the range of the listed (2) Specific areas outside the out are not likely to jeopardize the species. The following activities could geographical area occupied by the continued existence of the species or potentially result in a violation of species at the time it is listed, upon a destroy or adversely modify its critical section 9 of the Act; this list is not determination that such areas are habitat. If a Federal action may affect a comprehensive: essential for the conservation of the listed species or its critical habitat, the (1) Unauthorized collecting, handling, species. responsible Federal agency must enter possessing, selling, delivering, carrying, Conservation, as defined under into formal consultation with the or transporting of the species, including section 3 of the Act, means to use and Service. import or export across State lines and the use of all methods and procedures Federal agency actions within the international boundaries, except for that are necessary to bring an species’ habitat that may require properly documented antique endangered or threatened species to the conference or consultation or both as specimens of these taxa at least 100 point at which the measures provided described in the preceding paragraph years old, as defined by section 10(h)(1) under the Act are no longer necessary. include management and any other of the Act. Such methods and procedures include, landscape-altering activities on Federal but are not limited to, all activities (2) Unauthorized release of nonnative lands administered by the Department associated with scientific resources species that compete with or prey upon of Defense, U.S. Fish and Wildlife management such as research, census, the Chiricahua leopard frog within the Service, U.S. Forest Service, and Bureau law enforcement, habitat acquisition States of Arizona or New Mexico. of Land Management; issuance of and maintenance, propagation, live section 404 Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. (3) The unauthorized release of trapping, and transplantation, and, in 1251 et seq.) permits by the U.S. Army biological control agents that attack any the extraordinary case where population Corps of Engineers; and construction life stage of this species. pressures within a given ecosystem and maintenance of roads or highways (4) Unauthorized modification of the cannot be otherwise relieved, may by the Federal Highway Administration. channel or water flow of any stream or include regulated taking. The Act and its implementing water body in which the Chiricahua Critical habitat receives protection regulations set forth a series of general leopard frog is known to occur. under section 7 of the Act through the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:12 Mar 19, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20MRR2.SGM 20MRR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 16340 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

requirement that Federal agencies occupied at the time of listing may be continued existence of any endangered ensure, in consultation with the Service, essential to the conservation of the or threatened species, and (3) the that any action they authorize, fund, or species and may be included in the prohibitions of section 9 of the Act if carry out is not likely to result in the critical habitat designation. We actions occurring in these areas may destruction or adverse modification of designate critical habitat in areas affect the species. Federally funded or critical habitat. The designation of outside the geographical area occupied permitted projects affecting listed critical habitat does not affect land by a species only when a designation species outside their designated critical ownership or establish a refuge, limited to its range would be inadequate habitat areas may still result in jeopardy wilderness, reserve, preserve, or other to ensure the conservation of the findings in some cases. These conservation area. Such designation species. protections and conservation tools will does not allow the government or public Section 4 of the Act requires that we continue to contribute to recovery of to access private lands. Such designate critical habitat on the basis of this species. Similarly, critical habitat designation does not require the best scientific and commercial data designations made on the basis of the implementation of restoration, recovery, available. Further, our Policy on best available information at the time of or enhancement measures by non- Information Standards Under the designation will not control the Federal landowners. Where a landowner Endangered Species Act (published in direction and substance of future requests Federal agency funding or the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 recovery plans, habitat conservation authorization for an action that may FR 34271)), the Information Quality Act plans (HCPs), or other species affect a listed species or critical habitat, (section 515 of the Treasury and General conservation planning efforts if new the consultation requirements of section Government Appropriations Act for information available at the time of 7(a)(2) of the Act would apply, but even Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106–554; H.R. these planning efforts calls for a in the event of a destruction or adverse 5658)), and our associated Information different outcome. modification finding, the obligation of Quality Guidelines, provide criteria, the Federal action agency and the establish procedures, and provide Physical or Biological Features landowner is not to restore or recover guidance to ensure that our decisions In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) the species, but to implement are based on the best scientific data and 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act and regulations reasonable and prudent alternatives to available. They require our biologists, to at 50 CFR 424.12, in determining which avoid destruction or adverse the extent consistent with the Act and areas within the geographical area modification of critical habitat. with the use of the best scientific data occupied by the species at the time of Under the first prong of the Act’s available, to use primary and original listing to designate as critical habitat, definition of critical habitat, areas sources of information as the basis for we consider the physical or biological within the geographical area occupied recommendations to designate critical features essential to the conservation of by the species at the time it was listed habitat. the species and which may require are included in a critical habitat When we are determining which areas special management considerations or designation if they contain physical or should be designated as critical habitat, protection. These include, but are not biological features (1) which are our primary source of information is limited to: essential to the conservation of the generally the information developed (1) Space for individual and species and (2) which may require during the listing process for the population growth and for normal special management considerations or species. Additional information sources behavior; protection. For these areas, critical may include the recovery plan for the (2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or habitat designations identify, to the species, articles in peer-reviewed other nutritional or physiological extent known using the best scientific journals, conservation plans developed requirements; and commercial data available, those by States and counties, scientific status (3) Cover or shelter; physical or biological features that are surveys and studies, biological (4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, or essential to the conservation of the assessments, other unpublished rearing (or development) of offspring; species (such as space, food, cover, and materials, or experts’ opinions or and protected habitat). In identifying those personal knowledge. (5) Habitats that are protected from physical or biological features within an Habitat is dynamic, and species may disturbance or are representative of the area, we focus on the principal move from one area to another over historical, geographical, and ecological biological or physical constituent time. We recognize that critical habitat distributions of a species. elements (primary constituent elements designated at a particular point in time We derived the specific physical or such as roost sites, nesting grounds, may not include all of the habitat areas biological features (PBFs) required for seasonal wetlands, water quality, tide, that we may later determine are the Chiricahua leopard frog from the soil type) that are essential to the necessary for the recovery of the studies of this species’ habitat, ecology, conservation of the species. Primary species. For these reasons, a critical and life history as described below. constituent elements are the elements of habitat designation does not signal that These needs are identified in the physical or biological features that habitat outside the designated area is species’ recovery plan (Service 2007), together provide for a species’ life- unimportant or may not be needed for particularly in the Habitat history processes and are essential to recovery of the species. Areas that are Characteristics and Ecosystems section the conservation of the species. important to the conservation of the of Part 1: Background (pp. 15–18); in the Under the second prong of the Act’s species, both inside and outside the Recovery Strategy in Part 11: Recovery definition of critical habitat, we can critical habitat designation, will (pp. 49–51); in Appendix C—Population designate critical habitat in areas continue to be subject to: (1) and Habitat Viability Analysis (pp. C8– outside the geographical area occupied Conservation actions implemented C35); and in Appendix D—Guidelines by the species at the time it is listed, under section 7(a)(1) of the Act, (2) for Establishing and Augmenting upon a determination that such areas regulatory protections afforded by the Chiricahua Leopard Frog Populations, are essential for the conservation of the requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act and for Refugia and Holding Facilities species. For example, an area currently for Federal agencies to insure their (pp. D2–D5). Additional insight is occupied by the species but that was not actions are not likely to jeopardize the provided by Degenhardt et al. (1996, pp.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:12 Mar 19, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20MRR2.SGM 20MRR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 16341

85–87), Sredl and Jennings (2005, pp. robust population are needed in each at such low densities and in complex 546–549), and Witte et al. (2008, pp. 5– Recovery Unit to meet the recovery habitats to allow persistence of 8). We have determined that Chiricahua criteria in the recovery plan (Service Chiricahua leopard frogs (Service 2007, leopard frogs require the physical or 2007, p. 53). pp. 15–18, D–3). Included are cienegas biological features described below. or springs, pools, livestock tanks, lakes, Food, Water, Air, Light, Minerals, or Space for Individual and Population Other Nutritional or Physiological reservoirs, streams, and rivers. Sites as Growth and for Normal Behavior Requirements small as 6.0-ft (1.8-m) diameter steel troughs can serve as important breeding Generally, Chiricahua leopard frogs Chiricahua leopard frogs are fairly sites, particularly if that population is need aquatic breeding and tolerant of variations in water quality, part of a metapopulation that can be overwintering sites, both in the context but likely do not persist in waters recolonized from adjacent sites if of metapopulations and as isolated severely polluted with cattle feces extirpation occurs. Some of the most populations. Based upon our (Service 2007, p. 34) or runoff from robust extant breeding populations are understanding of the best available mine tailings or leach ponds (Rathbun in earthen livestock watering tanks. science, a metapopulation should 1969, pp. 1–3; U.S. Bureau of Land Absence of the disease chytridiomycosis consist of at least four local populations Management 1998, p. 26; Service 2007, is crucial for population persistence in that exhibit regular recruitment, three of p. 36). Furthermore, variation in pH, some regions, particularly in west- which are continually in existence. ultraviolet radiation, and temperature, central New Mexico and at some other Local populations should be arranged in as well as predation stress, can alter the locales, as well. However, some geographical space in such a way that potency of chemical effects (Akins and populations persist with the disease no local population will be greater than Wofford 1999, p. 107; Monson et al. (e.g., sites between Interstate 19 and the 5.0 mi (8.0 km) from at least one other 1999, pp. 309–311; Reylea 2004a, pp. Baboquivari Mountains, Arizona) with local population during some part of the 1081–1084). Chemicals may also serve few noticeable effects on demographics year unless facilitated dispersal is as a stressor that makes frogs more or survivorship. Persistence with planned (Service 2007, p. K–3). susceptible to disease, such as disease is enhanced in warm springs Movement of frogs among local chytridiomycosis (Parris and Baud 2004, and at lower elevations with warmer populations is reasonably certain to p. 344). The effects of pesticides and water (Service 2007, pp. 22–27, B67). occur if those populations are separated other chemicals on amphibians can be by no more than 1.0 mi (1.6 km) complex because of indirect effects on To be considered essential breeding overland, 3.0 mi (4.8 km) along the amphibian environment, direct habitat, water must be persistent enough ephemeral or intermittent drainages, 5.0 lethal and sublethal effects on to support breeding, tadpole mi (8.0 km) along perennial water individuals, and interactions between development to metamorphosis (change courses, or some combination thereof contaminants and other factors into a frog), and survival of frogs. not to exceed 5.0 mi (8.0 km) (the ‘‘1– associated with amphibian decline Tadpole development lasts 3 to 9 3–5 rule’’ of dispersal, see ‘‘Dispersal’’ (Sparling 2003, pp. 1101–1120; Reylea months, and some tadpoles overwinter in the Threatened Status for the 2008, pp. 367–374). (Sredl and Jennings 2005, p. 547). Chiricahua Leopard Frog section above). Juvenile and adult frogs need moisture Metapopulations should include at least Cover or Shelter for survival, including sites for one large, healthy subpopulation (e.g., at Chiricahua leopard frogs are most hibernation. Overwintering sites of least 100 adults) in order to achieve an often encountered in or very near water, Chiricahua leopard frogs have not been acceptable level of viability as a larger generally at breeding locations. Only investigated; however, hibernacula unit. If aquatic habitats can be managed rarely are they found very far from (shelter occupied during winter by for persistence through drought periods water. They can be found basking or inactive animals) of related species (e.g., supplying water via a pipeline or foraging in riparian vegetation and on include sites at the bottom of well- a well, lining a pond), overall open banklines out to the edge of oxygenated ponds, burial in mud, or metapopulation viability may be riparian vegetation. These upland areas moist caves (Service 2007, p. 17). Given achievable with a smaller number of provide essential foraging and basking these requirements, sites that dry out for individuals per subpopulation (e.g., 40 sites. A combination of open ground 1 month or more will not provide to 50 adults) (Service 2007, p. K–3). and vegetation cover is desirable for essential breeding or overwintering Isolated breeding populations are also basking and foraging, respectively. habitat. However, occasional drying for necessary for the conservation of the Vegetation in these areas provide habitat short periods (less than 1 month) may frog because they buffer against disease for prey species and protection from be beneficial in that the Chiricahua and disease organisms that can spread terrestrial predators (those living on dry leopard frogs can survive, but nonnative rapidly through a metapopulation as land). In particular, Chiricahua leopard predators, particularly fish, and in some infected individuals move among frogs use these upland areas during the cases, bullfrogs and barred tiger aquatic sites. An isolated, but robust, summer rainy season. salamanders, may be eliminated during breeding population should be beyond the dry period (Service 2007, p. D3). the reasonable dispersal distance (see Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, or Water quality requirements at breeding ‘‘Dispersal’’ in the Threatened Status for Rearing (or Development) of Offspring sites include having a pH equal to or the Chiricahua Leopard Frog section) Aquatic breeding habitat is essential greater than 5.6 (Watkins-Colwell and from other Chiricahua leopard frog for providing space, food, and cover Watkins-Colwell 1998, p. 64), salinities populations, contain at least 60 adults, necessary to sustain all life stages of less than 5 parts per thousand (Ruibal and exhibit a diverse age class Chiricahua leopard frogs. Suitable 1959, pp. 318–319), and very little distribution that is relatively stable over breeding habitat consists of permanent chemical pollutants, including but not time. A population of 40 to 50 adults or nearly permanent aquatic habitats limited to heavy metals, pesticides, can also be robust or strong if it resides from about 3,200 to 8,900 ft (975 to mine runoff, and fire retardants, where in a drought-resistant habitat (Service 2,715 m) elevation with deep (greater the pollutants do not exceed the 2007, p. K–5). At least two than 20 in (0.5 m)) pools in which tolerance of Chiricahua leopard frogs metapopulations and one isolated nonnative predators are absent or occur (Rathbun 1969, pp. 1–3; U.S. Bureau of

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:12 Mar 19, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20MRR2.SGM 20MRR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 16342 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

Land Management 1998, p. 26; Boone pathogen (Service 2007, pp. 26–27). approximately 4.4 mi (7.0 km) along and Bridges 2003, pp. 152–167; Calfee Furthermore, based on experience in intermittent drainages (Service 2010b, and Little 2003, pp. 1527–1531; Arizona, particularly the Huachuca pp. 7–8). Sparling 2003, pp. 1109–1111; Relyea Mountains, if Chiricahua leopard frogs Movements away from water do not 2004b, pp. 1741–1746; Service 2007, p. are absent for a period of months or appear to be random. Streams are 36; Little and Calfee 2008, pp. 6–10). years, the disease may drop out of the important dispersal corridors for young White (2004, pp. 53–54, 73–79, 136– system or become scarce enough that northern leopard frogs (Seburn et al. 140) provides specific pesticide use frogs can persist again if reestablished. guidelines for minimizing impacts to Essential breeding habitats either lack 1997, pp. 68–70). Displaced northern the Chiricahua leopard frog. chytridiomycosis or include conditions leopard frogs will return to their place Essential aquatic breeding sites such as warmer waters or lower of origin, and may use olfactory, visual, require some open water. Chiricahua elevations that allow for persistence of or auditory cues, and possibly celestial leopard frogs can be eliminated from Chiricahua leopard frogs with the orientation, as guides (Dole 1968, pp. sites that become entirely overgrown disease. 395–398; 1972, pp. 275–276; Sinsch with cattails (Typha sp.) or other 1991, pp. 542–544). Based on this and emergent plants. At the same time, Dispersal Habitat other information (Service 2007, pp. 12– Chiricahua leopard frogs need some Dispersal habitat provides routes for 14) and as noted in the Dispersal section emergent or submerged vegetation, root connectivity and gene flow among local above, Chiricahua leopard frogs are masses, undercut banks, fractured rock populations within a metapopulation, reasonably likely to disperse 1.0 mi (1.6 substrates, or some combination thereof which enhances the likelihood of km) overland, 3.0 mi (4.8 km) along as refugia from predators and extreme persistence and allows for ephemeral or intermittent drainages, 5.0 climatic conditions (Sredl and Jennings recolonization of sites that are lost due mi (8.0 km) along perennial 2005, p. 547). In essential breeding to drought, disease, or other factors (continuous) water courses, or some habitat, if nonnative crayfish, predatory (Hanski and Gilpin 1991, pp. 4–6; combination thereof not to exceed 5.0 fish, bullfrogs, or barred tiger Service 2007, p. 50). Detailed studies of mi (8.0 km). Dispersal habitat must salamanders are present, they occur dispersal and metapopulation dynamics provide corridors through which of Chiricahua leopard frogs have not only as rare dispersing individuals that Chiricahua leopard frogs can move been conducted; however, Jennings and do not breed, or are at low enough among aquatic breeding sites in Scott (1991, pp. 1–43) noted that densities in habitats that are complex metapopulations. These dispersal and with abundant escape cover (e.g., maintenance of corridors used by habitats will often be drainages aquatic and emergent vegetation cover, dispersing juveniles and adults that connecting aquatic breeding sites, and diversity of moving and stationary connect separate populations may be water) that persistence of both critical to conserving populations of may include ephemeral, intermittent, Chiricahua leopard frogs and nonnative frogs. As a group, leopard frogs are and perennial waters that are not species can occur (Sredl and Howland surprisingly good at dispersal. In suitable for breeding. The most likely 1995, pp. 383–384; Service 2007, pp. Michigan, young northern leopard frogs dispersal routes may include 20–22, D3; Witte et al. 2008, pp. 7–8). (Lithobates pipiens) commonly move up combinations of ephemeral, to 0.5 mi (0.8 km) from their birthplace, intermittent, and perennial drainages, as Habitats That Are Protected From and three young males established well as uplands. Some vegetation cover Disturbance or Are Representative of the residency up to 3.2 mi (5.2 km) away for protection from predators, and Historical, Geographical, and Ecological from where they were born (Dole 1971, aquatic sites that can serve as buffers Distribution of the Chiricahua Leopard p. 221). Movement may occur via against desiccation (drying) and stop- Frog dispersal of frogs or passive transport of overs for foraging (feeding), are In some areas, Chiricahua leopard frog tadpoles along stream courses. The desirable along dispersal routes. A lack populations are known to be seriously maximum distance moved by a radio- of barriers that would block dispersal is affected by the fungal skin disease telemetered Chiricahua leopard frog in critical. Features on the landscape likely chytridiomycosis. This disease has been New Mexico was 2.2 mi (3.5 km) in one to serve as partial or complete barriers associated with numerous population direction along a drainage (Service to dispersal include cliff faces and extirpations, particularly in Recovery 2007, p. 18). In 1974, Frost and Bagnara urban areas (Service 2007, p. D–3), Unit 6 in New Mexico (Service 2007, (1977, p. 449) noted passive or active reservoirs 50 acres (ac) (20 hectares (ha)) pp. 5–6, 24–27). The Chiricahua leopard movement of Chiricahua and plains or more in size that are stocked with frog appears to be less susceptible to leopard frogs for 5 mi (8 km) or more nonnative fish or other nonnative mortality from the disease in warmer along East Turkey Creek in the predators, highways, major dams, walls, waters, which may occur at lower Chiricahua Mountains, Arizona. In or other structures that physically block elevations. The precise temperature that August 1996, Rosen and Schwalbe movement (Andrews et al. 2008, pp. affects survivorship in the presence of (1998, p. 188) found up to 25 young the fungus is unknown. Survivorship in adult and subadult (fully 124–132; Eigenbrod et al. 2009, pp. 32– the presence of Bd may depend on a metamorphosed but not sexually 40; 75 FR 12818, March 17, 2010). The variety of factors; however, at Cuchillo mature) Chiricahua leopard frogs at a effects of highways on frog dispersal can Negro Warm Springs, Sierra County, roadside puddle in the San Bernardino be mitigated with frog fencing (barriers New Mexico, Chiricahua and plains Valley, Arizona. They believed that the to movement that may redirect leopard frogs (Lithobates blairi) become only possible origin of these frogs was individuals to preferred passageways) uncommon to nonexistent where winter a stock tank located 3.5 mi (5.5 km) and culverts (Service 2007, pp. I7–I8). water temperatures drop below about 20 away. In September 2009, 15 to 20 Unlike some other species of leopard degrees Celsius ( °C) (68 degrees Chiricahua leopard frogs were found at frogs, Chiricahua leopard frogs have Fahrenheit (°F)) (Christman 2006a, p. 8). Pen˜ a Blanca Lake, west of Nogales. The only rarely been found in association A pH of greater than 8 during at least nearest likely source population was with agricultural fields; hence, part of the year may also limit the Summit Reservoir, a straight line agriculture may also serve as a barrier to ability of the disease to be an effective distance of 3.1 mi (4.9 km) overland or movement.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:12 Mar 19, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20MRR2.SGM 20MRR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 16343

Primary Constituent Elements for the movement or along wetted drainages) and contain one or both PCEs to support Chiricahua Leopard Frog for frogs among breeding sites in a life-history functions. In addition, all Under the Act and its implementing metapopulation with the following but one designated critical habitat unit, regulations, we are required to identify characteristics: Carr Barn Pond, are currently occupied (a) Are not more than 1.0 mile (1.6 the physical or biological features by Chiricahua leopard frogs. Carr Barn kilometers) overland, 3.0 miles (4.8 essential to the conservation of the Pond was occupied at the time of listing kilometers) along ephemeral or Chiricahua leopard frog in areas and currently contains PCE 1 to support intermittent drainages, 5.0 miles (8.0 occupied at the time of listing, focusing life-history functions essential for the kilometers) along perennial drainages, conservation of the species. This unit is on the features’ PCEs. We consider PCEs or some combination thereof not to needed as a future site for frog to be the elements of the physical or exceed 5.0 miles (8.0 kilometers). colonization or reestablishment, and biological features that provide for a (b) In overland and nonwetted Chiricahua leopard frogs can persist in species’ life-history processes, are corridors, provide some vegetation this unit with a reasonable level of effort essential to the conservation of the cover or structural features (e.g., to control nonnative predators. species. boulders, rocks, organic debris such as Based on our current knowledge of downed trees or logs, small mammal Special Management Considerations or the physical or biological features and burrows, or leaf litter) for shelter, forage, Protections habitat characteristics required to and protection from predators; in wetted When designating critical habitat, we sustain the species’ life-history corridors, provide some ephemeral, assess the physical or biological features processes, we determine that the intermittent, or perennial aquatic within the geographical area occupied primary constituent elements specific to habitat. by the species at the time of listing that the Chiricahua leopard frog are: (c) Are free of barriers that block contain features that are essential to the (1) Aquatic breeding habitat and movement by Chiricahua leopard frogs, conservation of the species and which immediately adjacent uplands including, but not limited to, urban, may require special management exhibiting the following characteristics: industrial, or agricultural development; considerations or protection. (a) Standing bodies of fresh water reservoirs that are 50 acres (20 hectares) All areas designated as critical habitat (with salinities less than 5 parts per or more in size and contain nonnative will require some level of management thousand, pH greater than or equal to predatory fish, bullfrogs, or crayfish; to address the current and future threats 5.6, and pollutants absent or minimally highways that do not include frog to the Chiricahua leopard frog and to present), including natural and fencing and culverts; and walls, major maintain or restore the PCEs. Special manmade (e.g., stock) ponds, slow- dams, or other structures that physically management in aquatic breeding sites moving streams or pools within streams, block movement. will be needed to ensure that these sites off-channel pools, and other ephemeral With the exception of impoundments, provide water quantity, quality, and or permanent water bodies that typically livestock tanks, and other constructed permanence or near permanence; cover; hold water or rarely dry for more than waters, critical habitat does not include and absence of extraordinary predation a month. During periods of drought, or manmade structures (such as buildings, and disease that can affect population less than average rainfall, these breeding aqueducts, runways, roads, and other persistence. In dispersal habitat, special sites may not hold water long enough paved areas) and the land on which they management will be needed to ensure for individuals to complete are located existing within the legal frogs can move through those sites with metamorphosis, but they would still be boundaries. reasonable success. The designation of considered essential breeding habitat in With this designation of critical critical habitat does not imply that lands non-drought years. habitat, we intend to identify the outside of critical habitat do not play an (b) Emergent and/or submerged physical or biological features essential important role in the conservation of the vegetation, root masses, undercut banks, to the conservation of the species, Chiricahua leopard frog. Federal fractured rock substrates, or some through the identification of the activities that may affect areas outside of combination thereof, but emergent elements of the features, the primary critical habitat are still subject to review vegetation does not completely cover constituent elements, that support the under section 7 of the Act if they may the surface of water bodies. life-history processes of the species. affect the Chiricahua leopard frog (c) Nonnative predators (e.g., crayfish, Because not all life-history functions because effects to the species and its bullfrogs, nonnative fish) absent or require both PCEs 1 and 2, not all areas critical habitat must be considered occurring at levels that do not preclude designated as critical habitat will independently. The prohibitions of presence of the Chiricahua leopard frog. contain both PCEs. Each of the areas section 9 of the Act also continue to (d) Absence of chytridiomycosis, or if designated in this rule has been apply both inside and outside of present, then environmental, determined to contain one or both of the designated critical habitat. physiological, and genetic conditions PCEs. A detailed discussion of activities are such that allow persistence of Under our regulations, we are influencing the Chiricahua leopard frog Chiricahua leopard frogs. required to identify the PCEs within the and its habitat can be found in the final (e) Upland habitats that provide geographical area occupied by the listing rule (67 FR 40790; June 13, 2002) opportunities for foraging and basking Chiricahua leopard frog at the time of and the recovery plan (Service 2007, pp. that are immediately adjacent to or listing that are essential to the 18–45). The recovery plan also contains surrounding breeding aquatic and conservation of the species and which recovery-unit-specific threat riparian habitat. may require special management assessments (Service 2007, pp. B1–B88). (2) Dispersal and nonbreeding habitat, considerations or protections. The PCEs Activities that may warrant special consisting of areas with ephemeral are laid out in a specific spatial management of the physical or (present for only a short time), arrangement and quantity determined to biological features that define essential intermittent, or perennial water that are be essential to the conservation of the habitat (appropriate quantity and generally not suitable for breeding, and species. All designated critical habitat distribution of PCEs) for the Chiricahua associated upland or riparian habitat units are within the species’ historical leopard frog include, but are not limited that provides corridors (overland geographical range in the United States to, introduction of nonnative predators;

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:12 Mar 19, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20MRR2.SGM 20MRR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 16344 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

introduction or spread of drainages (defined here as USGS 10- metapopulation or to establish an chytridiomycosis; inappropriate digit Hydrologic Units) plus at least one isolated, robust population (Rorabaugh livestock grazing; water diversions and isolated and robust population 2010, pp. 17–30; Service 2010a, pp. 2– development; construction and occurring in each Recovery Unit and 7; 2010b, pp. 2–9). As previously noted, maintenance of roads and utility exhibiting long-term persistence and the Carr Barn Pond unit is the only corridors; fire suppression, fuels stability (even though local populations unoccupied site being designated as management, and prescribed fire. These may go extinct in metapopulations; critical habitat. activities have the potential to affect the Service 2007, p. 53). If sites are needed Identification of such recovery sites in PCEs if they are conducted within or to meet that criterion, they are Recovery Units 6 (White Mountains- adjacent to designated units. designated as critical habitat in this Upper Gila, Arizona and New Mexico) rule. At the time of listing, one of the and 7 (Upper Gila-Blue River, Arizona Criteria Used To Identify Critical and New Mexico) is more difficult, Habitat units being designated as critical habitat was unoccupied, and for 10 additional because less progress in recovery has As required by section 4(b) of the Act, units, their occupancy status was been made in these areas. The recovery we used the best scientific and unknown (discussed below under Final plan identifies management areas, commercial data available in Critical Habitat Designation). For which are areas within Recovery Units determining areas within the purposes of this designation of critical with the greatest potential for successful geographical area occupied at the time habitat, the 10 units with unknown recovery actions and threat alleviation of listing that contain the features occupancy at the time of listing are (Service 2007, p. 49). Within Recovery essential to the conservation of the being considered unoccupied at the Units 6 and 7, critical habitat is being Chiricahua leopard frog and require time of listing. However, all 11 of these designated at specific sites within special management considerations or units are currently occupied and management areas with the greatest protection, and specific areas outside of contain one or both PCEs. The specific potential for building metapopulations the geographical area occupied at the areas defined by these units, which and isolated, robust populations. As in time of listing that are essential for the were unoccupied or not known to be other Recovery Units, existing breeding conservation of the species. We also occupied at the time of listing, are being populations were considered to be relied heavily on the recovery criteria designated as critical habitat because either subpopulations in outlined in the 2007 recovery plan for they are considered to be essential to the metapopulations or isolated, robust the Chiricahua leopard frog (Service conservation of the species, will help populations. Metapopulations were 2007, pp. 31–37). Areas occupied at the meet the population goals in the identified with these existing breeding time of listing are identified and recovery criterion discussed above, populations at sites occupied at the time described in Rorabaugh (2010, pp. 7–17) contain the PCEs, and currently contain of listing that contain PCEs sufficient to and information cited therein for known breeding populations of support life-history functions essential Arizona, and for New Mexico in Chiricahua leopard frogs, which are for the conservation of the species, and Jennings (1995, pp. 10–21), Painter relatively scarce (33 populations in at an unoccupied site with one or more (2000, pp. 10–21), and the final listing Arizona and 20 to 23 in New Mexico). PCEs or the potential to support PCEs rule at 67 FR 40793 (June 13, 2002). We with a reasonable level of restoration have also reviewed available Recovery planning is focused on these work or special management. In information that pertains to the habitat existing breeding populations and metapopulations, all of these sites are requirements of this species. The building on them with habitat within reasonable dispersal distance following were particularly useful: rehabilitation and population (the ‘‘1–3–5 rule’’ described above) of Degenhardt et al. (1996, pp. 85–87), reestablishments to construct each other. In Recovery Unit 7, enough Sredl and Jennings (2005, pp. 546–549), metapopulations and isolated robust sites could not be found that meet the Service (2007, pp. 15–18, 47–48), and populations needed to meet the definition of critical habitat to construct Witte et al. (2008, pp. 5–8). recovery criterion. Such work is two metapopulations and one isolated, Units occupied at the time of listing underway in all Recovery Units, but is robust population. Similarly, in include the specific areas occupied by further along in some than others. In Recovery Unit 6, one metapopulation Chiricahua leopard frogs in June 2002, particular, Recovery Units 1 exists, plus several isolated populations, that contain sufficient PCEs to support (Tumacacori-Atascosa-Pajarito but we have not been able to find life-history functions essential for the Mountains, Arizona and Sonora), 2 aquatic sites that meet the definition of conservation of the species. Included (Santa Rita-Huachuca-Ajos Bavispe, critical habitat to build a second are sites where the species was breeding Arizona and Sonora), 3 (Chiricahua metapopulation. In particular, other as well as areas where dispersing Mountains-Malpai Borderlands-Sierra aquatic sites, some of which were individuals were present, and other Madre), 4 (Pinalen˜ o-Galiuro-Dragoon occupied at the time of listing, lack the sites for which the breeding status was Mountains, Arizona), 5 (Mogollon PCEs sufficient to support life-history unknown. If metapopulation structure Rim—Verde River, Arizona), and 8 functions essential for the conservation was known or suspected, dispersal (Black-Mimbres-Rio Grande, New of the species, primarily due to presence habitats connecting breeding Mexico) are moving towards meeting of chytridiomycosis, which is a very populations within metapopulations are the above-cited recovery criterion, and serious threat in Recovery Unit 6. This also designated. metapopulations and isolated, robust Recovery Unit will require further Sites not known to be occupied at the populations have been or are being investigation, and habitat restoration or time of listing in June 2002 are also identified (Rorabaugh 2010, pp. 17–30; creation may be needed to provide designated as critical habitat if we have Service 2010a, pp. 2–7; 2010b, pp. 2–9). additional habitat for breeding determined them to be essential to the In these Recovery Units, unoccupied Chiricahua leopard frog populations conservation of the species. Specifically, sites have sometimes been identified by that can contribute to meeting the we assessed whether they are needed to the Service, in cooperation with the population goals in the recovery meet the following recovery criterion recovery team steering committees and criterion discussed above. from the recovery plan: at least two local recovery groups, where population Also, included in this critical habitat metapopulations located in different reestablishment is needed to complete a designation are dispersal corridors

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:12 Mar 19, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20MRR2.SGM 20MRR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 16345

between sites within a metapopulation. lands. Any such lands inadvertently left biological features and support multiple These corridors were selected as the inside critical habitat boundaries shown life processes. Some segments contain most likely routes for dispersal of frogs on the maps of this final rule have been only some elements of the physical or among sites, based on reasonable excluded by text in the rule and are not biological features necessary to support dispersal distances along perennial and designated as critical habitat. Therefore, the Chiricahua leopard frog’s particular ephemeral or intermittent drainages, or a Federal action involving these lands use of that habitat. via overland routes where PCE 2 is will not trigger section 7 consultation present. Our selection of routes assumes with respect to critical habitat and the Final Critical Habitat Designation perennial drainages are better dispersal requirement of no adverse modification corridors than ephemeral or intermittent unless the specific action would affect We are designating 39 units as critical drainages, and the ephemeral or the physical or biological features in the habitat for the Chiricahua leopard frog. intermittent drainages are better adjacent critical habitat. The critical habitat areas we describe dispersal corridors than overland routes. We are designating as critical habitat below constitute our current best We also assume that, if all else is equal, lands that we have determined were assessment of areas that meet the the shorter the route the more likely occupied at the time of listing that definition of critical habitat for the Chiricahua leopard frogs will require special management species. All 39 units we are designating successfully disperse. In addition, we considerations or protection, and as critical habitat are within the species’ considered the presence of waterfalls, contain sufficient physical or biological geographical range, including areas steep slopes, and other obstacles that features to support life-history processes occupied at the time of listing and areas may be difficult for a frog to negotiate. essential for the conservation of the not known to be occupied at the time of When determining critical habitat species. We are also designating lands listing but identified as essential for the boundaries within this final rule, we outside of the geographical area conservation of the species (Platz and made every effort to avoid including occupied at the time of listing that we Mecham 1984, p. 347.1). Table 1 below developed areas such as lands covered have determined are essential for the shows the specific occupancy status of by buildings, pavement, and other conservation of Chiricahua leopard each unit at the time of listing and structures because such lands lack frogs. currently, based on the most recent data physical or biological features for Units are designated based on available. The approximate area of each Chiricahua leopard frogs. The scale of sufficient elements of physical or the maps we prepared under the biological features being present to designated critical habitat unit is shown parameters for publication within the support Chiricahua leopard frog life in Table 2. The 39 areas designated as Code of Federal Regulations may not processes. Some units contain all of the critical habitat are grouped by Recovery reflect the exclusion of such developed identified elements of physical or Unit.

TABLE 1—OCCUPANCY OF CHIRICAHUA LEOPARD FROG BY CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS

Occupied at Currently Critical habitat unit time of listing? occupied?

Recovery Unit 1 (Tumacacori-Atascosa-Pajarito Mountains, Arizona and Mexico)

Twin Tanks and Ox Frame Tank Unit ...... No* ...... Yes. Garcia Tank Unit ...... Yes ...... Yes. Buenos Aires NWR Central Tanks Unit ...... Yes ...... Yes. Bonita, Upper Turner, and Mojonera Tanks Unit ...... Yes ...... Yes. Sycamore Canyon Unit ...... Yes ...... Yes. Pen˜a Blanca Lake and Spring and Associated Unit Tanks ...... Yes ...... Yes.

Recovery Unit 2 (Santa Rita-Huachuca-Ajos Bavispe, Arizona and Mexico)

Florida Canyon Unit ...... No* ...... Yes. Eastern Slope of the Santa Rita Mountains Unit ...... No* ...... Yes. Las Cienegas National Conservation Area Unit ...... Yes ...... Yes. Scotia Canyon Unit ...... No ...... Yes. Carr Barn Pond Unit ...... Yes ...... No. Ramsey and Brown Canyons Unit ...... Yes ...... Yes.

Recovery Unit 3 (Chiricahua Mountains-Malpai Borderlands-Sierra Madre, Arizona, New Mexico, and Mexico)

Peloncillo Mountains Unit ...... Yes ...... Yes. Cave Creek Unit ...... Yes ...... Yes. Leslie Creek Unit ...... Yes ...... Yes.

Recovery Unit 4 (Pin˜ aleno-Galiuro-Dragoon Mountains, Arizona)

Deer Creek Unit ...... Yes ...... Yes. Oak Spring and Oak Creek Unit ...... No* ...... Yes. Dragoon Mountains Unit ...... Yes ...... Yes.

Recovery Unit 5 (Mogollon Rim-Verde River, Arizona)

Buckskin Hills Unit ...... Yes ...... Yes. Crouch, Gentry, and Cherry Creeks, and Parallel Canyon Unit ...... Yes ...... Yes.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:12 Mar 19, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20MRR2.SGM 20MRR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 16346 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE 1—OCCUPANCY OF CHIRICAHUA LEOPARD FROG BY CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS—Continued

Occupied at Currently Critical habitat unit time of listing? occupied?

Ellison and Lewis Creeks Unit ...... No* ...... Yes.

Recovery Unit 6 (White Mountains-Upper Gila, Arizona and New Mexico)

Concho Bill and Deer Creek Unit ...... No* ...... Yes. Campbell Blue and Coleman Creeks Unit ...... Yes ...... Yes. Tularosa River Unit ...... Yes ...... Yes. Deep Creek Divide Area Unit ...... Yes ...... Yes. Main Diamond Creek Unit ...... Yes ...... Yes. Beaver Creek Unit ...... No* ...... Yes. Kerr Canyon Unit ...... Yes ...... Yes. West Fork Gila River Unit ...... Yes ...... Yes.

Recovery Unit 7 (Upper Gila-Blue River, Arizona and New Mexico)

Left Prong of Dix Creek Unit ...... No* ...... Yes. Rattlesnake Pasture Tank and Associated Tanks Unit ...... No* ...... Yes. Coal Creek Unit ...... No* ...... Yes. Blue Creek Unit ...... Yes ...... Yes.

Recovery Unit 8 (Black-Mimbres-Rio Grande, New Mexico)

Seco Creek Unit ...... Yes ...... Yes. Alamosa Warm Springs Unit ...... Yes ...... Yes. Cuchillo Negro Warm Springs and Creek Unit ...... Yes ...... Yes. Ash and Bolton Springs Unit ...... Yes ...... Yes. Mimbres River Unit ...... Yes ...... Yes. South Fork Palomas Creek Unit ...... Yes ...... Yes. *Occupancy unknown at time of listing. However, for purposes of this designation of critical habitat, these units are classified as unoccupied at the time of listing.

TABLE 2—CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS FOR THE CHIRICAHUA LEOPARD FROG [Area estimates reflect all land within critical habitat unit boundaries. Note that grazing allotments are not considered in private ownership.]

Land ownership by type acres (hectares) Size of unit in acres Critical habitat unit (hectares) Federal State Private

Recovery Unit 1 (Tumacacori-Atascosa-Pajarito Mountains, Arizona and Mexico)

Twin Tanks and Ox Frame Tank Unit ...... 0 1.3 (0.5 ) 0.4 (0.2) 1.7 (0.7 ) Garcia Tank Unit ...... 0.7 (0.3 ) 0 0 0.7 (0.3) Buenos Aires NWR Central Tanks Unit ...... 1,720 (696) 0 0 1,720 (696 ) Bonita, Upper Turner, and Mojonera Tanks Unit .... 201 (81 ) 0 0 201 (81) Sycamore Canyon Unit ...... 262 (106 ) 0 7 (3 ) 269 (109 ) Pen˜a Blanca Lake and Spring and Associated Tanks Unit ...... 202 (82 ) 0 0 202 (82 )

Recovery Unit 1 Total ...... 2,385.7 (965.3 ) 1.3 (0.5) 7.4 (3.2) 2,394.4 (969.0 )

Recovery Unit 2 (Santa Rita-Huachuca-Ajos Bavispe, Arizona and Mexico)

Florida Canyon Unit ...... 4 (2) 0 0 4 (2) Eastern Slope of the Santa Rita Mountains Unit .... 172 (70) 0 14 (6) 186 (76 ) Las Cienegas National Conservation Area Unit ...... 1,364 (552) 186 (75 ) 0 1,550 (627 ) Scotia Canyon Unit ...... 70 (29 ) 0 0 70 (29 ) Carr Barn Pond Unit ...... 0.6 (0.3) 0 0 0.6 (0.3 ) Ramsey and Brown Canyons Unit ...... 58 (24 ) 0 44 (18 ) 102 (42 )

Recovery Unit 2 Total ...... 1,668.6 (677.3 ) 186 (75) 58 (24 ) 1,912.6 (776.3)

Recovery Unit 3 (Chiricahua Mountains-Malpai Borderlands-Sierra Madre, Arizona, New Mexico, and Mexico)

Peloncillo Mountains Unit ...... 366 (148 ) 0 0 366 (148 ) Cave Creek Unit ...... 234 (95) 0 0 234 (95) Leslie Creek Unit ...... 26 (11 ) 0 0 26 (11 )

Recovery Unit 3 Total ...... 626 (253 ) 0 0 626 (253 )

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:12 Mar 19, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20MRR2.SGM 20MRR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 16347

TABLE 2—CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS FOR THE CHIRICAHUA LEOPARD FROG—Continued [Area estimates reflect all land within critical habitat unit boundaries. Note that grazing allotments are not considered in private ownership.]

Land ownership by type acres (hectares) Size of unit in acres Critical habitat unit (hectares) Federal State Private

Recovery Unit 4 (Pin˜ aleno-Galiuro-Dragoon Mountains, Arizona)

Deer Creek Unit ...... 17 (7) 69 (28 ) 34 (14 ) 120 (49) Oak Spring and Oak Creek Unit ...... 27 (11 ) 0 0 27 (11 ) Dragoon Mountains Unit ...... 74 (30 ) 0 0 74 (30 )

Recovery Unit 4 Total ...... 118 (48 ) 69 (28 ) 34 (14 ) 221 (89 )

Recovery Unit 5 (Mogollon Rim-Verde River, Arizona)

Buckskin Hills Unit ...... 232 (94) 0 0 232 (94 ) Crouch, Gentry, and Cherry Creeks, and Parallel Canyon Unit ...... 334 (135 ) 64 (26 ) 6 (3 ) 404 (164 ) Ellison and Lewis Creeks Unit ...... 83 (34 ) 0 15 (6) 98 (40 )

Recovery Unit 5 Total ...... 649 (263 ) 64 (26 ) 21 (8 ) 734 (297 )

Recovery Unit 6 (White Mountains-Upper Gila, Arizona and New Mexico)

Concho Bill and Deer Creek Unit ...... 17 (7 ) 0 0 17 (7) Campbell Blue and Coleman Creeks Unit ...... 174 (70) 0 0 174 (70 ) Tularosa River Unit ...... 335 (135 ) 0 1,575 (637) 1,910 (772 ) Deep Creek Divide Area Unit ...... 408 (165 ) 0 102 (41) 510 (206 ) Main Diamond Creek Unit ...... 53 (21 ) 0 0 (0) 53 (21 ) Beaver Creek Unit ...... 132 (54 ) 0 25 (10 ) 157 (64 ) Kerr Canyon Unit ...... 19 (8 ) 0 6 (2 ) 25 (10 ) West Fork Gila River Unit ...... 177 (72 ) 0 0 177 (72)

Recovery Unit 6 Total ...... 1,315 (532 ) 0 1,708 (690 ) 3,023 (1,222)

Recovery Unit 7 (Upper Gila-Blue River, Arizona and New Mexico)

Left Prong of Dix Creek Unit ...... 13 (5 ) 0 0 13 (5) Rattlesnake Pasture Tank and Associated Tanks Unit ...... 59 (24 ) 0 0 59 (24 ) Coal Creek Unit ...... 7 (3 ) 0 0 7 (3) Blue Creek Unit ...... 24 (10 ) 0 12 (5 ) 36 (15 )

Recovery Unit 7 Total ...... 103 (42 ) 0 12 (5 ) 115 (47)

Recovery Unit 8 (Black-Mimbres-Rio Grande, New Mexico)

Seco Creek Unit ...... 66 (27 ) 0 0 66 (27 ) Alamosa Warm Springs Unit ...... 0.2 (0.1) 25 (10 ) 54 (22 ) 79.2 (32.1 ) Cuchillo Negro Warm Springs and Creek Unit ...... 3 (1) 3 (1 ) 0 6 (2) Ash and Bolton Springs Unit ...... 0 0 49 (20 ) 49 (20 ) Mimbres River Unit ...... 0 0 1,097 (444 ) 1,097 (444) South Fork Palomas Creek Unit ...... 23 (9) 0 0 23 (9 )

Recovery Unit 8 Total ...... 92.2 (37.1) 28 (11 ) 1,200 (486) 1,320.2 (534.1 )

Total ...... 6,958 (2,816 ) 348 (141 ) 3,040 (1,230) 10,346 (4,187 ) Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding.

We present brief descriptions of all 328 lateral ft (100 lateral m) on either use of bankfull stage and 328 ft (100 m) units below, and reasons why they meet side of bankfull stage. Bankfull stage is on either side recognizes the naturally the definition of critical habitat for the generally considered to be that level of dynamic nature of riverine systems and Chiricahua leopard frog. Unless stream discharge reached just before recognizes that floodplains are an indicated otherwise below, the physical flows spill out onto the adjacent integral part of the stream ecosystem. or biological features of critical habitat floodplain. The discharges that occur at Ephemeral drainages (containing in stream and riverine lotic (actively bankfull stage, in combination with the water for only brief periods) designated moving water) systems are contained range of flows that occur over a length as critical habitat for dispersal corridors within the riverine and riparian of time, govern the shape and size of the among breeding sites in ecosystems formed by the wetted river channel (Rosgen 1996, pp. 2–2 to metapopulations will, in some cases, be channel and adjacent floodplains within 2–4; Leopold 1997, pp. 62–63, 66). The less distinct than the stream or river

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:12 Mar 19, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20MRR2.SGM 20MRR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 16348 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

reaches where Chiricahua leopard frogs are too far apart (4.3 mi (7.0 km) Aires NWR, Pima County, Arizona, breed. Nonetheless, these ephemeral overland) across rugged terrain to expect includes former cattle tanks and other drainages will still be defined by frogs to move between these sites. waters used as breeding and dispersal wetland plant species, denser or taller Hence, these tanks serve as isolated sites, plus intervening and connecting specimens of upland species, channel populations. The Twin Tanks area is drainages and uplands. This unit is characteristics such as sandy or gravelly less than 0.5 mi (0.8 km) upslope of designated as critical habitat because it soils that contrast with upland soils, the active mining at Freeport McMoRan’s was occupied at the time of listing and presence of cut banks, or some Sierrita Copper Mine and could be currently contains the features essential combination of these. Where dispersal affected from expansion of mining to the conservation of the species (PCEs corridors cross uplands, designated activities, creation of aerial pollutants 1 and 2 are present). critical habitat is 328 ft (100 m) wide, that could affect water chemistry or Breeding sites at permanent or nearly the centerline of which is the line quality, and possible effects to the frog’s permanent tanks (Carpenter, Rock, delineated on our critical habitat maps prey base. Addtionally, this unit State, Triangle, and New Round Hill) and legal descriptions. contains both PCEs 1 and 2. support the most stable metapopulation In ponds designated as critical Both sites are also at risk of known within the range of the species. habitat, most of which are introduction of nonnative predators, Chongo Tank, where a population was impoundments for watering cattle or such as bullfrogs and nonnative established in 2009, may become a sixth other livestock, designated critical crayfish. Presence of chytridiomycosis breeding site. Seven other tanks support habitat extends for 20 ft (6.1 m) beyond at these tanks has not been investigated. frogs periodically to regularly, and breeding and recruitment likely take the high water line or to the boundary Garcia Tank Unit of the riparian and upland vegetation place at these tanks in wet cycles edge, whichever is greatest. Chiricahua This unit consists of 0.7 ac (0.3 ha) of (periods marked by successional leopard frogs are commonly found Federal land located on the Buenos precipitation events). Frogs occupied foraging and basking within 20 feet of Aires National Wildlife Refuge (NWR), Carpenter, Rock, and Triangle Tanks in the shoreline of tanks. In addition, Pima County, Arizona. It is a double 2002, at or about the time of listing. designated critical habitat extends tank; the southwest or downstream Tanks designated for designation upstream from ponds from the extent of impoundment is more dependable at include Carpenter, Rock, State, Triangle, the boundary for 328 ft (100 m) from the holding water than the upstream tank. New Round Hill, Banado, Choffo, Barrel However, both parts of the tank are high water line. The designated critical Cactus, Sufrido, Hito, Morley, McKay, designated as critical habitat. Garcia habitat extends to 328 ft (100 m) and Chongo Tanks. McKay Tank is a Tank is designated as critical habitat, upstream because there is often a cluster of three tanks, all of which are because it was occupied at the time of riparian drainage coming into the tank, designated as critical habitat. Also listing and currently contains PCE 1 to and Chiricahua leopard frogs are likely designated as critical habitat are the support life-history functions essential moving along those drainages. Also, the intervening drainages, including: (1) for the conservation of the species. high water line is defined as that water Puertocito Wash from Triangle Tank A breeding site, Garcia Tank was level which, if exceeded, results in north through and including Aguire known to have been occupied in 2002 overflow of the pond. In most cases, this Lake to New Round Hill Tank, then and 2006. Leopard frogs were noted in is the elevation of the spillway (dam) in upstream to the confluence with Las 2010, but they were not identified to livestock impoundments. Moras Wash, and upstream in Las Moras species (the lowland leopard frog is also Wash to Chongo Tank; (2) an unnamed Recovery Unit 1 (Tumacacori-Atascosa- known to occur in the area). It is about drainage from Puertocito Wash Pajarito Mountains, Arizona and 3.6 mi (5.8 km) over land across upstream to McKay Tank; (3) an Mexico) dissected and hilly terrain to the next unnamed drainage from Puertocito nearest population at Lower Carpenter Twin Tanks and Ox Frame Tank Unit Wash upstream to Rock Tank, including Tank. The nearest known populations to Morley Tank, then upstream in an This unit consists of 1.3 ac (0.5 ha) of the east are on the Coronado National unnamed drainage to the top of that lands owned by the Arizona State Land Forest and are more than 9.0 mi (14 km) drainage, directly overland to an Department and 0.4 ac (0.2 ha) of away. Hence, this site is isolated and is unnamed drainage, and then upstream private lands in the Sierrita Mountains, managed as an isolated, robust to Hito Tank and downstream to McKay Pima County, Arizona. Twin Tanks is population. The features essential to the Tank; (4) from Sufrido Tank on lands owned and managed by the conservation of the species in this unit downstream in an unnamed drainage to Arizona State Land Department and may require special management its confluence with an unnamed consists of two tanks in proximity to considerations or protection to ensure drainage running between Rock and each other as well as a drainage running these characteristics persist over time. Morley tanks; (5) Lopez Wash from between them. Ox Frame Tank is on The greatest threats needing special Carpenter Tank downstream to Aguire private lands. management are introductions of or Lake; (6) an unnamed drainage from its Occupancy of these livestock tanks at colonization by nonnative species, such confluence with Lopez Wash upstream the time of listing is unknown, as they as bullfrogs and crayfish, and drought to Choffo Tank; (7) an unnamed were not surveyed for frogs until 2007. that could greatly reduce or eliminate drainage from its confluence with Lopez We consider this unit to have been the aquatic habitat. If necessary, in the Wash upstream to State Tank; (8) an unoccupied at the time of listing for the wake of sustained drought, alternative unnamed drainage from Banado Tank purpose of this critical habitat water supplies or interim measures may downstream to its confluence with an designation. We have determined this be necessary in the form of water unnamed drainage, then upstream in unit to be essential to the conservation hauling or a supply well. that drainage to Barrel Cactus Tank; and of the species because these sites are (9) an unnamed drainage from Banado important breeding sites for recovery. Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge Tank upstream to a saddle, then directly Twin Tanks held more than 1,000 frogs (NWR) Central Tanks Unit downslope to Lopez Wash. in 2008, and is a robust breeding This unit, consisting of 1,720 ac (696 The features essential to the population. Ox Frame and Twin tanks ha) of Federal land within the Buenos conservation of the species in this unit

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:12 Mar 19, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20MRR2.SGM 20MRR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 16349

may require special management have resulted in watershed damage. A drainage to Atascosa Canyon; (5) from considerations or protection to alleviate road on the berm of Upper Turner Tank South Mesa Tank downstream in an the threats from bullfrogs and disease. is scheduled for improvement to access unnamed drainage to Pen˜ asco Canyon; In this unit, bullfrogs remain a threat, a surveillance tower operated by U.S. and (6) from Rattlesnake Tank but efforts are underway to eliminate Customs and Border Protection. Special downstream in an unnamed canyon to the last known populations of bullfrogs management is also needed because its confluence with another unnamed in the Altar Valley (on the Santa frogs in this region have tested positive drainage, then upstream in that drainage Margarita Ranch to the south of Buenos for chytridiomycosis, but the disease to South Mesa Tank. Aires NWR). Frogs in this area have appears to have little effect on Special management is required in tested positive for chytridiomycosis, but population persistence. this unit because bullfrogs have been a the disease appears to have little effect continuing problem, although recent Sycamore Canyon Unit on population persistence. control efforts seem to have eliminated This unit includes 262 ac (106 ha) of them from Sycamore Canyon. Nonnative Bonita, Upper Turner, and Mojonera Federal lands in the Coronado National green sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus) have Tanks Unit Forest and 7 ac (3 ha) of private lands occasionally been found in Sycamore This unit includes 201 ac (81 ha) of along Atascosa Canyon through Bear Canyon as well, and they could prey on Federal lands in the Coronado National Valley Ranch in the Pajarito and larval Chiricahua leopard frogs. Pools Forest in the Pajarito and Atascosa Atascosa Mountains, Santa Cruz critical to survival of frogs and tadpoles Mountains, Santa Cruz County, Arizona. County, Arizona. This unit is designated through the dry season are sensitive to This unit is designated as critical habitat as critical habitat because it was sedimentation and erosion upstream in because it was occupied at the time of occupied at the time of listing and the watershed of Sycamore Canyon. The listing and currently contains the currently contains the features essential earliest records of chytridiomycosis in features essential to the conservation of to the conservation of the species (PCEs Arizona are from Sycamore Canyon the species (both PCEs 1 and 2). 1 and 2). (1972). A robust population of Two breeding sites (Bonita Tank and Sycamore Canyon is the only lotic Chiricahua leopard frogs persists at this Mojonera Tank), combined with a (flowing water) site in Recovery Unit 1 site despite the disease and periodic dispersal site or site where breeding and capable of supporting breeding die-offs. Illegal border activity and recruitment may occur in wet years subpopulations of Chiricahua leopard associated law enforcement have (Upper Turner Tank), form the center of frogs. Most other sites are livestock resulted in many trails and new vehicle a future metapopulation. Three tanks or impounded springs. Sycamore routes in the area, as well as trampling additional waters—Sierra Tank East, Canyon, Bear Valley Ranch Tank, in the canyon. Sierra Tank West, and Sierra Well— Rattlesnake Tank, and Atascosa Canyon Sycamore Canyon is designated a require special management to increase downstream of Bear Valley Ranch were Research Natural Area by the Coronado breeding potential in these areas. Frogs all occupied by Chiricahua leopard frogs National Forest and is closed to currently occupy Bonita and Mojonera at the time of listing. The occupancy livestock grazing. Critical habitat is Tanks, and Bonita Tank was occupied at status of the other sites at the time of designated for the Sonora chub (Gila the time of listing. Frogs were last found listing is unknown. Sycamore Canyon, ditaenia) in Sycamore Canyon from at Upper Turner Tank in 2004. The Yank Tank, North Mesa tank, South Hank and Yank Spring (about 0.25 mi occupancy status of Mojonera and Mesa Tank, and Bear Valley Ranch Tank (0.40 km) downstream of the Ruby Road Upper Turner Tanks at the time of are currently occupied. The current crossing) downstream to the listing is unknown. The designated occupancy status of Rattlesnake Tank international border, and in a 25-ft critical habitat in this unit also includes and Atascosa Canyon downstream of (7.6-m) strip on both sides of the creek intervening drainages, uplands, and Bear Valley Ranch Tank is unknown. (51 FR 16042; April 30, 1986). Much of ephemeral or intermittent waters as Designated critical habitat includes this unit also lies within the Pajarita follows: (1) From Upper Turner Tank approximately 6.35 mi (10.23 km) of Wilderness area. These designations upstream in an unnamed drainage to its Sycamore Canyon from Ruby Road to provide some level of protection to confluence with a minor drainage the international border, which supports Chiricahua leopard frog habitats in coming in from the east, then directly frogs and breeding, although in the Sycamore Canyon because management upslope in that drainage and east to a driest months (May and June) the stream for Sonora chub conservation is saddle, and directly downslope to dries to pools and tinajas (a term used consistent with that for Chiricahua Bonita Canyon, and upstream in Bonita in the American Southwest for water leopard frogs. However, the Chiricahua Canyon to Bonita Tank; and (2) from pockets formed in bedrock depressions leopard frog may require additional Mojonera Tank downstream in that occur below waterfalls or are carved measures. Mojonera Canyon to a sharp bend where out by spring flow or seepage). the drainage turns west-northwest, then A number of livestock tanks in the Pen˜ a Blanca Lake and Spring and southeast and upstream in an unnamed unit form a viable metapopulation with Associated Tanks Unit drainage to a saddle, downslope through Sycamore Canyon. Designated critical This unit includes 202 ac (82 ha) of an unnamed drainage to its confluence habitat includes the following tanks and Federal lands in the Coronado National with another unnamed drainage, their connecting drainages: (1) From Forest, Santa Cruz County, Arizona. upstream in that unnamed drainage to a Yank Tank downstream in an unnamed This area is designated as critical habitat saddle, and then downstream in an drainage to Sycamore Canyon; (2) from because it was occupied at the time of unnamed drainage to Sierra Well, to North Mesa Tank downstream in listing and contains PCEs 1 and 2, include Sierra Tank West and Sierra Atascosa Canyon to its confluence with which support the life-history functions Tank East, then directly overland to Pen˜ asco Canyon, then from that essential for the conservation of the Upper Turner Tank. confluence downstream in Pen˜ asco species. In this unit, special management is Canyon to Sycamore Canyon; (3) from This unit is a metapopulation that needed because bullfrogs are a Horse Pasture Spring downstream to includes Pen˜ a Blanca Lake, Pen˜ a Blanca continuing threat, and illegal border Pen˜ asco Canyon; (4) from Bear Valley Spring, Summit Reservoir, Tinker Tank, activity and associated law enforcement Ranch Tank downstream in an unnamed Thumb Butte Tank, and Coyote Tank.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:12 Mar 19, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20MRR2.SGM 20MRR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 16350 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

These sites were all occupied in 2009. have clearly benefited because their of a metapopulation (the next nearest Chiricahua leopard frogs and tadpoles population has grown exponentially in population is about a 5-mi (8-km) were found in Pen˜ a Blanca Lake in 2009 Pen˜ a Blanca Lake. However, there is a straight-line distance away in Unit 8; and 2010, after the lake had been continuing threat of recolonization or hence, it will be managed as an isolated drained and then refilled, which purposeful introduction of bullfrogs, population). PCE 1 is present and was eliminated the nonnative predators. and management of this area will enhanced in 2010, with the addition of However, early in 2010, rainbow trout continue to concentrate on preventing a steel tank for breeding. Included in the (Oncorhynchus mykiss) were stocked bullfrogs from recolonizing the area and designation is approximately 1,521 ft back into the lake, and plans are eliminating those that do. As discussed, (463 m) of Florida Canyon from a silted- underway to reestablish a variety of warmwater sportfish at Pen˜ a Blanca in dam to the downstream end of the warm water, predatory fish (such as Lake are scheduled to be stocked in the Florida Workstation property. largemouth bass (Micropterus spring of 2012, which will affect the The major threat is scarcity of water, salmoides)) in the spring of 2012. suitability of the lake as Chiricahua particularly during long periods of Despite the stocking of rainbow trout, leopard frog habitat. However, in a May drought. Also, fire in the watershed Pen˜ a Blanca Lake now contains a robust 2011, section 7 consultation for could result in scouring and breeding population of Chiricahua sportfish stocking of the lake, sedimentation in the pools important as leopard frogs, one of the largest single conservation measures were established habitat for the frog. The addition of a populations throughout its range. In that require shoreline habitat to be steel tank provides dependable water for April 2011, surveys of the lake managed in a manner to retain its breeding that is safe from erosion or confirmed that Chiricahua leopard frogs complexity, which will provide some sedimentation events. Chyridiomycosis remained extant. In September 2011, level of protection to resident and introduced predators are potential surveys of the lake estimated the Chiricahua leopard frogs from potential threats, but neither has been recorded at Chiricahua leopard frog population to predation from sportfish. In that this site. number between 300 to 500 individuals, consultation, we determined that, given Eastern Slope of the Santa Rita which is likely a low estimate, because the number of conservation measures Mountains Unit only a single night survey was (which included managing against This unit includes 172 ac (70 ha) of performed, and the shoreline habitat bullfrogs and ensuring the persistence of Federal lands in the Coronado National was complex, making observations dense shoreline vegetation), the Forest and 14 ac (6 ha) of private lands difficult. During that survey, Chiricahua proposed stocking of warmwater fish in the Greaterville area in Pima County, leopard frogs were calling, indicating would not result in adverse Arizona. that fall breeding may have been modification of this critical habitat unit. occurring. Included in the critical habitat Given the robust population of designation are two metal troughs in In 2002, Chiricahua leopard frogs Chiricahua leopard frogs that currently were only known to occur at Pen˜ a Louisiana Gulch, Greaterville Tank, Los occurs in the lake and protection offered Posos Gulch Tank, and the Granite Blanca Spring. Occupancy status at the by attributes of existing shoreline time of listing for the other sites is Mountain Tank complex. The Granite habitat, we recognize the value of Pen˜ a Mountain Tank complex includes two unknown. Designated critical habitat Blanca Lake as essential for the also includes: (1) From Summit impoundments and a well. All but Los conservation of Chiricahua leopard Posos Gulch Tank are currently Reservoir directly southeast to a saddle frogs, even with the presence of on Summit Motorway, then downslope occupied breeding sites; however, the warmwater sportfish. Chiricahua to an unnamed drainage and occupancy status at the time of listing leopard frogs in this region have tested downstream in that drainage to its for these sites is unknown. We consider positive for chytridiomycosis; however, confluence with Alamo Canyon, then this unit to have been unoccupied at the the disease appears to have little effect downstream in Alamo Canyon to its time of listing for the purpose of this on population persistence. confluence with Pen˜ a Blanca Canyon, critical habitat designation. We have then downstream in Pen˜ a Blanca Recovery Unit 2 (Santa Rita-Huachuca- determined this unit to be essential to Canyon to Pen˜ a Blanca Lake, to include Ajos Bavispe, Arizona and Mexico) the conservation of the species because Pen˜ a Blanca Spring; (2) from Thumb it represents one of only two known Florida Canyon Unit Butte Tank downstream in an unnamed occupied areas that support or likely drainage to its confluence with Alamo Florida Canyon includes 4 ac (2 ha) of support breeding activity for the Canyon; (3) from Tinker Tank Federal lands in the Coronado National Chiricahua leopard frog in the Santa downstream in an unnamed drainage to Forest in the Santa Rita Mountains, Rita Mountains. More than 60 its confluence with Alamo Canyon, then Pima County, Arizona. Chiricahua leopard frogs were observed downstream in Alamo Canyon to the Chiricahua leopard frogs currently at Los Posos Gulch Tank in 2008. It was confluence with the drainage from occupy this site; however, its occupancy once thought to be a robust breeding Summit Reservoir; and (4) from Coyote status at the time of listing is unknown. site; however, it dried, and Chiricahua Tank downstream in an unnamed We consider this unit to have been leopard frogs disappeared in 2009. drainage to its confluence with Alamo unoccupied at the time of listing for the These four sites collectively form a Canyon, and then downstream in Alamo purpose of this critical habitat metapopulation. A number of other sites Canyon to the confluence with the designation. We have determined this in this region have been found to drainage from Tinker Tank, to include unit to be essential to the conservation support dispersing Chiricahua leopard Alamo Spring. of the species because it can be managed frogs; however, only a few frogs and no Special management is required in as a breeding population to provide breeding have been observed at these this unit because nonnative predators, overall stability to the species’ status. A sites, so they are thought to represent particularly bullfrogs and sportfish, single frog was found in 2008, which dispersing frogs. The occupancy status remain a serious threat. A concerted was augmented with frogs from of these other sites at the time of listing effort began in 2008 to clear the area of elsewhere in the Santa Rita Mountains is also unknown. Designated critical bullfrogs. The effort appears to be in 2009. The site is too far from other habitat also includes intervening successful, and Chiricahua leopard frogs known breeding populations to be part drainages as follows: (1) From Los Posos

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:12 Mar 19, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20MRR2.SGM 20MRR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 16351

Gulch upstream to a saddle, then release to augment the wild population. on Federal lands in the Coronado downslope in an unnamed drainage to Frogs may breed periodically at Cinco National Forest. Chiricahua leopard the confluence with another unnamed Ponds. These sites are too far (more than frogs were reestablished in this canyon drainage, then upstream and south in an 8.0-mi (13-km) straight-line distance) via a translocation in 2009; the last that drainage to a saddle, and from the next nearest population, which record of a Chiricahua leopard frog in downslope through an unnamed is in Eastern Slope of the Santa Rita the canyon before that was 1986. Scotia drainage to its confluence with Ophir Mountains; thus, the population(s) in Canyon was not occupied at the time of Gulch, then in Ophir Gulch to upper this unit currently acts as an isolated listing. We consider this unit to be Granite Mountain Tank, to include an population(s). essential to the conservation of the ephemeral tank near upper Granite Special management is required in Chiricahua leopard frog because of its Mountain Tank and a well; (2) from this unit to improve habitat, control potential to host a stable breeding Greaterville Tank downstream in an disease, and remove nonnative species. population of Chiricahua leopard frogs unnamed drainage to Ophir Gulch; and A collaborative, multi-partner recovery in the future and the effort that has been (3) Louisiana Gulch from the metal program for the Chiricahua leopard frog dedicated to the area to mitigate threats tanks upstream to the headwaters of is ongoing at Las Cienegas; the program posed by nonnative predators. Louisiana Gulch then across a saddle is funded by a substantial grant from the Additionally, this unit has both PCEs 1 and downslope through an unnamed National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. and 2. drainage to its confluence with Ophir The program focuses on creating The unit encompasses an approximate Gulch. Additionally, this unit has both opportunities for Chiricahua leopard 1.36-mi (2.19-km) reach of the canyon PCEs 1 and 2. frog head-starting, improving habitat, with perennial pools, as well as a The major threat in this unit is limited and removing nonnative species. perennial travertine (a form of surface water. The breeding habitat at Significant progress has been made to limestone) seep; a spring-fed, perennial Louisiana Gulch, although limited to eliminate bullfrogs from the area, but impoundment (Peterson Ranch Pond); two 6.0-ft (1.8-m) diameter steel tanks, bullfrogs are still present and represent and an ephemeral impoundment is dependable because it is fed by a a persistent problem. Chiricahua adjacent to Peterson Ranch Pond. There well. The other tanks are filled by runoff leopard frogs suffer from is also a perennial or nearly perennial and susceptible to drying during chytridiomycosis in this unit; however, impoundment in the channel drought. Nonnative predators and the Chiricahua leopard frogs are downstream of the travertine seep. chytridiomycosis are not known to be persisting with the disease. Crayfish Breeding habitat occurs at Peterson imminent threats in this area. occur within a few miles and pose a Ranch Pond and possibly at other significant threat if they reach Cienega perennial or nearly perennial pools. Las Cienegas National Conservation Currently, this site is isolated from Area Unit Creek or Empire Gulch. Empire Gulch and Cienega Creek other populations. Hence this site is This unit is in Pima County, Arizona, downstream of its confluence with managed as an isolated population, but and includes 1,364 ac (552 ha) of Empire Gulch is designated critical there is some potential for creating Bureau of Land Management lands and habitat for the federally endangered Gila connectivity to the metapopulation in 186 ac (75 ha) of Arizona State Land chub (Gila intermedia) (70 FR 66663; Ramsey and Brown Canyons via Department lands, including an November 2, 2005). The chub and the population reestablishment in Garden approximate 4.33-mi (6.98-km) reach of federally endangered Gila topminnow Canyon at Fort Huachuca. Scotia Empire Gulch and 1.91 mi (3.08 km) of (Poeciliopsis occidentalis) (32 FR 4001; Canyon, with its pond and stream Cienega Creek, including the Cinco March 11, 1967) occur in Cienega Creek habitats, has the potential to host a Ponds. This unit is designated as critical adjacent to Empire Gulch. The Gila robust population. habitat because it was occupied at the topminnow also occurs in Empire Special management is required in time of listing and currently contains Gulch. Neither species occurs in Cinco this unit to remove nonnative predators PCEs 1 and 2 to support life-history Ponds. Where these federally listed and disease, protect from catastrophic functions essential for the conservation species occur with the Chiricahua wildlife, and improve aquatic habitat. of the species. Close to 60 leopard frog, some level of protection Scotia Canyon, and sites around it, have metamorphosed Chiricahua leopard may be afforded to Chiricahua leopard been the subject of intensive bullfrog frogs and 400 tadpoles were released to frog habitat when a Federal nexus exists eradication and habitat enhancement Las Cienegas Natural Conservation Area for projects that may affect one of these work in preparation for the 2009 during the fall of 2011. other federally listed species. reestablishment of the Chiricahua At the time of listing, Empire Gulch leopard frog. However, bullfrog was occupied. However, the occupancy Pasture 9 Tank reinvasion is a significant, continuing status of Cinco Ponds at that time is This was a proposed unit that threat, and other nonnative predators unknown. Currently, Chiricahua includes 0.5 ac (0.2 ha), and is a former could potentially reach Scotia Canyon leopard frogs are extant at Empire Gulch cattle pond entirely on private lands of via natural or human-assisted releases. and Cinco Ponds. Frogs breed in a reach the San Rafael Ranch, San Rafael Valley, In addition, barred tiger salamanders of Empire Gulch near Empire Ranch. Santa Cruz County, Arizona. For this from the Peterson Ranch Pond tested This reach includes: (1) Empire Gulch final rule, we are excluding all 0.5 ac positive for chytridiomycosis in 2009; from a pipeline road crossing above the (0.2 ha) in this unit under section 4(b)(2) however, in 2010, the Chiricahua breeding site downstream to Cienega of the Act (see Application of Section leopard frogs appeared to be persisting Creek; and (2) Cienega Creek from the 4(b)(2) of the Act, below). Therefore, in that same pond. Arizona Game and Empire Gulch confluence upstream to this unit is not being designated as Fish Department biologists and the approximate end of the wetted reach critical habitat in this final rule. Coronado National Forest staff visited and where the creek bends hard to the the site on April 5, 2011, and verified east, to include Cinco Ponds. An Scotia Canyon Unit the continued presence of salamanders enclosed Chiricahua leopard frog This unit includes 70 ac (29 ha) in (2 mature brachiates were observed). facility exists along Empire Gulch and is Scotia Canyon, Huachuca Mountain, Nonetheless, disease has resulted in used to headstart eggs and tadpoles for Cochise County, Arizona, and is entirely extirpations elsewhere in the Huachuca

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:12 Mar 19, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20MRR2.SGM 20MRR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 16352 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

Mountains, and is considered a serious into 2009, but the population has since Conservancy’s Bledsoe Parcel in the threat in Scotia Canyon. Further, heavy been eliminated, probably by Ramsey Canyon Preserve downstream to fuel loads could result in a catastrophic chytridiomycosis. This site is too far a dirt road crossing of Ramsey Canyon wildfire, which would have significant away (3.4 mi (5.4 km) from Ramsey and at the mouth of the canyon, excluding detrimental effects on the frog and its Brown Canyons and about 3.0 mi (4.8 The Nature Conservancy’s University of aquatic habitats. Finally, a road through km) from Beatty’s Guest Ranch by way Toronto Parcel in the Ramsey Canyon the canyon is eroded in places and of a straight-line distance over rugged Preserve; (2) Brown Canyon from the contributes sediment to the stream; it terrain) to be part of a metapopulation; Box downstream to the Wild Duck Pond receives much use by recreationists and hence, it is currently considered and House Pond on the former Barchas U.S. Customs and Border Protection. isolated. There is some potential for Ranch; and (3) from the dirt road The critical habitat designation for the connecting it to Scotia Canyon, and crossing of Ramsey Canyon directly Chiricahua leopard frog largely overlaps Ramsey and Brown Canyons (see overland to House Pond. that of critical habitat for the discussion above), but additional habitat The Ramsey Canyon portion of the endangered Lilaeopsis schaffneriana creation or enhancement and unit was not occupied at the time of var. recurva (Huachuca water-umbel). population reestablishment would be listing, but Brown Canyon was The occurrence of critical habitat and needed. occupied. Both canyons are currently listed species provide some level of The features essential to the considered occupied. Chiricahua protection to Chiricahua leopard frog conservation of the species in this unit leopard frogs have bred at the Box in habitat in this unit when a Federal may require special management Brown Canyon, although the site is too nexus exists on a project that may affect considerations or protection to alleviate small to support more than just a few the endangered plant Lilaeopsis the threats from nonnative predators frogs. Special management is required schaffneriana var. recurva (Huachuca and disease. Disease is a serious threat in this unit because recent die-offs water-umbel). However, the Chiricahua that can be an impediment to viable frog associated with chytridiomycosis have leopard frog may require additional populations. The population has been significantly reduced populations in measures to facilitate conservation and eliminated after chytridiomycosis die- both canyons. The House and Wild recovery in these areas. offs three times. Twice the population Duck Ponds, as well as Ramsey Canyon, has subsequently been reestablished have a history of chytridiomycosis Beatty’s Guest Ranch Unit through translocations. Largemouth bass outbreaks. The Ramsey Canyon This was a proposed unit that have been introduced illegally into the population has been eliminated twice includes 10 ac (4.0 ha) of private lands pond and then removed, and bullfrogs and then reestablished; the House and in Miller Canyon on the east slope of the periodically invade the site, but are Wild Duck Ponds have also undergone Huachuca Mountains, Cochise County, promptly removed before they breed. repeated disease-related declines and Arizona. For this final rule, we are extirpations followed by Ramsey and Brown Canyons Unit excluding all 10 ac (4.0 ha) in this unit reestablishments. The populations tend under section 4(b)(2) of the Act (see This unit includes 44 ac (18 ha) of to persist for months or years after Application of Section 4(b)(2) of the Act, private lands in Ramsey Canyon and 58 reestablishment only to experience below). Therefore, this unit is not being ac (24 ha) of Federal lands in the chytridiomycosis outbreaks followed by designated as critical habitat in this Coronado National Forest in Brown and declines or extirpation. final rule. Ramsey Canyons, Huachuca Mountains, Additional special management is Cochise County, Arizona. Ramsey required in this unit because nonnative Carr Barn Pond Unit Canyon was not occupied at the time of species, drying, sedimentation, and fire This unit includes 0.6 ac (0.3 ha) of listing but Brown Canyon was; threaten the frog. Nonnative predators Federal lands in the Coronado National therefore, we treat this unit as occupied. threaten populations at the House and Forest in the Huachuca Mountains, The unit currently contains PCEs 1 and Wild Duck Ponds, where bullfrogs have Cochise County, Arizona. Carr Barn 2 to support life-history functions been found periodically and goldfish Pond is an impoundment with a small, essential for the conservation of the (Carassius auratus auratus) were once lined pond with water provided from a species. introduced. Those two ponds are well. During runoff events, the size of This unit, along with Beatty’s Guest buffered against drought and drying by the pond expands considerably and Ranch and Carr Barn Pond, has been a pipeline from a spring and a windmill. then gradually shrinks back to the lined managed intensively for Ramsey Canyon However, the Box in Brown Canyon is section. (= Chiricahua) leopard frog conservation subject to low water and drying during This unit is designated as critical since 1995. This unit is managed as a drought. That latter population depends habitat because it was occupied at the metapopulation. Places where upon immigration or active time of listing and currently contains Chiricahua leopard frogs have bred and reestablishment for long-term PCE 1 to support life-history functions that still retain PCE 1 include Ramsey persistence. The Trout and Meadow essential for the conservation of the Canyon, and Trout and Meadow Ponds Ponds in Ramsey Canyon are fed by species. on private lands owned by The Nature pipelines; thus the water supply is As with Beatty’s Guest Ranch, Ramsey Conservancy. These private lands are dependable. The Trout Pond could and Brown Canyons, this unit has been excluded from designation as critical however be filled in with sediment the subject of a conservation agreement habitat in the Ramsey Canyon Box. In during a flood. Further, a fire in the and much intensive management for the Brown Canyon, the Wild Duck Pond, watershed could threaten aquatic Ramsey Canyon (= Chiricahua) leopard House Pond, and the Brown Canyon breeding sites in both canyons. frog. The Coronado National Forest Box (on Coronado National Forest Lands owned by The Nature created and now maintains Carr Barn lands) are designated as critical habitat. Conservancy in Ramsey Canyon are Pond consistent with the Ramsey In addition, this critical habitat unit known as the Ramsey Canyon Preserve Canyon (= Chiricahua) leopard frog also includes dispersal sites and and are managed for preservation of conservation agreement, to which they corridors for connectivity among natural features and species, including are a signatory. This site was occupied breeding ponds as follows: (1) From the the Chiricahua leopard frog. The at the time of listing and was occupied eastern boundary of The Nature Ramsey Canyon Preserve is also

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:12 Mar 19, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20MRR2.SGM 20MRR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 16353

enrolled in the Arizona Game and Fish records of frogs (2007 to the present) Cochise County, Arizona. This unit was Department’s Statewide Safe Harbor and are considered currently occupied, occupied at the time of listing, is Agreement, effective July 2010. Under with the exception of State Line Tank. currently occupied, and currently section 4(b)(2) of the Act, the Ramsey State Line Tank was reported dry in contains both PCEs 1 and 2 to support Canyon Preserve (16 ac (6.5 ha)) is being 2011, with no available habitat or refuge life-history functions essential for the excluded from critical habitat for Chiricahua leopard frogs and no conservation of the species. Chiricahua designation (see Application of Section frogs observed. It is not known whether leopard frogs and tadpoles were 4(b)(2) of the Act, below). the tank incurred damage or drought released during the fall of 2011, into a caused it to dry. However, because pond on the Southwestern Research Recovery Unit 3 (Chiricahua Mountains- Chiricahua leopard frogs disperse from Station, where they were initially reared Malpai Borderlands-Sierra Madre, Canoncito Ranch Tank into Cloverdale in an onsite ranarium. Released frogs are Arizona, New Mexico, and Mexico) Cienega, Cloverdale Creek, and expected to distribute themselves High Lonesome Well Unit surrounding tanks when water is throughout Cave Canyon during ensuing present, State Line Tank still contains years. This previously proposed unit PCE 2. This unit is managed as a Included in this unit is an includes 0.4 ac (0.2 ha) of privately metapopulation. approximate 4.76-mi (7.66-km) reach of owned lands in the Playas Valley, Also included in this unit are Cave Creek and associated ponds in or Hidalgo County, New Mexico. This unit intervening drainages and uplands near the channel, from Herb Martyr consists of an elevated concrete tank needed for connectivity among these Pond downstream to the eastern U.S. into which Chiricahua leopard frogs aquatic sites, including: (1) Cloverdale Forest Service boundary. PCEs 1 and 2 were introduced prior to listing (Painter Creek from Canoncito Ranch Tank are present. This site will be managed 2000, p. 15). The tank is supplied with downstream, including Cloverdale as a metapopulation. water from a windmill and provides Cienega, and excluding portions of Herb Martyr Pond is the type locality water for livestock. The site supports a Cloverdale Creek and the cienega within for the Chiricahua leopard frog; robust breeding population, but is much private lands of Canoncito Ranch; (2) however, no frogs have been observed at too far from other populations to be part from Geronimo Tank downstream in an the site since 1977. This pond requires of a metapopulation (the nearest unnamed drainage to its confluence special management because the pool population is in Unit 17, 25.4 mi (40.6 with Clanton Draw, then upstream to behind the dam is entirely silted in, and km) to the west). Furthermore, although the confluence with an unnamed pools at the base of the dam are frogs can exit the tank, they cannot get drainage, and upstream in that drainage probably not adequate for Chiricahua back into the tank. to its headwaters, across a mesa to the leopard frog survival or reproduction. We reevaluated the High Lonesome headwaters of an unnamed drainage, With restoration, this site could support Well Unit and have determined that it then downslope through that drainage a breeding population of Chiricahua does not meet the definition of critical to State Line Tank; (3) from State Line leopard frogs. The pond below the dam habitat, because it does not have the Tank upstream in an unnamed drainage at John Hands appears suitable for physical or biological features that are to a mesa, then directly overland to the occupancy, but Chiricahua leopard frogs essential for the conservation of the headwaters of Cloverdale Creek, and have not been recorded there since species. The unit does not contain the then downstream in Cloverdale Creek to 1966. Chiricahua leopard frogs were terrestrial habitat that provides Javelina Tank; and (4) from Javelina occasionally seen in Cave Creek through opportunities for foraging and basking, Tank downstream in Cloverdale Creek 2002. and that is immediately adjacent to or to the Canoncito Ranch Tank, to include Special management is required in surrounding breeding aquatic and Maverick Spring. this unit because scarcity of water can riparian habitat, which is a component Special management is required in occur in drought years, and bullfrogs of PCE 1. Therefore, we have removed this unit because periodic drought dries occur to the east but have never been the High Lonesome Well Unit from this most of the aquatic sites completely or recorded in the unit. The current status final critical habitat designation. to small pools, which limits population and past history of chytridiomycosis in this unit are unknown. Rainbow trout Peloncillo Mountains Unit growth potential. Nonnative sportfish are present at Geronimo Tank and may were present and occurred concurrently This unit includes 366 ac (148 ha) of preclude successful recruitment. with Chiricahua leopard frogs at Herb Federal lands in the Coronado National Occurrence of chytridiomycosis in this Martyr Pond, but no trout are currently Forest in Hidalgo County, New Mexico. area has not been investigated, but may known in the unit. This unit is designated as critical habitat also be a limiting factor. The Southwestern Research Station, because it was occupied at the time of Sky Island Alliance is working with owned by the American Museum of listing and currently contains PCEs 1 partners to restore the Cloverdale Natural History, maintains habitat and 2 to support life-history functions Cienega, which should improve aquatic occupied by the Chiricahua leopard essential for the conservation of the habitats for Chiricahua leopard frogs. frog, has signed a safe harbor agreement species. The owner of the Canoncito Ranch has for the Chiricahua leopard frog, and is Aquatic habitats in this unit include signed onto a safe harbor agreement for an active participant in recovery. The Geronimo, Javelina, State Line Tanks; the Chiricahua leopard frog. Under Service and Arizona Game and Fish Maverick Spring; and pools or ponds in section 4(b)(2) of the Act, the private Department (AGFD) are working with the Cloverdale Cienega and along lands in this unit (289 ac (117 ha)) are additional private landowners Cloverdale Creek below Canoncito excluded from the final rule for critical downstream of the designated critical Ranch Tank. Breeding has occurred in habitat (see Application of Section habitat to bring them into the safe State Line Tank, and possibly other 4(b)(2) of the Act, below). harbor agreement. Under section 4(b)(2) aquatic sites in this unit. Geronimo of the Act, the American Museum of Tank was occupied at the time of listing. Cave Creek Unit Natural History lands (92 ac (37 ha)) are The occupancy status of the other sites This unit includes 234 ac (95 ha) of being excluded from critical habitat at that time is unknown. These tanks Federal lands in the Coronado National designation (see Application of Section and Maverick Spring have recent Forest in the Chiricahua Mountains, 4(b)(2) of the Act, below).

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:12 Mar 19, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20MRR2.SGM 20MRR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 16354 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

Leslie Creek Unit under section 4(b)(2) of the Act (see and (4) from Middle Tank upstream in The unit consists of 26 ac (11 ha) of Application of Section 4(b)(2) of the Act, an unnamed drainage to a saddle, and National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) below). Therefore, this unit is not being then directly downslope to Deer Creek. (Federal) lands on Leslie Canyon NWR, designated as critical habitat in this Special management is required in Cochise County, Arizona. This unit is final rule. this unit to alleviate periodic drought, designated as critical habitat because it Recovery Unit 4 (Pin˜ aleno-Galiuro- which results in breeding sites drying. was occupied at the time of listing and Dragoon Mountains, Arizona) During a severe drought in 2002, all but currently contains PCE 1 to support life- one of the waters in the unit dried. history functions essential for the Deer Creek Unit Frogs reportedly died for unknown conservation of the species. This unit consists of 17 ac (7 ha) of reasons in the 1980s (Goforth 2005, p. This unit is a stream system with Federal lands in the Coronado National 2), possibly indicative of intermittent pools and two small Forest, 69 ac (28 ha) of Arizona State chytridiomycosis; however, no impoundments. The upstream boundary Land Department lands, and 34 ac (14 Chiricahua leopard frogs have tested is the Leslie Canyon NWR, and its ha) of private lands in the Galiuro positive for the disease from this unit. downstream limit is the crossing of Mountains, Graham County, Arizona. The only nonnative aquatic predator Leslie Canyon Road, an approximate This unit was occupied at the time of recorded in this unit is the barred tiger stream distance of 4,094 ft (1,248 m). listing and contains the features salamander. Chiricahua leopard frogs were present essential to the conservation of the Recovery work has occurred in this in this unit at the time of listing and are species (PCEs 1 and 2). unit, including head-starting of egg currently extant. This population is too Included in designated critical habitat masses and reestablishment and far (24.8 mi (36.7 km)) from the next are Home Ranch, Clifford’s, Vermont, augmentation of populations. The nearest breeding site, North Tank, to be and Middle Tanks, a series of 10 Service, AGFD, Arizona State Land part of a metapopulation. Hence it is impoundments on the Penney Mine Department, and an agate miner (Penney managed as an isolated population. lease, and intervening drainages, Mine Tanks) have drafted a Special management is required in primarily Deer Creek, and associated conservation plan for managing habitats this unit because drought and lack of uplands and ephemeral tanks that on the mine lease, but funds are lacking pools are limiting factors in this unit. provide corridors for movement among to implement that plan. Also, Chiricahua leopard frogs are these tanks. Breeding has been Oak Spring and Oak Creek Unit positive for chytridiomycosis at this confirmed on Deer Creek above site, and although they are persisting Clifford’s Tank, and in Home Ranch and This unit consists of 27 ac (11 ha) of with the disease, the population is not Vermont Tanks, and is suspected in the Federal lands in the Coronado National robust, and the effects of the disease other three sites named above when Forestin the Galiuro Mountains, Graham may be responsible in part. Bullfrogs water is present long enough for County, Arizona. occur in ponds to the east, but have tadpoles to metamorphose into adults (3 Occupancy status at the time of listing never been recorded in Leslie Creek. to 9 months). Home Ranch Tank was unknown. We consider this unit to The endangered plant Lilaeopsis supports a large population of have been unoccupied at the time of schaffneriana var. recurva (Huachuca Chiricahua leopard frogs. This unit listing for the purpose of this critical water-umbel), endangered Yaqui chub functions as a metapopulation. habitat designation. We have (Gila purpurea), and endangered Yaqui Intervening drainages include: (1) Deer determined this unit to be essential to topminnow (Poeciliopsis occidentalis Creek from a point where it exits a the conservation of the species because sonoriensis) all occur in Leslie Creek, canyon and turns abruptly to the east, this unit contains important breeding and the area is managed to conserve the upstream to its confluence with an sites necessary for recovery. It is just aquatic and riparian habitats of the unnamed drainage, upstream in that north of Deer Creek, but is too far (about canyon. While current management drainage to a confluence with four other 1.6 mi (2.6 km)) overland (via straight- prescriptions for the Yaqui fishes will drainages, upstream from that line distance) from the nearest aquatic benefit the Chiricahua leopard frog in confluence in the western drainage to sites (Home Ranch and Clifford’s Tanks) this area, additional actions may be Clifford’s Tank, upstream from that in that unit. Connectivity is further necessary to conserve and recover the confluence in the west-central drainage complicated by a ridgeline between Oak Chiricahua leopard frog in this area. A to an unnamed tank, then directly Spring and Home Ranch Tank. Hence, landowner adjacent to the the refuge has overland southeast to another unnamed this unit is managed as an isolated signed a safe harbor agreement for the tank, then downstream from that tank in population. Additionally, both PCEs 1 Chiricahua leopard frog and other an unnamed drainage to the and 2 are present in this unit. species. With future habitat renovations aforementioned confluence and This unit is currently occupied; and population reestablishments, there upstream in that unnamed drainage to a however, the site does not support is some potential for developing saddle, and downstream from that enough Chiricahua leopard frogs to be additional populations of Chiricahua saddle in an unnamed drainage to its considered a robust population. This leopard frogs in this area, which could confluence with an unnamed tributary unit is an approximate 1.06-mi (1.71- form a metapopulation with the Leslie to Gardner Canyon, and upstream in km) intermittent reach of an incised Canyon population. that unnamed tributary to Home Ranch canyon punctuated by pools of varying Tank; (2) from the largest of the Penney permanence, from Oak Spring Rosewood and North Tanks Unit Mine Tanks directly overland and downstream in Oak Creek to where a This was a proposed unit that southwest to an unnamed tank, and hiking trail intersects the creek. The includes 19 ac (8 ha) of private land and downstream from that tank in an largest pool, Cattail Pool, typically 78 ac (31 ha) of land owned by the unnamed drainage to the contains water and supports several Arizona State Land Department in the aforementioned confluence, to include breeding Chiricahua leopard frogs. The San Bernardino Valley, Cochise County, another unnamed tank situated in that stream reach designated for critical Arizona. For this final rule, we are drainage; (3) from Vermont Tank habitat includes the area where excluding all 97 ac (39 ha) of this unit directly overland and east to Deer Creek; Chiricahua leopard frogs occur.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:12 Mar 19, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20MRR2.SGM 20MRR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 16355

The primary threat in this unit is Tanks are filled with runoff. Neither Sycamore Canyon, and then extended periods of drought, which nonnative predators nor downstream in Sycamore Canyon to have caused all the pools to be subject chytridiomycosis has been noted in Sycamore Basin Tank; and (4) from to reduction or drying. Cattail Pool is these populations and habitats, although Buckskin Tank upstream in an unnamed spring-fed, and is likely the last pool to if introduced either would constitute an drainage to the top of that drainage, then dry. Oak Spring is also used for water additional threat. directly overland to an unnamed developments, which may limit the Recovery work, including drainage that contains Walt’s Tank. capability of the site to support frogs. headstarting of eggs collected from Special management is required in Chiricahua leopard frogs have been Tunnel Spring and establishment of a this unit because of nonnative species headstarted and released at this site to new population at Shaw Tank with and drought. Divide Tank, which is augment the population. reared tadpoles and frogs, has been adjacent to Highway 260, has supported nonnatives in the past and is a likely Dragoon Mountains Unit accomplished in this unit, and the U.S. Forest Service’s livestock permittee has place for future illegal stockings of This unit includes 74 ac (30 ha) of been a participant in those recovery nonnative predatory fish or bullfrogs. If Federal lands in the Coronado National activities. established, nonnatives could spread to Forest in Cochise County, Arizona. This sites designated in this rule as critical unit is designated as critical habitat Recovery Unit 5 (Mogollon Rim-Verde habitat. All of the tanks designated as because it was occupied at the time of River, Arizona) critical habitat are filled by runoff; listing and currently contains PCEs 1 Buckskin Hills Unit hence, they are vulnerable to drying and 2 to support life-history functions during drought. When the species was essential for the conservation of the This unit includes 232 ac (94 ha) of proposed for listing, the populations in species. Federal lands in the Coconino National the Buckskin Hills were unknown; Shaw Tank and Tunnel Spring in Forest in Yavapai County, Arizona. This however, during 2000–2001, frogs were Middlemarch Canyon are designated as unit is designated as critical habitat found at 11 sites. After a severe drought critical habitat in this unit and are because it was occupied at the time of in 2002, frogs only remained at currently occupied breeding sites. The listing and has the features essential to Sycamore Basin and Walt’s Tanks. latter is a robust population that was the conservation of the species (PCEs 1 Because the tanks depend on runoff, occupied at the time of listing. Shaw and 2). and as most tanks went dry in 2002, Tank is a reestablishment site that was Included in this designated critical protecting more than the minimum four not known to be occupied in 2002. habitat unit are six tanks occupied at the breeding sites needed for a Also included in the designated time of listing (Sycamore Basin, Middle, metapopulation is warranted. critical habitat is Halfmoon Tank, which Walt’s, Partnership, Black, and Chytridiomycosis has not been found in supported a robust population of Buckskin) that form a metapopulation. any frogs in the Buckskin Hills; Chiricahua leopard frogs until 2002. It is Frogs currently occur at Middle and however, the disease occurs in Arizona unknown whether this tank supported Walt’s Tanks. Also included in the treefrogs (Hyla wrightorum) and western Chiricahua leopard frogs at the time of critical habitat designation are two tanks chorus frogs (Pseudacris triseriata) less listing. PCE 1 at Halfmoon Tank has occupied in 2001 that probably dried than 10 mi (16 km) to the east, and frogs been compromised by siltation and during a drought in 2002: Doren’s Defeat collected from Walt’s Tank recent drought, which affects the and Needed Tanks. The former holds subsequently tested positive for the amount and persistence of water. The water well in years with average disease in captivity. It is unknown tank is in need of renovation so that it precipitation and is about 0.5 mi (0.8 whether they contracted the disease in may again dependably hold water and km) from Partnership Tank and 0.67 mi the wild or while captive. support breeding. (1.07 km) from Walt’s Tank. Needed Much recovery work has been Special management is required in Tank may not hold water long enough accomplished in this unit, including this unit because currently not enough for breeding, but it provides a habitat for captive rearing, population breeding sites exist to comprise a dispersing frogs. reestablishments, tank renovations, metapopulation (four are necessary) in This designated critical habitat also erosion control, fencing, and this unit. However, with additional includes drainages and uplands likely elimination of nonnative predators such habitat creation or renovation, a used as dispersal corridors among these as nonnative fish and crayfish. metapopulation may be possible, which tanks, including: (1) From Middle Tank is needed for this Recovery Unit (the downstream in Boulder Canyon to its Crouch, Gentry, and Cherry Creeks, and only other metapopulation in this confluence with an unnamed drainage Parallel Canyon Unit Recovery Unit is in Deer Creek). that comes in from the northwest, to This unit includes 334 ac (135 ha) of Also included in this critical habitat include Black Tank, then upstream in Federal lands in the Tonto National designation are intervening drainages that unnamed drainage to a saddle, to Forest, 64 ac (26 ha) of AGFD lands, and for connectivity, including Stronghold include Needed Tank, downstream from 6 ac (3 ha) of private lands in Gila Canyon from Halfmoon Tank to Cochise the saddle in an unnamed drainage to County, Arizona. This unit is designated Spring, then upstream in an unnamed its confluence with another unnamed as critical habitat because it was canyon to Shaw Tank, and continuing drainage, downstream in that drainage occupied at the time of listing and upstream to the headwaters of that to the confluence with an unnamed currently contains PCEs 1 and 2 to canyon, across a saddle and drainage, to include Walt’s Tank, and support life-history functions essential downstream in Middlemarch Canyon to upstream in that unnamed drainage to for the conservation of the species. Tunnel Spring. Partnership Tank; (2) from Doren’s Included as designated critical habitat Special management is also required Defeat Tank upstream in an unnamed are Trail Tank, HY Tank, Carroll Spring, in this unit because of scarcity of drainage to Partnership Tank; (3) from West Prong of Gentry Creek, Pine suitable breeding habitat and loss of that the confluence of an unnamed drainage Spring, and portions of Cherry and habitat during drought. Tunnel Spring is with Boulder Canyon west to a point Crouch Creeks, all of which provide spring-fed and thus buffered against where the drainage turns southwest, breeding or potential breeding habitat. drought; however, Shaw and Halfmoon then directly overland to the top of Also included are intervening drainages

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:12 Mar 19, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20MRR2.SGM 20MRR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 16356 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

and uplands needed for connectivity robust due to the small size of breeding contain the PCEs or have the potential among breeding sites, including: (1) habitats. We believe that Trail Tank may for developing the PCEs. Additional Cherry Creek from Rock Spring provide enough aquatic habitat for a exploration of the area, and likely some upstream to its confluence with an robust population. habitat renovation, will be needed to unnamed drainage, upstream in that secure a fourth site. Ellison and Lewis Creeks Unit drainage and across a saddle, then downstream in an unnamed drainage to This unit includes 83 ac (34) of Recovery Unit 6 (White Mountains- Trail Tank; (2) Crouch Creek from its Federal lands in the Tonto National Upper Gila, Arizona and New Mexico) headwaters just south of Highway 288 Forest and 15 ac (6 ha) of private lands Concho Bill and Deer Creek Unit downstream to an unnamed drainage in Gila County, Arizona. This unit includes 17 ac (7 ha) of leading to Pine Spring, to include Occupancy status at the time of listing Federal lands in the Apache-Sitgreaves Cunningham Spring and Carroll Spring, was unknown. We consider this unit to National Forest in Apache County, then upstream in that unnamed have been unoccupied at the time of Arizona. drainage from Crouch Creek to Pine listing for the purpose of this critical Occupancy status at the time of listing Spring; (3) from HY Tank downstream habitat designation. We have was unknown. We consider this unit to in an unnamed drainage to Cherry determined this unit to be essential to have been unoccupied at the time of Creek, to include Bottle Spring; (4) from the conservation of the species because listing for the purpose of this critical Cunningham Spring east across a low it contains important breeding habitat habitat designation. We have saddle to West Prong of Gentry Creek needed for recovery. Chiricahua leopard determined this unit to be essential to where the creek turns southwest; and (5) frogs have occasionally been found in from Bottle Spring south over a low Ellison Creek. In 1998, small numbers of the conservation of the species because saddle to the headwaters of Crouch frogs were observed, but were not seen it contains important breeding habitat Creek. again until 2006. Despite intensive necessary for recovery. This is an At the time of listing, Chiricahua surveys, no frogs were found in 2007 or isolated population that was established leopard frogs occurred in Crouch Creek, 2008. In 2009, egg masses from Crouch through captive breeding and Carroll Spring, HY Tank, Bottle Spring, Creek were headstarted, and tadpoles translocation of stock from Three Forks, and West Prong of Gentry Creek. Trail and subadult frogs were stocked at the which is also in Recovery Unit 6 in Tank has nearly permanent water and is four sites listed above as potential Arizona. Frogs were first released at the in the Parallel Canyon drainage, but breeding sites. Frogs from those releases spring pool in 2000; subsequent releases close to the divide with Cherry Creek. appeared to be persisting at all four sites have augmented the population. In May 2010, it was renovated to remove in 2010. Additional releases of Crouch Whether or not the frogs persisted after a breeding population of bullfrogs and Creek frogs occurred in July 2010. that initial release until the time of green sunfish. Additional follow-up Additionally, this unit contains both listing is unknown. The population is removal of bullfrogs occurred in July PCEs 1 and 2. small, and generally only a few frogs if 2010 and again in May 2011, after Included in this critical habitat any are detected during surveys. bullfrog tadpoles were rediscovered in proposal are potential breeding sites at Included in this critical habitat Trail Tank in the fall of 2010. Bullfrogs Moore Saddle Tank #2, Ellison Creek designation is a spring at Concho Bill at the nearby ephemeral unnamed 102 just east of Pyle Ranch, Lewis Creek and a meadow-ephemeral stream reach Roadside Tank were also eliminated in downstream of Pyle Ranch, and Low extending for approximately 2,667 ft 2010. Special management is required Tank. Intervening drainages that (813 m) below the spring. Additionally, in this unit because of bullfrogs. Once provide connectivity among the latter PCE 1 is present in this unit. bullfrogs are confirmed absent, plans three sites are also designated as critical The primary threat is the limited pool will move forward to translocate habitat as follows: (1) Unnamed habitat for breeding and overwintering, Chiricahua leopard frogs to Trail Tank. tributary to Ellison Creek from its which thus far has limited the size of Chiricahua leopard frogs were moved confluence with an unnamed drainage the population. Small populations are to Pine Spring in 2006, and habitat work downstream to Ellison Creek; (2) then subject to extirpation from random was accomplished there to improve pool directly west across the Ellison Creek variations in demographics of age habitats. However, no frogs were floodplain and over a low saddle to structure and sex ratio, and from disease observed during a site visit in May 2010. Lewis Creek below Pyle Ranch; (3) then and natural events (Service 2007, p. 38). The connectivity of Pine Spring to downstream in Lewis Creek to its In addition, crayfish are nearby in the Cunningham Spring and other sites confluence with an unnamed drainage; Black River and could invade this site. upstream in Crouch Creek is and (4) then upstream in that unnamed Campbell Blue and Coleman Creeks complicated by a waterfall below drainage to Low Tank. Unit Cunningham Spring; however, an Moore Saddle Tank #2 is about 0.8 mi overland route of less than a mile (1.3 km) overland from Low Tank. The unit includes 174 ac (70 ha) of provides access around the waterfall. Hence, it is within the one-mile Federal lands in the Apache-Sitgreaves Chiricahua leopard frogs were first overland distance for reasonable National Forest in Greenlee County, noted in Cherry Creek in 2008, just dispersal likelihood. However, there are Arizona. This unit is designated as before additional frogs were released four drainages that bisect that route, and critical habitat because it was occupied into that site. Reproduction has been it is likely that any Chiricahua leopard at the time of listing and currently noted, and Chiricahua leopard frogs frogs traversing those uplands would contains PCE 1 to support life-history were observed in Cherry Creek in 2010. move down or upstream in one of those functions essential for the conservation Special management is required in drainages rather than crossing them. As of the species. this unit because of predation by a result, Moore Saddle Tank #2 will be Included as critical habitat is an nonnative species, including bullfrogs, managed as an isolated and potentially approximate 2.04-mi (3.28-km) reach of crayfish, and sportfish; robust population, leaving the other Campbell Blue Creek from the western chytridiomycosis, which was found in a sites one short of the four needed to boundary of Luce Ranch upstream to the Cherry Creek frog in 2009; and scarcity form a metapopulation. However, no Coleman Creek confluence, and of water. None of the populations are other sites in the area are known that Coleman Creek from its confluence with

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:12 Mar 19, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20MRR2.SGM 20MRR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 16357

Campbell Blue Creek upstream to its New Mexico (1985) were found at from the east-northeast, then upstream confluence with Canyon Creek, an Tularosa Spring. The frogs were found in that drainage and across Rainy Mesa approximate stream distance of 1.04 mi at that site through 2005, but none have to Burro Tank. (1.68 km). been observed since. A robust Special management is required in This unit is too far from other known population was also present nearby at a this unit because populations have Chiricahua leopard frog populations to pond in a tributary to Kerr Canyon, in suffered from chytridiomycosis. A be considered part of a metapopulation. Kerr Canyon, and at Kerr Spring, but complex of tanks, springs, and streams The nearest population is about 12.2 mi experienced a die-off from in the Deep Creek Divide area was once (19.6 km) to the northwest in the chytridiomycosis in 2009; it is unknown a stronghold for the Chiricahua leopard Concho Bill and Deer Creek Unit. Frogs if frogs persist in those areas today. frog on the Gila National Forest. were observed in Campbell Blue and Chytridiomycosis is considered a However, most of those populations Coleman Creeks in 2002, and then again serious threat in this unit. contracted the disease, suffered die-offs, in 2010. No more than a few frogs were The designated critical habitat and disappeared. Chiricahua leopard seen during surveys (e.g., two were extends just below Hell Hole, but not frogs on the North Fork of Negrito Creek observed in 2010); however, the site is farther, because Chiricahua leopard were few in number and appeared sick difficult to survey with its complex frogs have not persisted below Hell Hole in 2008. Their possible absence in 2010 habitat characteristics, and frogs may since the 1980s, likely because the area may be a result of a disease-related die- easily elude observation. lacks the physical or biological features off. Special management is required in to support life-history functions. this unit because crayfish and rainbow Main Diamond Creek Unit trout are present throughout this stream Deep Creek Divide Area Unit This unit consists of 53 ac (21 ha) of system, which likely limit recruitment This unit consists of 408 ac (165 ha) Federal lands in the Gila National Forest of frogs. In 2010, the creeks had of Federal lands in the Gila National and along Main Diamond Creek numerous beaver (Castor canadensis) Forest and 102 ac (41 ha) of private downstream of Links Ranch, Catron ponds and vegetation cover that are lands in Catron County, New Mexico. County, New Mexico. This unit is probably important as protection from This unit is designated as critical habitat designated as critical habitat because it predators. Off-channel pools provide because it was occupied at the time of was occupied at the time of listing and better habitat than swiftly moving, listing and currently contains both PCEs currently contains PCE 1 to support life- shallow creeks. The presence of 1 and 2 to support life-history functions history functions essential for the chytridiomycosis has not been essential for the conservation of the conservation of the species. investigated in this unit. species. This site currently supports a robust Included as designated critical habitat population. Chiricahua leopard frogs Tularosa River Unit are three livestock tanks (Long Mesa, may occur periodically or regularly at This unit contains 335 ac (135 ha) of Cullum, and Burro Tanks) in the Deep an impoundment at Links Ranch, but Federal lands in the Gila National Forest Creek Divide area and connecting that impoundment also contains and 1,575 ac (637 ha) of private lands reaches of North and South Fork of bullfrogs and may have sportfish. This in Catron County, New Mexico. This Negrito Creek above their confluence. designated critical habitat includes an unit is designated as critical habitat Long Mesa Tank is currently occupied; approximate 3,980-ft (1,213-m), because it was occupied at the time of surveys in 2010 did not find frogs at perennial or nearly perennial reach of listing and currently contains both PCEs Cullum Tanks or the North Fork of Main Diamond Creek from the 1 and 2 to support life-history functions Negrito Creek, although Chiricahua downstream (western) boundary of essential for the conservation of the leopard frogs occupied these sites in Links Ranch downstream through a species. 2009. Frogs were last found in South meadow to the confluence of a drainage This unit is an approximate 19.3-mi Fork of Negrito Creek in 2006, and at that comes in from the south, which is (31.1-km) reach of the Tularosa River Burro Tank in 2002. Four also where the creek enters a canyon. from Tularosa Spring downstream to the impoundments on private lands along This population is about a 4.6-mi (7.4- entrance to the canyon below Hell Hole. South Fork of Negrito Creek have not km), straight-line distance over rugged Frogs were observed in this reach in been surveyed for frogs; however, it is terrain to the next nearest population at 2002, at the time of listing, and continue presumed they serve or once served as Beaver Creek. As a result, it is managed to persist. This unit is isolated from habitat for Chiricahua leopard frogs. as an isolated, robust population. other populations, but is a large system Long Mesa, Cullum, and Burro Tanks, Special management is required in potentially capable of supporting a and the South Fork of Negrito Creek, this unit because bullfrogs at the robust population. were occupied at the time of listing. impoundment likely prey upon Special management is required in Also included in this designated Chiricahua leopard frogs. Also, this unit because in 2009, small critical habitat are intervening drainages chytridiomycosis has not been found in numbers of frogs were found at two sites and uplands for movement among these this population, but is a potential threat. in the unit. The frogs may occur breeding sites as follows: (1) From Burro The creek is primarily privately owned, throughout this reach of the river, but Tank downstream in Burro Canyon to and the landowner’s future plans breeding is likely limited to isolated Negrito Creek, then upstream in Negrito regarding land management in the area localities where nonnative predators are Creek to the confluence of South Fork are unknown. rare or absent. Crayfish and rainbow and North Fork of Negrito Creek; (2) trout are present, and bullfrogs have from Long Mesa Tank overland and east Beaver Creek Unit recently been found downstream of the to Shotgun Canyon, then downstream in This unit consists of 132 ac (54 ha) of Apache Creek confluence and just that canyon to Cullum Tank; and (3) Federal lands in the Gila National Forest below Hell Hole. Both bullfrogs and from Cullum Tank downstream in and 25 ac (10 ha) of private lands near crayfish are relatively recent arrivals to Shotgun and Bull Basin Canyons to an Wall Lake, Catron County, New Mexico. this system. Chytridiomycosis is also unnamed drainage, then upstream in This unit is an approximate 5.59-mi present. The first Chiricahua leopard that drainage to its confluence with a (8.89-km) portion of Beaver Creek frogs to test positive for the disease in minor drainage coming off Rainy Mesa beginning at a warm spring and running

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:12 Mar 19, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20MRR2.SGM 20MRR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 16358 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

downstream to its confluence with observed (Service 2009a, p. 2). We This unit will be managed as an isolated Taylor Creek. Below that confluence, believe the population experienced a population because it is likely occupied the stream is known as the East Fork of mass mortality event or die-off from by low numbers of frogs and the nearest the Gila River. chytridiomycosis (Service 2009a, p. 2; known, robust breeding population Occupancy status at the time of listing Service 2009b, p. 1; Service 2009c, p. 1). occurs in the Main Diamond Creek Unit, was unknown. We consider this unit to Tiger salamanders have also recently which is more than 5 mi (8 km) away have been unoccupied at the time of been found in Kerr Canyon Pond along a perennial water course. Special listing for the purpose of this critical (Service 2009a, p. 2); however, the management is required in this unit habitat designation. We have abundance of these Chiricahua leopard because there may be some potential for determined this unit to be essential to frog predators is currently unknown. linking these populations if aquatic the conservation of the species because Partial surveys of Kerr Canyon Creek habitat between the units could be Beaver Creek could support a robust and Pond were conducted in 2010 and identified, renovated as needed, and population as it contains important 2011, with no Chiricahua leopard frogs populations of frogs established. breeding sites necessary for recovery. observed; however, the area is still However, potential sites and the The nearest known population of considered potentially occupied until presence or absence of PCE 2 in these Chiricahua leopard frogs is at Main more complete surveys can be connecting areas have not been Diamond Creek, approximately a 4.6-mi conducted to determine whether investigated in any detail. (7.4-km), straight-line distance away Chiricahua leopard frogs persist in the Also, special management is required over rugged terrain. As a result, this site area. because chytridiomycosis has been is managed as an isolated population. Kerr Canyon will be managed as an found on Chiricahua leopard frogs Additionally, PCE 1 is present in this isolated population, as it is currently within this unit. The Gila National unit. separated from other populations in Forest considers this unit to be free of Chiricahua leopard frogs are currently Tularosa Creek that are at least 6.5 mi nonnative predators. present; however, the population is not (10.4 km) away. As recently as 2007, well studied. The main threat in this Kerr Canyon supported a robust Recovery Unit 7 (Upper Gila-Blue River, unit is nonnative predators. Rainbow breeding population (Service 2007a, Arizona and New Mexico) trout, bass (Micropterus sp.), and p. 2). However, the current population Left Prong of Dix Creek Unit bullfrogs reportedly occur along Beaver status is greatly reduced from 2007 Creek with Chiricahua leopard frogs, numbers, or may possibly be extirpated. This unit contains 13 ac (5 ha) of although trout are limited to the cooler We suspect that observed declines in Federal lands in the Apache-Sitgreaves waters near the confluence with Taylor Chiricahua leopard frog abundance can National Forest in Greenlee County, Creek (Johnson and Smorynski 1998, be attributed to chytridiomycosis or Arizona. pp. 44–45). The mechanisms by which predation. Because of the disease and Occupancy status at the time of listing Chiricahua leopard frogs coexist with competition with nonnative species, we was unknown. We consider this unit to these nonnative predators are unknown. find that the essential features in this have been unoccupied at the time of However, habitat complexity and area may require special management listing for the purpose of this critical adequate cover are likely important considerations or protection. habitat designation. We have features that may need special determined this unit to be essential to management. Also, if chytridiomycosis West Fork Gila River Unit the conservation of the species because is present in this unit, the spring at the This unit contains 177 ac (72 ha) of it contains breeding habitat necessary upstream end of the unit is a warm Federal lands in the Gila National Forest for recovery. Additionally, this unit spring, which may help frogs survive in Catron County, New Mexico. This contains PCE 1. with the disease (Johnson and 7.0-mi (11.2-km) reach runs from This reach runs from a warm spring Smorynski 1998, p. 45; Service 2007, Turkeyfeather Spring, through an above ‘‘The Hole’’ and continues to the p. 26). intermittent drainage to the confluence confluence with the Right Prong of Dix with the West Fork Gila River, then Creek, an approximate stream distance Kerr Canyon Unit downstream in the West Fork Gila River of 4,248 ft (1,296 m). This population This unit contains 19 ac (8 ha) of to confluence with White Creek. Within was discovered in 2003; Chiricahua Federal lands in the Gila National Forest this unit, the Upper West Fork is leopard frogs were observed again in land and 6 ac (2 ha) of private land in divided into two perennial segments by 2005. In 2010, the warm spring was not Catron County, New Mexico. The 1.0-mi a 1.2-mi (2.0-km) long, ephemeral reach surveyed because a large boulder has (1.6-km) reach extends from Kerr between Turkeyfeather Creek and White lodged itself in the canyon, blocking Spring, located on the Gila National Creek. The area within this unit was access to the spring. In 2003, Chiricahua Forest, through an intermittent drainage occupied at the time of listing and leopard frogs were also reported from to Kerr Canyon Pond (sometimes currently contains PCE 1 to support life- below a warm spring in the Right Prong referred to as the Kerr Canyon Trick history functions essential for the of Dix Creek. However, surveys in 2010 Tank) to include the adjacent private conservation of the species. only found lowland leopard frogs. property in Kerr Canyon. This unit is The West Fork Gila River unit was Currently, the population in the Left designated as critical habitat because it occupied at the time of listing, and Prong is isolated. was occupied at the time of listing and Chiricahua leopard frogs are currently The next nearest known Chiricahua currently contains PCE 1 to support life- present. The species has been observed leopard frog population is at Rattlesnake history functions essential for the in West Fork Gila River since 1995, with Pasture Tank, about a 6.0-mi (9.6-km), conservation of the species. reproduction observed in 2001 (Blue straight-line distance over rough terrain. Our records indicate that this area Earth Ecological Consultants 2002, pp. A number of stock tanks have potential contained a robust breeding population 16–17; Service 2007, pp. B–64; Service to connect these two sites and form a of Chiricahua leopard frogs from 2002 2009, p. 15). The population is not well metapopulation; however, they have not through 2007 (Service 2008, pp. 1–2). studied; however, this section of the been investigated in enough detail to However, during surveys conducted in West Fork Gila River is long enough that understand whether PCEs are present or 2008 and 2009, few individuals were it could support a robust population. have the potential to be developed. No

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:12 Mar 19, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20MRR2.SGM 20MRR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 16359

Chiricahua leopard frogs have ever been #1 and 2, do not hold water for a long flow, sedimentation, and erosion in Coal found in these tanks. enough period to support a breeding Creek, which would degrade or This designated critical habitat population of frogs, and Chiricahua eliminate habitat for Chiricahua leopard overlaps that of critical habitat for Gila leopard frogs have not been found at frogs. Another primary threat is chub, which provides a level of these other tanks. The three tanks extended drought, during which the protection for this unit. A healthy designated could help support a aquatic habitats of the frog could be population of Gila chub, as well as other metapopulation; however, habitat work severely limited or could dry out native fish, occurs in the Left Prong of that secures water availability will be completely, resulting in extirpation of Dix Creek. A natural rock barrier about needed to achieve the fourth breeding this isolated population. a mile below the confluence of the Right site of the metapopulation. and Left Prongs serves as a barrier to The major threat in this unit is Blue Creek Unit upstream movement of nonnative fish nonnative predators, such as tiger This unit includes 24 ac (10 ha) of from the San Francisco River. The warm salamanders, that occur in all three Bureau of Land Management land and waters of the spring may allow tanks and likely prey upon Chiricahua 12 ac (5 ha) of private lands in Grant persistence of Chiricahua leopard frogs leopard frogs. However, a healthy County, New Mexico. This unit is if chytridiomycosis is present or if it population of Chiricahua leopard frogs designated as critical habitat because it colonizes this area in the future. A occurs with native Arizona tiger was occupied at the time of listing and rough dirt road crosses the left prong of salamanders at Rattlesnake Pasture currently contains PCE 1 to support life- Dix Creek in the designated critical Tank. Three juvenile to small adult history functions essential for the habitat unit. The major related threat is bullfrogs, which were likely immigrants conservation of the species. likely sediment flowing into the stream. from another site, were found at Included in this unit is an Rattlesnake Gap Tank in June 2010. Rattlesnake Pasture Tank and approximate 2.37-mi (3.81-km) reach of There is potential for bullfrogs to Associated Tanks Unit Blue Creek from adjacent to a corral on become established at Rattlesnake Gap private lands downstream to the This unit contains 59 ac (24 ha) of Tank. These tanks are filled by rainfall, confluence of a drainage that comes in Federal lands in the Apache-Sitgreaves but Rattlesnake Pasture Tank may be from the east. This is an area where National Forest in Greenlee County, spring-fed as well. Nonetheless, there is Chiricahua leopard frogs currently Arizona. some risk that these tanks, particularly breed. Additional habitat may occur Occupancy status at the time of listing Buckhorn Tank, could dry during an upstream on private or State lands. was unknown. We consider this unit to extended drought. However, the private reach immediately have been unoccupied at the time of above the designated critical habitat listing for the purpose of this critical Coal Creek Unit lacks breeding pools, and no Chiricahua habitat designation. We have This unit consists of 7 ac (3 ha) of leopard frogs have been observed determined this unit to be essential to Federal lands in the Apache-Sitgreaves (Barnitz 2010, p. 1). The lands upstream the conservation of the species because National Forest in Greenlee County, of the private land have not been it contains three tanks, along with Arizona. This is an approximate 3,447- surveyed. dispersal corridors, that could help ft (1,051-m) reach of Coal Creek from The nearest Chiricahua leopard frog support a metapopulation. Additionally, Highway 78 downstream to the population is at Coal Creek more than both PCEs 1 and 2 are present in this confluence with an unnamed drainage. a 22 mi (35 km), straight-line distance, unit. Occupancy status at the time of listing which is too great a distance to be Included in the designated critical was unknown. We consider this unit to considered part of a metapopulation. habitat are three stock tanks: Rattlesnake have been unoccupied at the time of Special management is required Pasture, Rattlesnake Gap, and Buckhorn. listing for the purpose of this critical because the primary limiting factors in Also included are intervening drainages habitat designation. We have this unit are lack of perennial flow and and uplands for connectivity, including: determined this unit to be essential to periodic scouring flash flooding during (1) From Rattlesnake Pasture Tank the conservation of the species because the summer that likely wash tadpoles downstream in an unnamed drainage to it contains important breeding habitat downstream. In some years, the entire Red Tank Canyon (including Buckhorn necessary for recovery. This creek dries reach goes dry in June; however, in Tank), then upstream in Red Tank to isolated pools, without the effect of other years with normal to above normal Canyon to Rattlesnake Gap Tank; and snowmelt and summer precipitation, precipitation, frogs breed throughout (2) from Rattlesnake Gap Tank upstream where Chiricahua leopard frogs take this reach. Nonnative aquatic predators in an unnamed drainage to its refuge. However, during the spring and are absent. Although a Chiricahua confluence with a minor drainage, then summer, Coal Creek typically carries leopard frog tested positive for upslope to a saddle, and across that water, and the Chiricahua leopard frogs chytridiomycosis in 2009, no die-offs saddle and directly downslope to distribute themselves throughout this have been noted. Also, special Rattlesnake Pasture Tank. reach. Additionally, this unit contains management is required because Chiricahua leopard frogs were PCE 1. wildfire could result in ash flow, discovered at Rattlesnake Pasture Tank This population was discovered in sedimentation, and erosion in Blue in 2003, and are currently extant. The 2003, and is still considered extant. This Creek, which would degrade or species has not been found at unit is isolated from other Chiricahua eliminate habitat for Chiricahua leopard Rattlesnake Gap or Buckhorn Tanks; leopard frog populations; the nearest is frogs. however, all three tanks are well Rattlesnake Pasture Tank, which is 5.1 connected via drainages to allow mi (8.2 km) to the west over rugged Recovery Unit 8 (Black-Mimbres-Rio movement of frogs from Rattlesnake terrain. Grande, New Mexico) Pasture Tank to the other tanks. Neither chytridiomycosis nor Rattlesnake Gap and Buckhorn Tanks nonnative predators is known to be a Seco Creek Unit have historically contained water. Other problem in this unit. However, one This unit includes 66 ac (27 ha) of tanks in the area, including Cold Spring major threat in this unit is the potential Federal lands in the Gila National Forest Mountain Tank and Rattlesnake Tanks for wildfires that could result in ash in Sierra County, New Mexico. This area

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:12 Mar 19, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20MRR2.SGM 20MRR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 16360 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

was occupied at the time of listing and wolf (Canis lupus baileyi), Bolson metapopulation. The nearest population currently contains both PCEs 1 and 2 to tortoise (Gopherus flavomarginatus), is Unit 38, 20.3 mi (32.5 km) to the support life-history functions essential Chiricahua leopard frog, black-tailed south-southeast. As a result, this site is for the conservation of the species. prairie dog (Cynomys ludovicianus), managed as an isolated, robust The designated critical habitat American bison (Bison bison), and Rio population. includes the North Fork of Seco Creek Grande cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus Alamosa Warm Springs is at the from Sawmill Well downstream to its clarki virginalis). Recovery actions for northeastern edge of the distribution of confluence with Middle Seco Creek, to the Chiricahua leopard frog have the Chiricahua leopard frog. This site is include Sucker Ledge, but excludes the included fencing some of the waters drought-resistant because of perennial portion of North Seco Creek on private from the bison, monitoring and spring flow. Nonnative aquatic lands. This amounts to an approximate researching Chiricahua leopard frog predators are unknown at this site, but drainage distance of 3.32 miles (5.34 populations and habitat, maintaining if introduced, they could pose a serious km). perennial water for frogs, improving threat to the population. Special Breeding of Chiricahua leopard frogs habitat for Chiricahua leopard frogs, management is required in this unit has not been observed at Sawmill or removing and controlling bullfrogs, because heavy livestock grazing on the Sucker Ledge, but has been observed at using steel rim tanks for refugia site and in the watershed, and a dirt Davis Well. At the time of listing, populations, and most recently road through the canyon, have degraded Chiricahua leopard frogs were extant at constructing a captive breeding facility the habitat for Chiricahua leopard frogs, Sucker Ledge and Davis Well, and the to rear Chiricahua leopard frogs for and flooding likely flushes tadpoles out status at Sawmill Well at that time was population augmentation and of the unit periodically (Christman unknown. The North Fork of Seco reestablishment to contribute to the 2006b, pp. 5–6). Creek, including Sawmill Well, Sucker range-wide recovery of the Chiricahua The endangered Alamosa springsnail Ledge, and Davis Well, is currently leopard frog. The Service has provided (Tryonia alamosae) occurs at Alamosa occupied. PCEs 1 and 2 are present in funding for the captive-breeding Warm Springs; its presence may provide the unit. program under the Partners for Fish and some additional level of protection to This unit contributes to a Wildlife Program and other granting Chiricahua leopard frog. The future land metapopulation, and Chiricahua leopard authorities. The Ladder Ranch management plans of the landowners frogs move among these sites and sites maintains captive-propagation facilities are unknown. on the Ladder Ranch using the for the Chiricahua leopard frog under a intervening creeks. This unit with the Cuchillo Negro Warm Springs and Creek section 10(a)(1)(A) enhancement of Unit areas on the Ladder Ranch comprises survival permit from the Service. Under the most stable metapopulation in New section 4(b)(2) of the Act, private lands This unit consists of 3 ac (1 ha) of Mexico. on the Ladder Ranch in this unit (310 Bureau of Land Management and 3 ac (1 Special management is required in ac (247 ha)) are excluded from critical ha) of New Mexico State lands in Sierra this unit because chytridiomycosis has habitat designation (see Application of County, New Mexico. This unit was caused extirpations in this region, and Section 4(b)(2) of the Act, below). occupied at the time of listing and in 2001, four tadpoles from Seco Creek currently contains both PCEs 1 and 2 to appeared to show signs of the disease. Alamosa Warm Springs Unit support life-history functions essential In June 2007, a single sample (out of This unit consists of 54 ac (22 ha) of for the conservation of the species. seven samples) from Artesia Well and a private, 25 ac (10 ha) of New Mexico Two springs on Bureau of Land single sample (out of nine samples) from State, and 0.2 ac (0.1 ha) of Bureau of Management land are the source of LM Bar Well tested positive for Land Management lands at the stream that runs for about 6.0 mi (9.6 chytridiomycosis. Both of these were headwaters of Alamosa Creek, Socorro km) down Cuchillo Negro Creek; considered ‘‘weak positive’’ by the County, New Mexico. This unit is however, Chiricahua leopard frogs are laboratory and may have been false designated as critical habitat because it rarely found more than 1.2 mi (2.0 km) positives. Extensive testing since then was occupied at the time of listing and downstream of the warm springs has failed to produce additional positive currently contains PCE 1 to support life- (Christman 2006a, p. 8). Critical habitat tests. Bullfrogs have been found history functions essential for the begins at the upper of the two springs occasionally on adjacent private lands, conservation of the species. and follows Cuchillo Negro Creek but the Ladder Ranch has made efforts Designated critical habitat includes an downstream to the confluence with an to remove and control them to the best approximate 4,974-ft (1,516-m) spring unnamed drainage that comes in from of their ability. Barred tiger salamanders run from the confluence of Wildhorse the snorth, excluding the portion of occur in most waters in the area and Canyon and Alamosa Creek downstream Cuchillo Negro Creek on privately likely prey upon Chiricahua leopard to the confluence with a drainage that owned lands, for an approximate stream frog tadpoles and small adults, but do comes in from the north, which is below distance of 2,518 feet (768 meters). not appear to threaten the Chiricahua the gauging station in Monticello Box. Special management is required in leopard frog population as a whole. This reach includes areas where frogs this unit because chytridiomycosis is Turner Endangered Species Fund, have been found as recent as 2006 present in this population, and it is Turner Enterprises, and the Ladder (Christman 2006b, p. 11). likely that Chiricahua leopard frogs Ranch have over a 10-year record of At its source, waters at Alamosa persist where the water is warm, but implementing recovery and Warm Springs range from 77 to 85 °F succumb to the disease in the cooler conservation measures for the (25.0 to 29.3 °C) (Christman 2006b, p. 3). waters downstream. Chiricahua leopard Chiricahua leopard frog on the Ladder Chytridiomycosis is present in this frogs currently persist in very low Ranch. The 156,439-acre Ladder Ranch population, but the Chiricahua leopard numbers in this unit. is owned by Turner Enterprises and is frogs persist, presumably aided by the PCE 1 is present in this unit; however, managed for its biodiversity. The Ladder warm waters. this site is too far from other Chiricahua Ranch has been an active participant in This is a robust breeding population, leopard frog populations to be the conservation of a number of rare and but it is too far removed from other considered part of a metapopulation. listed species, including the Mexican Chiricahua leopard frogs to be part of a The nearest population is Seco Creek,

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:12 Mar 19, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20MRR2.SGM 20MRR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 16361

about 12.7 mi (20.3 km) to the south- to its confluence with Bolton Canyon, at the bridge over the Mimbres River southwest. Hence, this population is and upstream in Bolton Canyon to the just west of San Lorenzo and continues managed as an isolated population. locally known Bolton Springs. downstream to where it exits the The Chiricahua leopard frogs coexist with Populations of Chiricahua leopard Nature Conservancy’s Disert parcel near plains leopard frogs at this site, and it frogs at Ash and Bolton Springs were Faywood. The two critical habitat is likely the plains leopard frogs present at the time of listing and reaches are largely perennial, although occasionally prey upon Chiricahua currently persist. These sites were once portions of the river dry out during leopard frog tadpoles and small frogs. part of a metapopulation, but all other drought. Chiricahua leopard frogs are Plains leopard frogs, however, probably sites have been extirpated. There may be currently present in both reaches of the do not threaten the Chiricahua leopard potential in the future to rebuild a Mimbres River. frog. Bullfrogs have been recorded in metapopulation through natural The best breeding site in the upper Cuchillo Negro Creek, but only rarely, recolonization or population reach is Moreno Spring, which harbors and do not appear to breed or persist in reestablishments, if threats can be a relatively stable population of the reach with the leopard frogs managed. Chiricahua leopard frogs. In the upper (Christman 2006a, p. 9). The lands are owned by Freeport- reach, Chiricahua leopard frogs have Special management is required in McMoRan Copper and Gold been observed to breed in the river and this unit because the primary threats in Subsidiaries as part of the Chino Copper at off-channel pools on nearby private this unit are cleaning out of the channel Mine, which is based in nearby Santa property. Breeding occurs in the lower by the Cuchillo Acequia Association, Rita and Hurley. In December 2008, river reach as well, where an additional periodic flooding that flushes tadpoles Freeport-McMoRan announced plans to robust population is present near San downstream and results in silts in pools, suspend mining and milling activities at Juan. and chytridiomycosis. The springs Chino. The majority of the work force Special management is required in located on Bureau of Land Management was laid off in 2009. To our knowledge, this unit because chytridiomycosis is land are the source of downstream no current plans exist to expand the present in this unit. However, frogs are irrigation water, and the Cuchillo mine into the area designated for critical persisting with the disease. Moreno Acequia Association has maintained habitat, and Freeport-McMoRan and its Spring is a warm spring that likely two trenches through the springs predecessor, Phelps-Dodge, have been provides some buffer against the effects reportedly to improve flow, although cooperative in conservation of the of the chytridiomycosis. Special that flow resulted in extensive damage Chiricahua leopard frog. management is also required in this unit to the springs, stream, and riparian Special management is required in because agricultural and rural vegetation (67 FR 40802; June 13, 2002). this unit because chytridiomycosis is a development, water diversions, The private landowner downstream is threat. Large numbers of dead frogs were groundwater pumping, and leveeing and the Ladder Ranch, and as described found at Ash Spring in 2007. However, bankline work to protect properties from above, the ranch is an active participant the frogs at Bolton Springs have shown flooding are threats. Periodic flooding in Chiricahua leopard frog recovery. no signs of disease. Both populations probably washes some tadpoles out of Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, the exist in small aquatic sites that cannot the system and results in silts in pools private lands in this unit (23 ac (9 ha)) sustain large populations; hence, they used for breeding. No bullfrogs or are excluded from critical habitat are also vulnerable to variations in crayfish have been found in this unit; if designation (see Application of Section environmental conditions and introduced, they could pose a 4(b)(2) of the Act, below). population demographics. significant threat. The threatened Chihuahua chub (Gila Ash and Bolton Springs Unit Mimbres River Unit nigrescens) occurs in the upper reach, This unit consists of 49 ac (20 ha) of This unit consists of 1,097 ac (444 ha) and rainbow trout, a nonnative species, private lands east of Hurley in Grant of private lands in Grant County, New occur throughout the areas where there County, New Mexico. This unit was Mexico. The unit was occupied at the is water. Both trout and chub likely prey occupied at the time of listing and time of listing and currently contains upon Chiricahua leopard frog tadpoles. currently contains both PCEs 1 and 2 to PCE 1 to support life-history functions Bear Canyon Reservoir in Bear Canyon support life-history functions essential essential for the conservation of the near the town of Mimbres reportedly for the conservation of the species. species. supports populations of channel catfish Included in this unit are Ash and The unit is divided into two disjunct (Ictalurus punctatus), black crappie Bolton Springs, and ephemeral or reaches of the Mimbres River that are (Pomoxis nigromaculatus), largemouth intermittent drainages and uplands separated by a 6.6-mi (10.6-km), bass, and bluegill (Lepomis needed for movement of frogs among intermittent reach. However, the two macrochirus), and rainbow trout these two breeding sites as follows: (1) reaches may be too far apart to (Johnson and Smorynski 1998, p. 132). From the spring box at Ash Spring reasonably expect frogs to move These species may escape from the downstream in a drainage to a dirt road between the two sites, and the next reservoir periodically into the Mimbres crossing; and (2) west and overland nearest Chiricahua leopard frog River. from the ruins of an old house below population is in the Ash and Bolton Presence of the Chihuahua chub may Ash Spring to a low saddle, then Springs Unit, more than 10 mi (16 km) provide some level of protection to the downslope into an unnamed drainage, away from the lower Mimbres River upper reach. In addition, The Nature and downstream in that drainage to its reach across rugged terrain. Conservancy owns the majority of the confluence with another unnamed Critical habitat in the upper Mimbres river in the upper reach (510 ac (206 drainage, downstream in that unnamed River includes an approximate 2.42-mi ha)) (not including Moreno Spring or drainage its confluence with another (3.89-km) reach that begins where the Milagros Ranch (formerly known as unnamed drainage, then upstream in river flows into The Nature Emory Oak Ranch)) and significant that unnamed drainage to the top of that Conservancy’s property and continues parcels in the lower reach. These lands, drainage and directly downslope and downstream to the confluence with Bear known as The Mimbres River Preseve, west to another unnamed drainage, Canyon. The approximate 5.82-mi (9.36- are managed for the benefit of the downstream in that unnamed drainage km) lower critical habitat reach begins Chihuahua chub, Chiricahua leopard

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:12 Mar 19, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20MRR2.SGM 20MRR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 16362 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

frog, and other riparian and aquatic Fish and Wildlife Service, 378 F. 3d (2) Can be implemented consistent resources, although no formal 1059 (9th Cir. 2004) and Sierra Club v. with the scope of the Federal agency’s conservation plan has been developed U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service et al., 245 legal authority and jurisdiction, for this area or its resources. Therefore, F.3d 434, 442 (5th Cir. 2001)), and we (3) Are economically and under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, private do not rely on this regulatory definition technologically feasible, and lands owned by The Nature when analyzing whether an action is (4) Would, in the Director’s opinion, Conservancy in this unit (510 ac (206 likely to destroy or adversely modify avoid the likelihood of jeopardizing the ha)) are not excluded from critical critical habitat. Under the statutory continued existence of the listed species habitat designation (see Application of provisions of the Act, we determine and/or avoid the likelihood of Section 4(b)(2) of the Act, below). destruction or adverse modification on destroying or adversely modifying the basis of whether, with South Fork Palomas Creek Unit critical habitat. implementation of the proposed Federal Reasonable and prudent alternatives This unit consists of 23 ac (9 ha) of action, the affected critical habitat can vary from slight project Federal lands in the Gila National Forest would continue to serve its intended modifications to extensive redesign or land in Sierra County, New Mexico. conservation role for the species. relocation of the project. Costs This 4.5-mi (7.3-km) reach of South If a Federal action may affect a listed associated with implementing a Fork Palomas Creek runs downstream species or its critical habitat, the reasonable and prudent alternative are from Wagonbed Canyon to the boundary responsible Federal agency (action similarly variable. with the Ladder Ranch. This unit was agency) must enter into consultation Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require occupied at the time of listing, is with us. Examples of actions that are Federal agencies to reinitiate currently occupied, and contains both subject to the section 7 consultation consultation on previously reviewed PCEs 1 and 2 to support life-history process are actions on State, Tribal, actions in instances where we have functions essential for the conservation local, or private lands that require a listed a new species or subsequently of the species. Special management is Federal permit (such as a permit from designated critical habitat that may be required in this unit to control bullfrogs. the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under affected and the Federal agency has Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, 106 section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 retained discretionary involvement or ac (43 ha) of private lands in this unit, U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or a permit from the control over the action (or the agency’s which are part of the Ladder Ranch, are Service under section 10 of the Act) or discretionary involvement or control is excluded from critical habitat that involve some other Federal action authorized by law). Consequently, designation (see Application of Section (such as funding from the Federal Federal agencies sometimes may need to 4(b)(2) of the Act, below). Management Highway Administration, Federal request reinitiation of consultation with for the Chiricahua leopard frog on the Aviation Administration, or the Federal us on actions for which formal Ladder Ranch included fencing the Emergency Management Agency). consultation has been completed, if ranch’s waters from bison that graze the Federal actions not affecting listed those actions with discretionary area, reestablishing of populations using species or critical habitat, and actions involvement or control may affect wild-to-wild translocations, maintaining on State, Tribal, local, or private lands subsequently listed species or of wells and tanks, and controlling that are not federally funded or designated critical habitat. bullfrogs. The Ladder Ranch also authorized, do not require section 7 monitors the Chiricahua leopard frogs consultation. Application of the ‘‘Adverse and habitats, and has recently initiated As a result of section 7 consultation, Modification’’ Standard a captive-breeding facility and program we document compliance with the The key factor related to the adverse to rear frogs for population requirements of section 7(a)(2) through modification determination is whether, augmentation and reestablishment. our issuance of: with implementation of the proposed Effects of Critical Habitat Designation (1) A concurrence letter for Federal Federal action, the affected critical actions that may affect, but are not habitat would continue to serve its Section 7 Consultation likely to adversely affect, listed species intended conservation role for the Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires or critical habitat; or species. Activities that may destroy or Federal agencies, including the Service, (2) A biological opinion for Federal adversely modify critical habitat are to ensure that any action they fund, actions that may affect, or are likely to those that alter the physical or authorize, or carry out is not likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical biological features to an extent that jeopardize the continued existence of habitat. appreciably reduces the conservation any endangered species or threatened When we issue a biological opinion value of critical habitat for Chiricahua species or result in the destruction or concluding that a project is likely to leopard frogs. As discussed above, the adverse modification of designated jeopardize the continued existence of a role of critical habitat is to support life- critical habitat of such species. In listed species and/or destroy or history needs of the species and provide addition, section 7(a)(4) of the Act adversely modify critical habitat, we for the conservation of the species. requires Federal agencies to confer with provide reasonable and prudent Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us the Service on any agency action which alternatives to the project, if any are to briefly evaluate and describe, in any is likely to jeopardize the continued identifiable, that would avoid the proposed or final regulation that existence of any species proposed to be likelihood of jeopardy and/or designates critical habitat, activities listed under the Act or result in the destruction or adverse modification of involving a Federal action that may destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. We define ‘‘reasonable destroy or adversely modify such proposed critical habitat. and prudent alternatives’’ (at 50 CFR habitat, or that may be affected by such Decisions by the 5th and 9th Circuit 402.02) as alternative actions identified designation. Courts of Appeals have invalidated our during consultation that: Activities that, when carried out, regulatory definition of ‘‘destruction or (1) Can be implemented in a manner funded, or authorized by a Federal adverse modification’’ (50 CFR 402.02) consistent with the intended purpose of agency, may affect critical habitat and (see Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. U.S. the action, therefore should result in consultation

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:12 Mar 19, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20MRR2.SGM 20MRR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 16363

for the Chiricahua leopard frog include, movements. However, in some cases, limited to: Clearing of riparian or but are not limited to: increasing permanence can be wetland vegetation; saltcedar (Tamarix (1) Actions that would significantly detrimental as well, in that it could sp.) control; road, bridge, or canal increase sediment deposition or create favorable habitat for predatory construction; urban development; scouring within the stream channel or fish, bullfrogs, tiger salamanders, or conversion of river bottomlands to pond that acts as a breeding site or a crayfish that otherwise could not exist agriculture; stream or drainage movement corridor among breeding in the system. Such activities that could channelization; and levee or dike sites in a metapopulation. Such cause these effects include, but are not construction. In some cases, thinning of activities could include, but are not limited to, water diversions, very dense vegetation, such as cattails, limited to: Excessive sedimentation groundwater pumping, watershed which can completely take over an from livestock grazing; road degredation, construction or destruction aquatic site, can be beneficial to the frog construction; commercial or urban of dams or impoundments, and its habitat. However, in most cases, development; channel alteration; timber developments or ‘improvements’ at a vegetation clearing or removal, or harvest; prescribed fires; off-road spring, channelization, dredging, road blocking access to uplands adjacent to vehicle or recreational use; and other and bridge construction, and breeding sites, will reduce the quality of alterations of watersheds and destruction of riparian or wetland foraging and basking habitat, and may floodplains. These activities could vegetation. increase the likelihood of successful adversely affect the potential for frogs to (4) Actions that would directly or predation because cover has been survive or breed at a breeding site, and indirectly result in introduction of removed. reduce the likelihood that frogs could nonnative predators, increase the We note that the above activities may move among subpopulations in a abundance of extant predators, or adversely affect critical habitat. As metapopulation, which in turn would introduce disease (particularly stated previously, an activity adversely decrease the viability of the chytridiomycosis). Possible actions affecting critical habitat must be of a metapopulation and its component local could include, but are not limited to: severity or intensity that the PCEs are populations. Introduction or stocking of fish, compromised to the extent that the (2) Actions that would alter water bullfrogs, crayfish, tiger salamanders, or critical habitat can no longer meet its chemistry beyond the tolerance limits of other predators on the Chiricahua intended conservation function before a the Chiricahua leopard frog (see leopard frog; creating or sustaining a destruction or adverse modification discussion above, Primary Constituent sport fishery that encourages use of live determination is reached. Within the Elements for the Chiricahua Leopard fish, crayfish, tiger salamanders, or frogs context of the goals and purposes of the Frog). Such activities could include, but as bait; water diversions, canals, or recovery strategy in the species’ are not limited to: Release of chemicals, other water conveyance that move water recovery plan, an activity that biological pollutants, or effluents into from one place to another and through compromises the PCEs to the point that the surface water or into connected which inadvertent transport of predators one or more of the recovery criteria groundwater at a point source or by into Chiricahua leopard frog habitat may could not be achieved or would be very dispersed release (non-point source); occur; and movement of water, mud, difficult to achieve in one or more livestock grazing that results in waters wet equipment, or vehicles from one Recovery Units would deteriorate the heavily polluted by feces; runoff from aquatic site to another, through which value of critical habitat to the point that agricultural fields; roadside use of salts; inadvertent transport of its conservation function could not be aerial persticide overspray; runoff from chytridiomycosis may occur. met. mine tailings or other mining activities; (5) Actions and structures that would and ash flow and fire retardants from physically block movement among Exemptions fires and fire suppression. These actions breeding sites in a metapopulation. Application of Section 4(a)(3) of the Act could adversely affect the ability of the Such actions and structures include, but habitat to support survival and are not limited to: Urban, industrial, or The Sikes Act Improvement Act of reproduction of Chiricahua leopard agricultural development; reservoirs 1997 (Sikes Act) (16 U.S.C. 670a) frogs at breeding sites. Variances in that are 50 ac (20 ha) or more in size and required each military installation that water chemistry or temperature could stocked with predatory fish, bullfrogs, includes land and water suitable for the also affect the frog’s ability to survive or crayfish; highways that do not conservation and management of with chytridiomycosis. include frog fencing and culverts; and natural resources to complete an (3) Actions that would alter the water walls, dams, fences, canals, or other integrated natural resources quantity or permanence of a breeding structures that physically block management plan (INRMP) by site or dispersal corridor. If the movement. These actions and structures November 17, 2001. An INRMP permanence of an aquatic system could reduce or eliminate immigration integrates implementation of the declines so that it regularly dries up for and emigration among breeding sites in military mission of the installation with more than 1 month each year, it will a metapopulation, reducing the viability stewardship of the natural resources lose its ability to support breeding of the metapopulation and its found on the base. Each INRMP Chiricahua leopard frogs. If the quantity subpopulations. includes: of water declines, it may reduce the (6) Actions that would remove or (1) An assessment of the ecological likelihood that the site will support a block access to riparian vegetation and needs on the installation, including the population of Chiricahua leopard frogs banklines within 20 ft (6.1 m) of the need to provide for the conservation of that is robust enough to be viable over high water line of breeding ponds or to listed species; time. Similarly, ephemeral, intermittent, the upland edge of the wetland and (2) A statement of goals and priorities; or perennial ponds can be important riparian vegetation community lining (3) A detailed description of stop-over points for Chiricahua leopard breeding sites, whichever is greatest, or management actions to be implemented frogs moving among breeding sites in a that would reduce vegetation in to provide for these ecological needs; metapopulation. Reducing the movement corridors among breeding and permanence of these sites may reduce sites in a metapopulation. Such (4) A monitoring and adaptive their ability to facilitate frog activities could include, but are not management plan.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:12 Mar 19, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20MRR2.SGM 20MRR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 16364 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

Among other things, each INRMP outweigh the benefits of inclusion, the conservation can benefit both must, to the extent appropriate and Secretary may exercise his discretion to landowners and wildlife, and that we applicable, provide for fish and wildlife exclude the area only if such exclusion can achieve greater species conservation management; fish and wildlife habitat would not result in the extinction of the on non-Federal land through such enhancement or modification; wetland species. partnerships than we can through protection, enhancement, and When identifying the benefits of regulatory methods (61 FR 63854; restoration where necessary to support inclusion for an area, we consider the December 2, 1996). For the Chiricahua fish and wildlife; and enforcement of additional regulatory benefits that area leopard frog, we have often used the applicable natural resource laws. would receive from the protection from Service’s Partners for Fish and Wildlife The National Defense Authorization adverse modification or destruction as a grant program to work with non-Federal Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Pub. L. 108– result of actions with a Federal nexus; partners on recovery projects for this 136) amended the Act to limit areas the educational benefits of mapping species. This grant program requires a eligible for designation as critical essential habitat for recovery of the commitment from the participating habitat. Specifically, section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) listed species; and any benefits that may landowner to maintain the of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) result from a designation due to State or improvements funded by the program now provides: ‘‘The Secretary shall not Federal laws that may apply to critical for 10 years. We have also worked with designate as critical habitat any lands or habitat. private landowners on Chiricahua other geographical areas owned or When identifying the benefits of leopard frog conservation via safe controlled by the Department of exclusion, we consider, among other harbor Agreements in Arizona and Defense, or designated for its use, that things, whether exclusion of a specific southwestern New Mexico, a are subject to an integrated natural area is likely to result in conservation; conservation agreement for the Ramsey resources management plan prepared the continuation, strengthening, or Canyon (= Chiricahua) leopard frog that under section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 encouragement of partnerships; protects frogs and their habitats on U.S.C. 670a), if the Secretary determines implementation of a management plan private and public lands in the in writing that such plan provides a that provides equal to or more Huachuca Mountains of Arizona, and an benefit to the species for which critical conservation than a critical habitat HCP in southeastern Arizona and habitat is proposed for designation.’’ designation would provide; or a southwestern New Mexico. There are no Department of Defense combination of these. When we evaluate the existence of a lands with a completed INRMP within In the case of the Chiricahua leopard conservation plan when considering the the critical habitat designation. frog, the benefits of critical habitat benefits of exclusion, we consider a Therefore, we are not exempting lands include public awareness of Chiricahua variety of factors, including, but not from this final designation of critical leopard frog presence and the limited to, whether the plan is finalized; habitat for the Chiricahua leopard frog importance of habitat protection, and in how it provides for the conservation of under section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act. cases where a Federal nexus exists, the essential physical or biological increased habitat protection for features; whether there is a reasonable Exclusions Chiricahua leopard frogs due to the expectation that the conservation protection from adverse modification or Application of Section 4(b)(2) of the Act management strategies and actions destruction of critical habitat. The contained in a management plan will be Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that majority of Chiricahua leopard frog implemented into the future; whether the Secretary must designate and revise habitat and localities are on Federal the conservation strategies in the plan critical habitat on the basis of the best lands, mostly lands managed by the U.S. are likely to be effective; and whether available scientific data after taking into Forest Service; however, key aquatic the plan contains a monitoring program consideration the economic impact, sites are sometimes on non-Federal or adaptive management to ensure that national security impact, and any other lands. the conservation measures are effective relevant impact of specifying any Building partnerships and promoting and can be adapted in the future in particular area as critical habitat. The voluntary cooperation of landowners are response to new information. Secretary may exclude an area from essential to understanding the status of After evaluating the benefits of critical habitat if he determines that the species on non-Federal lands, and inclusion and the benefits of exclusion, benefits of such exclusion outweigh the necessary for implementing recovery we carefully weigh the two sides to benefits of specifying such area as part actions, such as reestablishing listed determine whether the benefits of of the critical habitat, unless he species and restoring and protecting exclusion outweigh those of inclusion. determines, based on the best scientific habitat. Many non-Federal landowners If we determine that they do, we then data available, that the failure to derive satisfaction from contributing to determine whether exclusion would designate such area as critical habitat endangered species recovery. We strive result in extinction. If exclusion of an will result in the extinction of the to promote these private-sector efforts area from critical habitat will result in species. In making that determination, through the Department of the Interior’s extinction, we will not exclude that area the legislative history is clear that the Cooperative Conservation philosophy. from the designation. Secretary has broad discretion regarding Conservation agreements with non- Based on the information provided by which factor(s) to use and how much Federal landowners (HCPs, safe harbor entities seeking exclusion, as well as weight to give to any factor. agreements, other conservation any additional public comments we In considering whether to exclude a agreements, easements, and State and received, we evaluated whether certain particular area from the designation, we local regulations) enhance species lands in the proposed critical habitat must identify the benefits of including conservation by extending species were appropriate for exclusion from this the area in the designation, identify the protections beyond those available final designation under section 4(b)(2) benefits of excluding the area from the through section 7(a)(2) consultations. In of the Act. We are excluding the designation, and determine whether the the past decade and a half, we have following areas from critical habitat benefits of exclusion outweigh the encouraged non-Federal landowners to designation for the Chiricahua leopard benefits of inclusion. If the analysis enter into conservation agreements, frog. Table 3 below provides indicates that the benefits of exclusion based on our philosophy that voluntary approximate areas (ac, ha) of lands that

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:12 Mar 19, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20MRR2.SGM 20MRR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 16365

meet the definition of critical habitat but of the Act from the final critical habitat are being excluded under section 4(b)(2) rule.

TABLE 3—AREAS EXCLUDED FROM CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION BY CRITICAL HABITAT UNIT

Area meeting the definition of critical Exclusion Unit Specific area to be excluded habitat in the unit in acres (acres (hectares)) (hectares)

Pasture 9 Tank Unit ...... Entire Pasture 9 Tank Unit ...... 0.5 (0.2) 0.5 (0.2) Beatty’s Guest Ranch Unit ...... Entire Beatty’s Guest Ranch ...... 10 (4) 10 (4) Ramsey and Brown Canyons Unit ...... Ramsey Canyon Preserve ...... 123 (50) 16 (6) Peloncillo Mountains Unit ...... Canoncito Ranch ...... 655 (265) 289 (117) Cave Creek Unit ...... Southwestern Research Station ...... 326 (132) 92 (37) Rosewood and North Tanks Unit ...... Entire Rosewood and North Tanks ...... 97 (39) 97 (39) Seco Creek Unit ...... Ladder Ranch ...... 676 (274) 610 (247) Cuchillo Negro Warm Springs and Creek Unit ..... Ladder Ranch ...... 29 (11) 23 (9) South Fork Palomas Creek Unit ...... Ladder Ranch ...... 129 (52) 106 (43)

Totals ...... 1,916 (775) 1,243 (503)

We are excluding these areas because costs incurred regardless of whether or Chiricahua leopard frog conservation we believe that: not critical habitat is designated. The efforts associated with the following (1) Their value for conservation will ‘‘with critical habitat’’ scenario categories of activity: be preserved for the foreseeable future describes the incremental impacts (1) Livestock grazing: Includes by existing protective actions, or associated specifically with the draining stock tanks, damage to (2) They are appropriate for exclusion designation of critical habitat for the shoreline habitat, disease transmission, under the ‘‘other relevant factor’’ species. The incremental conservation and changes to water quality due to provisions of section 4(b)(2) of the Act. efforts and associated impacts are those intense livestock use. not expected to occur absent the (2) Mining: Includes mining Exclusions Based on Economic Impacts designation of critical habitat for the operations and associated mining- Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we species. In other words, the incremental related contaminants and runoff. consider the economic impacts of costs are those attributable solely to the (3) Water diversion and management: specifying any particular area as critical designation of critical habitat above and Includes groundwater pumping habitat. In order to consider economic beyond the baseline costs; these are the (lowering of the water table), impacts, we prepared a draft economic costs we consider in the final agricultural development, and analysis of the proposed critical habitat designation of critical habitat. The operations of dams and diversions. (4) Residential and commercial designation and related factors analysis looks retrospectively at development and transportation: (Industrial Economics 2011). The draft baseline impacts incurred since the Includes sedimentation and runoff species was listed, and forecasts both analysis, dated September 15, 2011, was associated with construction, as well as baseline and incremental impacts likely made available for public review and stream channelization and loss of to occur with the designation of critical comment from September 21, 2011, riparian or wetland vegetation. through October 21, 2011 (76 FR 58441). habitat. (5) Fires and fire suppression Following the close of the comment The FEA also addresses how potential activities: Includes ash flow and fire period, a final analysis (dated December economic impacts are likely to be retardants from fires and fire 9, 2011) of the potential economic distributed, including an assessment of suppression activities. effects of the designation was developed any local or regional impacts of habitat (6) Nonnative native species taking into consideration the public conservation and the potential effects of introductions and disease: Includes comments and any new information conservation activities on government saltcedar control, stocking of nonnative (Industrial Economics 2011). agencies, private businesses, and fish, bullfrogs, or crayfish; and disease The intent of the final economic individuals. The FEA measures lost transmission. analysis (FEA) is to quantify the economic efficiency associated with The FEA estimates that no significant economic impacts of all potential residential and commercial economic impacts are likely to result conservation efforts for the Chiricahua development and public projects and from the designation of critical habitat. leopard frog; some of these costs will activities, such as economic impacts on Incremental costs are limited to likely be incurred regardless of whether water management and transportation administrative efforts of new and or not we designate critical habitat projects, Federal lands, small entities, reinitiated consultations to consider (baseline). The economic impact of the and the energy industry. Decision- adverse modification of critical habitat final critical habitat designation is makers can use this information to for the Chiricahua leopard frog. A analyzed by comparing scenarios both assess whether the effects of the significant level of baseline protection ‘‘with critical habitat’’ and ‘‘without designation might unduly burden a exists for the Chiricahua leopard frog, critical habitat.’’ The ‘‘without critical particular group or economic sector. addressing a broad range of habitat habitat’’ scenario represents the baseline Finally, the FEA considers economic threats. Nearly all units have some level for the analysis, considering protections impacts to activities from 2012 of conservation, with 59 percent of already in place for the species (e.g., (expected year of final critical habitat proposed critical habitat on federally under the Federal listing and other designation) through 2031 (Industrial owned land and a number of Federal, State, and local regulations). Economics 2011, p. 2–18). The FEA conservation easements and safe harbor The baseline, therefore, represents the quantifies economic impacts of agreements on privately owned land.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:12 Mar 19, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20MRR2.SGM 20MRR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 16366 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

However, the FEA does foresee (1) The plan is finalized, complete, Malpai Borderlands Safe Harbor additional administrative costs and provides the same or better level of Agreement associated with the designation of protection from adverse modification or The Malpai Borderlands Safe Harbor critical habitat. In total, incremental destruction than that provided through Agreement specifies the primary administrative efforts are estimated at a consultation under section 7 of the biological objective of establishing and $1,300,000, or $115,000 on an Act; managing metapopulations of annualized basis (discounted at 7 (2) There is a reasonable expectation Chiricahua leopard frogs on enrolled percent). that the conservation management properties that currently include 289 ac In conclusion, no significant strategies and actions will be effective (117 ha) of lands on the Canoncito economic impacts are likely to result and implemented for the foreseeable Ranch and 97 ac (39 ha) on the Magoffin from the designation of critical habitat, future, based on past practices, written Ranch in southeastern Arizona and guidance, or regulations; and incremental costs are limited to southwestern New Mexico. The Malpai (3) The plan provides conservation administrative efforts of new and Borderlands Safe Harbor Agreement reinitiated consultations to consider strategies and measures consistent with currently accepted principles of provides for management for existing adverse modification of critical habitat. populations of Chiricahua leopard frogs As a result, no areas are being excluded conservation biology that provide for the conservation of the essential and establishment of new populations from the final designation based on a through reestablishment and disproportionate economic impact to physical or biological features of habitat; and translocations, which are expected to any entity or sector. A copy of the FEA (4) The plan contains a monitoring increase the distribution and numbers of with supporting documents may be program or adaptive management to Chiricahua leopard frogs on private obtained by contacting the Arizona ensure that the conservation measures lands. The metapopulations created and Ecological Services Field Office (see are effective and can be adapted in the managed under the Malpai Borderlands ADDRESSES) or by downloading from the future in response to new information. Safe Harbor Agreement will be based on Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. We believe that the Malpai ‘‘primary sites’’ (sites that reliably hold Exclusions Based on National Security Borderlands HCP, Malpai Borderlands surface water or retain moisture year- Impacts Safe Harbor Agreement, AGFD Safe round in all years) and ‘‘secondary Harbor Agreement, and our partnership sites’’ that facilitate the metapopulation Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we with the Laddder Ranch fulfill the above dynamic, but may dry one out of every consider whether there are lands owned criteria, and we are excluding non- 2 years on average. The Malpai or managed by the Department of Federal lands managed in accordance Borderlands Safe Harbor Agreement also Defense (DOD) where a national security with these tenants that provide for the calls for special management of regional impact might exist. In preparing this conservation of the Chiricahua leopard dispersal habitat between potentially rule, we have determined that the lands frog. occupied habitats on neighboring land, within the designation of critical habitat Two umbrella safe harbor agreements, such as the San Bernardino National for the Chiricahua leopard frog are not the Malpai Borderlands Safe Harbor Wildlife Refuge. owned or managed by DOD, and we Agreement and the AGFD Safe Harbor There are several management actions therefore anticipate no impact to Agreement, under which individual that provide direct or indirect national security. We are not excluding landowners can enroll their lands by conservation benefit to Chiricahau any lands based on impacts to national signing a Certificate of Inclusion, have leopard frogs under the Malpai security. been completed for Arizona and Borderlands Safe Harbor Agreement. Examples include: (1) Specific Exclusions Based on Other Relevant southwestern New Mexico. Under the considerations for stock tank Impacts Certificates of Inclusion, landowners commit to certain conservation actions. construction and maintainance that Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we These agreements have, in some cases, benefit the Chiricahua leopard frog consider any other relevant impacts, in facilitated habitat improvements and (construction of double-tanks, refugia addition to economic impacts and translocations of Chiricahua leopard sites at single tank systems, fencing, impacts to national security. We frogs to private lands to establish new deepening, well drilling, installing consider a number of factors including populations. Under section 4(b)(2) of the pipelines, etc.); (2) managing livestock whether the landowners have developed Act, we assessed the appropriateness of operations in a manner that specifically any HCPs or other management plans exclusions from critical habitat for non- minimizes potential adverse effects to for the area, or whether there are Federal lands in designated critical Chiricahua leopard frog populations to conservation partnerships that would be habitat units that are enrolled under the maximum extent practicable; (3) encouraged by designation of, or either the AGFD Safe Harbor Agreement avoiding intentional or accidental exclusion from, critical habitat. In or the Malpai Borderlands Safe Harbor release of nonnative species to enrolled addition, we look at any Tribal issues, Agreement. We believe that these lands, as well as maintaining vigilance and consider the government-to- agreements fulfill the above criteria, and against third parties releasing government relationship of the United are excluding non-Federal lands nonnatives, reporting observations of States with Tribal entities. We also managed in accordance with these nonnatives, and controlling nonnatives; consider any social impacts that might tenants that provide for the conservation and (4) implementing measures to occur because of the designation. of the Chiricahua leopard frog. We also ensure that prescribed fire, herbicide considered exclusions for non-Federal treatments, and other land treatments Land and Resource Management Plans, lands that are protected by conservation are conducted in a manner that Conservation Plans, or Agreements easements, conservation agreements, or promotes the long-term maintenance of Based on Conservation Partnerships other forms of protective management habitat characteristics essential to We consider a current plan or that benefit the Chiricahua leopard frog Chiricahua leopard frog populations. agreement to provide adequate and its habitats. Specific units excluded For specific details of conservation management or protection if it meets the from this critical habitat designation are activities implemented under the following criteria: discussed and described below. Malpai Borderlands Safe Harbor

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:12 Mar 19, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20MRR2.SGM 20MRR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 16367

Agreement, please see Malpai Federal nexus and may affect critical threatened in 2002, the development Borderlands Group (2004, pp. 10–24). habitat, would undergo consultation. and implementation of the final Such a project might be a section 404 recovery plan in 2007, and other Benefits of Inclusion—Malpai permit under the Clean Water Act from interactions concerning Chiricahua Borderlands Safe Harbor Agreement the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, for leopard frog conservation and recovery. The principle benefit of including an example. In such instances, critical area in a critical habitat designation is habitat designation on these private Benefits of Exclusion—Malpai the requirement of Federal agencies to lands would provide an additional Borderlands Safe Harbor Agreement ensure that actions that they fund, regulatory benefit to the conservation of We believe the following benefits authorize, or carry out are not likely to the Chiricahua leopard frog by would be realized by forgoing result in the destruction or adverse prohibiting adverse modification of designation of critical habitat for the modification of any designated critical habitat essential for the conservation of Chiricahua leopard frog on lands habitat, which is the regulatory standard this species. managed under the tenets of the Malpai of section 7(a)(2) of the Act under which Another possible benefit of including Borderlands Safe Harbor Agreement. consultation is completed. Federal lands in critical habitat is public These benefits chiefly include allowing agencies must consult with the Service education regarding the potential for continued meaningful collaboration on actions that may affect critical conservation value of an area that may and effective working partnerships with habitat and must avoid destroying, or help focus conservation efforts on areas private landowners to promote adversely modifying, critical habitat. of high conservation value for certain conservation of the Chiricahua leopard Federal agencies must also consult with species. Any information about the frog and its habitat. us on actions that may affect a listed Chiricahua leopard frog and its habitat We have detailed above a history of species, and refrain from undertaking that reaches a wide audience, including proactive collaboration and partnerships actions that are likely to jeopardize the parties engaged in conservation in the conservation and recovery of the continued existence of such species. activities, is valuable. The inclusion of Chiricahua leopard frog with numerous The analysis of effects to critical habitat lands in the Chiricahua leopard frog private partners since the species’ is a separate and different analysis from critical habitat designation that are listing in 2002, and in some examples, that of the effects to the species. managed under the tenets of the Malpai several years prior. These partners Therefore, the difference in outcomes of Borderlands Safe Harbor Agreement include the Nature Conservancy, the these two analyses represents the could be beneficial to the species Ladder Ranch, the Magoffin Ranch, the regulatory benefit of critical habitat. For because the critical habitat designation Beatty Guest Ranch, the Southwestern some species (including the Chiricahua specifically identifies lands essential to Research Station, the San Rafael Ranch, leopard frog), and in some locations, the the conservation of the species and and the Canoncito Ranch. These outcome of these analyses will be special management considerations or partners have demonstrated, as similar, because effects to habitat will protection. The process of proposing evidenced by a detailed list of specific often also result in effects to the species. critical habitat provided an opportunity activities above, a commitment to However, the regulatory standard is for peer review and public comment on Chiricahua leopard frog conservation different, as the jeopardy analysis habitat we determined meets the and recovery on their private lands. investigates the action’s impact to definition of critical habitat. This Indirectly and in addition, these private survival and recovery of the species, process is valuable to landowners and while the adverse modification analysis managers in prioritizing conservation landowners serve as ambassadors for investigates the action’s effects to the and management of identified areas. Chiricahua leopard frog conservation designated habitat’s contribution to Information on the Chiricahua leopard and recovery in their respective conservation. This will, in many frog and its habitat has also been communities or areas, a valuable asset instances, lead to different results and provided to the public in the past in today’s often controversial challenge different regulatory requirements. Thus, through meetings; educational materials of listed species conservation and critical habitat designations may and outreach provided by the local, recovery. provide greater benefits to the recovery State, and Federal jurisdictions; and Therefore, excluding these lands from of a species than would listing alone. general partnerships, coordination, and critical habitat provides the significant Critical habitat may provide a regulatory collaboration with stakeholders in benefit of maintaining and benefit for the Chiricahua leopard frog implementing Chiricahua leopard frog strengthening our existing conservation when there is a Federal nexus present recovery programs. In general, we partnership and fostering new Federal- for a project that might adversely believe the designation of critical private partnerships. Through modify critical habitat. habitat for the Chiricahua leopard frog management under the Malpai The consultation provisions under will provide additional information for Borderlands Safe Harbor Agreement, section 7(a) of the Act constitute the the public concerning the importance of private landowners who are enrolled are regulatory benefits of designating lands essential habitat that has not already committed to management and provide as critical habitat. As discussed above, been available. specific protection for the Chiricahua Federal agencies must consult with us In summary, we believe that leopard frog and for the physical or on actions that may affect critical educational benefits are likely realized biological features essential to the habitat and must avoid destroying or when any information about the conservation of the species. In most adversely modifying critical habitat. Chiricahua leopard frog and its habitat respects, these management Critical habitat may provide a regulatory reaches a wide audience. The prescriptions are equal to or better than benefit for the Chiricahua leopard frog educational benefits of critical habitat what the designation of critical habitat when there is a Federal nexus present designation on lands managed under the would provide. Exclusion of these for a project that might adversely tenets of the Malpai Borderlands Safe private lands from critical habitat will modify critical habitat. With respect to Harbor Agreement may not be help preserve these important the Malpai Borderlands Safe Harbor significant due to extensive past partnerships and will also foster future Agreement, we expect any projects that outreach, ongoing conservation efforts, partnerships and conservation of the occur on private lands, and that have a the listing of Chiricahua leopard frog as Chiricahua leopard frog.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:12 Mar 19, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20MRR2.SGM 20MRR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 16368 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the relationships with the conservation assurances to landowners who do not Benefits of Inclusion—Malpai community, including these private participate directly in the conservation Borderlands Safe Harbor Agreement landowners, to further the conservation program established under this The benefits of excluding these of the Chiricahua leopard frog and other Agreement, but may desire regulatory private lands from critical habitat endangered and threatened species. assurances due to their proximity to outweigh the benefits of inclusion, Therefore, in consideration of the program participants or other lands based on the conservation-based relevant impact to our relationship with harboring Chiricahua leopard frogs management tenets under the Malpai these private landowners and other (AGFD 2006, p. 1). The Pasture 9 Tank, Borderlands Safe Harbor Agreement, current and future conservation Beatty’s Guest Ranch, Ramsey and which have facilitated the specific partnerships, we determined the Brown Canyons, and Cave Creek Units projects summarized above. Activities benefits of exclusion outweigh the discussed in the proposed rule (76 FR on these lands will follow the mitigation benefits of inclusion in critical habitat 14126) are all managed under AGFD designation for these lands. Safe Harbor Agreement. strategy or promote site-specific The AGFD Safe harbor Agreement conservation goals and objectives Exclusion Will Not Result in Extinction requires several required conservation (whichever is applicable) and will be of the Species—Malpai Borderlands measures for enrollees, including managed into the future for the benefit Safe Harbor Agreement special instructions and precautions for: of the Chiricahua leopard frog. We determined that the exclusion of (1) Constructing or maintaining stock We reviewed and evaluated the approximately 386 ac (156 ha) of habitat tanks; (2) managing livestock operations benefits of inclusion and the benefits of from this final designation of critical in a manner that specifically minimizes exclusion of lands identified for habitat for the Chiricahua leopard frog potential adverse effects to Chiricahua exclusion that are managed under the under the Malpai Borderlands Safe leopard frog populations to the tenets of the Malpai Borderlands Safe Harbor Agreement will not result in maximum extent practicable; (3) Harbor Agreement as critical habitat for extinction of the species. Lands committing to avoid intentionally or the Chiricahua leopard frog. Including managed under the tenets of the Malpai accidentally releasing nonnative species these private lands in the critical habitat Borderlands Safe Harbor Agreement to enrolled lands, as well as maintaining designation for the Chiricahua leopard provide protection and long-term vigilance against third parties releasing frog will provide little additional management of lands that meet the nonnatives, reporting observations of regulatory protection under section 7(a) definition of critical habitat for the nonnatives, and controlling nonnatives; of the Act when there is a Federal Chiricahua leopard frog through site- and (4) implementing measures to nexus, and educational benefits of specific habitat management and ensure that prescribed fire, herbicide designation will be redundant with improvement projects. Additionally, the treatments, and other land treatments those achieved through listing and our jeopardy standard of section 7 of the Act are conducted in a manner that cooperative efforts working with these for the Chiricahua leopard frog provides promotes the long-term maintenance of private landowners to conserve the assurances that the species will not go habitat characteristics essential to Chiricahua leopard frog and the extinct as a result of exclusion from Chiricahua leopard frog populations physical or biological features essential critical habitat designation. The that are extant in enrolled properties. to the conservation of the species. We consultation requirements of section Numerous conservation activities are recognize there may be some ancillary 7(a)(2) and the attendant requirement to suggested, although not mandatory, in benefit from other laws such as NEPA avoid jeopardy to the Chiricahua the AGFD Safe Harbor Agreement (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)resulting from leopard frog for projects with a Federal including Chiricahua leopard frog designating these areas as critical nexus will provide significant translocation, construction of a double habitat; however, we consider these protection to the species. Therefore, tank system, construction of small possible benefits to be marginal based on the above discussion, the refugia sites at single tank systems, considering the potential adverse Secretary is exercising his discretion to fencing, deepening of pools, well impact that critical habitat designation exclude approximately 289 ac (117 ha) drilling, pipelines, removal of nonnative could have on our partnership with of habitat in the Peloncillo Mountains aquatic predators from otherwise these private landowners. We believe Unit and the entire 97 ac (39 ha) in the suitable sites, maintenance of existing past and future coordination with these Rosewood and North Tanks Unit from habitat conditions, enhancement of private landowners will continue to this final critical habitat designation. dispersal corridors, enhancement of provide sufficient education regarding stream and cienega habitats, and AGFD Safe Harbor Agreement the Chiricahua leopard frog habitat vegetation enhancement. For specific conservation needs on their lands, and The AGFD (Statewide) Safe Harbor details of conservation activities therefore educational benefits for these Agreement was finalized in 2006. The implemented under the AGFD Safe areas are small. purpose of the AGFD’s Safe Harbor Harbor Agreement, please see AGFD The benefits of excluding these Agreement is to (1) to establish a (2006, pp. 16–18, 22–24). private lands from critical habitat are program for the conservation of the significant. Exclusion of these lands Chiricahua leopard frog (Rana Benefits of Inclusion—AGFD Safe from critical habitat will help preserve chiricahuensis) on private and other Harbor Agreement the partnership we have developed and non-Federal lands in Arizona; (2) to The principle benefit of including an reinforce those we are building with provide regulatory assurances to area in a critical habitat designation is other private landowners, and foster voluntary participants that their the requirement of Federal agencies to future partnerships and development of conservation efforts will not result in ensure that actions that they fund, management plans. We received required or imposed additional authorize, or carry out are not likely to numerous comments during the public conservation measures or additional result in the destruction or adverse comment period emphasizing that land, water or resource use restrictions modification of any designated critical designation of critical habitat on these beyond those agreed to at the time of habitat, which is the regulatory standard lands should not occur. We are enrollment and in the original of section 7(a)(2) of the Act under which committed to fostering working Agreement; and (3) to provide similar consultation is completed. Federal

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:12 Mar 19, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20MRR2.SGM 20MRR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 16369

agencies must consult with the Service conservation value of an area that may meaningful collaboration and effective on actions that may affect critical help focus conservation efforts on areas working partnerships with private habitat and must avoid destroying, or of high conservation value for certain landowners to promote conservation of adversely modifying, critical habitat. species. Any information about the the Chiricahua leopard frog and its Federal agencies must also consult with Chiricahua leopard frog and its habitat habitat. us on actions that may affect a listed that reaches a wide audience, including We have detailed above a history of species, and refrain from undertaking parties engaged in conservation proactive collaboration and partnerships actions that are likely to jeopardize the activities, is valuable. The inclusion of in the conservation and recovery of the continued existence of such species. lands in the Chiricahua leopard frog Chiricahua leopard frog with numerous The analysis of effects to critical habitat critical habitat designation that are private partners since the species’ is a separate and different analysis from managed under the tenets of the AGFD listing in 2002, and in some examples, that of the effects to the species. Safe Harbor Agreement could be several years prior. These partners Therefore, the difference in outcomes of beneficial to the species because the include the Nature Conservancy, the these two analyses represents the critical habitat designation specifically Ladder Ranch, the Magoffin Ranch, the regulatory benefit of critical habitat. For identifies lands essential to the Beatty Guest Ranch, the Southwestern some species (including the Chiricahua conservation of the species and special Research Station, the San Rafael Ranch, leopard frog), and in some locations, the management considerations or and the Canoncito Ranch. These outcome of these analyses will be protection. The process of proposing partners have demonstrated, as similar, because effects to habitat will critical habitat provided an opportunity evidenced by a detailed list of specific often also result in effects to the species. for peer review and public comment on activities above, a commitment to However, the regulatory standard is habitat we determined meets the Chiricahua leopard frog conservation different, as the jeopardy analysis definition of critical habitat. This and recovery on their private lands. investigates the action’s impact to process is valuable to landowners and Indirectly and in addition, these private survival and recovery of the species, managers in prioritizing conservation landowners serve as ambassadors for while the adverse modification analysis and management of identified areas. Chiricahua leopard frog conservation investigates the action’s effects to the Information on the Chiricahua leopard and recovery in their respective designated habitat’s contribution to frog and its habitat has also been communities or areas, a valuable asset conservation. This will, in many provided to the public in the past in today’s often controversial challenge instances, lead to different results and through meetings; educational materials of listed species conservation and different regulatory requirements. Thus, and outreach provided by the local, recovery. critical habitat designations may State, and Federal jurisdictions; and Therefore, excluding these lands from provide greater benefits to the recovery through general partnerships, critical habitat provides the significant of a species than would listing alone. coordination, and collaboration with benefit of maintaining and Critical habitat may provide a regulatory stakeholders in implementing strengthening our existing conservation benefit for the Chiricahua leopard frog Chiricahua leopard frog recovery partnership and fostering new Federal- when there is a Federal nexus present programs. In general, we believe the private partnerships. Through for a project that might adversely designation of critical habitat for the management under the AGFD Safe modify critical habitat. Chiricahua leopard frog will provide Harbor Agreement, these private The consultation provisions under additional information for the public landowners are committed to section 7(a) of the Act constitute the concerning the importance of essential management that provides specific regulatory benefits of designating lands habitat that has not already been protection for the Chiricahua leopard as critical habitat. As discussed above, available. frog and for the physical or biological Federal agencies must consult with us In summary, we believe that features essential to the conservation of on actions that may affect critical educational benefits are likely realized the species. In most respects, these habitat and must avoid destroying or when any information about the management prescriptions are equal to adversely modifying critical habitat. Chiricahua leopard frog and its habitat or better than what the designation of Critical habitat may provide a regulatory reaches a wide audience. The critical habitat will provide. Exclusion benefit for the Chiricahua leopard frog educational benefits of critical habitat of these private lands from critical when there is a Federal nexus present designation on lands managed under the habitat would help preserve these for a project that might adversely tenets of the AGFD Safe Harbor important partnerships and will also modify critical habitat. With respect to Agreement may not be significant due to foster future partnerships and the AGFD Safe Harbor Agreement, we extensive past outreach, ongoing conservation of the Chiricahua leopard expect any projects that occur on private conservation efforts, the listing of frog. lands, have a Federal nexus, and may Chiricahua leopard frog as threatened in Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the affect critical habitat would undergo 2002, the development and Benefits of Inclusion—AGFD Safe consultation. Such a project might be a implementation of the final recovery Harbor Agreement section 404 permit under the Clean plan in 2007, and other interactions Water Act from the U.S. Army Corps of concerning Chiricahua leopard frog The benefits of excluding these Engineers, for example. In such conservation and recovery. private lands from critical habitat instances, critical habitat designation on outweigh the benefits of inclusion, Benefits of Exclusion—AGFD Safe these private lands would provide an based on the conservation-based additional regulatory benefit to the Harbor Agreement management tenets under the AGFD conservation of the Chiricahua leopard We believe the following benefits Safe Harbor Agreement which have frog by prohibiting adverse modification would be realized by forgoing facilitated the specific projects of habitat essential for the conservation designation of critical habitat for the summarized above. Activities on these of this species. Chiricahua leopard frog on lands lands will follow the mitigation strategy Another possible benefit of including managed under the tenets of the AGFD or promote site-specific conservation lands in critical habitat is public Safe Harbor Agreement. These benefits goals and objectives (whichever is education regarding the potential chiefly include allowing for continued applicable) and will be managed into

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:12 Mar 19, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20MRR2.SGM 20MRR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 16370 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

the future for the benefit of the Exclusion Will Not Result in Extinction leopard frog is built on the foundation Chiricahua leopard frog. of the Species—AGFD Safe Harbor of a robust wild population that inhabits We reviewed and evaluated the Agreement the Seco Creek drainage on the Ladder benefits of inclusion and the benefits of We determined that the exclusion of Ranch, which is the largest Chiricahua leopard frog population in New Mexico. exclusion of lands identified for approximately 118 ac (48 ha) of habitat This metapopulation’s persistence exclusion that are managed under the from this final designation of critical habitat for the Chiricahua leopard frog depends not only on natural tenets of the AGFD Safe Harbor intermittent and ephemeral stream Agreement as critical habitat for the under the AGFD Safe Harbor Agreement will not result in extinction of the habitat and steel and earthen stock tanks Chiricahua leopard frog. Including these within the drainage, but also on species. Lands managed under the private lands in the critical habitat dedicated water management by the tenets of the AGFD Safe Harbor designation for the Chiricahua leopard ranch. The Ladder Ranch staff have Agreement provide protection and long- frog will provide little additional implemented several conservation term management of lands that meet the regulatory protection under section 7(a) actions that have assisted in securing definition of critical habitat for the of the Act when there is a Federal the Seco Creek metapopulation, Chiricahua leopard frog through site- nexus, and educational benefits of including maintaining and improving specific habitat management and designation will be redundant with pond habitat, erecting livestock and improvement projects. Additionally, the wildlife exclosure fences to prevent those achieved through listing and our jeopardy standard of section 7 of the Act cooperative efforts working with these trampling and overgrazing at earthen for the Chiricahua leopard frog provides ponds, and installing permanent fencing private landowners to conserve the assurances that the species will not go Chiricahua leopard frog and the at Johnson, Fish, LM Bar, Pague, and extinct as a result of exclusion from North Seco Wells. physical or biological features essential critical habitat designation. The to the conservation of the species. We The Ladder Ranch has already consultation requirements of section conducted much conservation work for recognize there may be some ancillary 7(a)(2) and the attendant requirement to the Chiricahua leopard frog, such as benefit from other laws such as NEPA avoid jeopardy to the Chiricahua habitat improvements, securing resulting from designating these areas as leopard frog for projects with a Federal permanent water sources for occupied critical habitat; however, we consider nexus will provide significant habitat, captive propagation- these possible benefits to be marginal protection to the species. Therefore, headstarting-release, radio telemetry considering the potential adverse based on the above discussion, the research, disease testing, and annual impact that critical habitat designation Secretary is exercising his discretion to monitoring of both captive and wild could have on our partnership with exclude approximately 118 ac (48 ha) of populations. A captive facility these private landowners. We believe habitat in the Pasture 9 Tank, Beatty’s (ranarium) was also built to house frogs past and future coordination with these Guest Ranch, Ramsey and Brown from both on- and off-ranch populations private landowners will continue to Canyons, and Cave Creek Units from for the purposes of captive breeding for provide sufficient education regarding this final critical habitat designation. augmentation and restoring offspring to the Chiricahua leopard frog habitat Ladder Ranch Chiricahua Leopard Frog the wild. The Ladder Ranch staff has conservation needs on their lands, and Conservation Partnership modified several steel water tanks that therefore educational benefits for these are part of the stock water infrastructure The Ladder Ranch Chiricahua areas are small. to serve as secure captive refugia sites Leopard Frog Conservation Partnership for Chiricahua leopard frogs. The benefits of excluding these includes staff from the Turner As part of the Ladder Ranch’s private lands from critical habitat are Endangered Species Fund, Turner conservation strategy for the Chiricahua significant. Exclusion of these lands Ranch Properties, and the Ladder Ranch leopard frog, they hope to restore robust from critical habitat will help preserve Biodiversity Division in partnership populations in unoccupied drainages the partnership we have developed and with the Service and the New Mexico that contain suitable habitat. To reinforce those we are building with Department of Game and Fish. The accomplish this goal, the Ladder Ranch other private landowners, and foster Ladder Ranch is a 155,553-ac (62,950- will: (1) Protect remaining populations future partnerships and development of ha) private ranch in Sierra County, New of Chiricahua leopard frogs on the management plans. We received Mexico, whose management ranch; (2) identify, protect, restore, or numerous comments during the public incorporates the Seco Creek, Cuchillo create as needed, currently unoccupied comment period emphasizing that Negro Warm Springs and Creek, and the recovery sites necessary to support designation of critical habitat on these South Fork Palomas Creek critical viable populations and metapopulations lands should not occur. We are habitat units. The Ladder Ranch of Chiricahua leopard frogs; (3) establish committed to fostering working provides conservation for the new or re-establish former populations relationships with the conservation Chiricahua leopard frog based on the at selected recovery sites; (4) augment tenets of the recovery plan with four community, including these private populations on the ranch as needed to main objectives: (1) Maintain wild landowners, to further the conservation increase persistence; (5) monitor Chiricahua leopard frog populations on Chiricahua leopard frog populations and of the Chiricahua leopard frog and other the Ladder Ranch; (2) develop applied their habitats and the implementation endangered and threatened species. research that will inform conservation activities on-site outlined the recovery Therefore, in consideration of the management; (3) maintain a captive plan; (6) implement research needed to relevant impact to our relationship with refugia system for Chiricahua leopard support recovery actions and adaptive these private landowners and other frog populations located elsewhere, off- management; (7) develop cooperative current and future conservation ranch; and (4) use captive breeding to conservation projects, such as a Safe partnerships, we determined the contribute towards rangewide recovery Harbor Agreement; (8) develop and benefits of exclusion outweigh the of the species. amend management planning on the benefits of inclusion in critical habitat The strategy underlying the Ladder ranch as needed to implement recovery designation for these lands. Ranch’s conservation for the Chiricahua actions; and (9) practice adaptive

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:12 Mar 19, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20MRR2.SGM 20MRR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 16371

management in which recovery tasks are modify critical habitat. With respect to leopard frog as threatened in 2002, the revised by the Service in coordination the Service’s partnership with the development and implementation of the with the Chiricahua Leopard Frog Ladder Ranch, we expect any projects final recovery plan in 2007, and other Recovery Team as pertinent new that occur on the ranch that have a interactions concerning Chiricahua information becomes available. Federal nexus and may affect critical leopard frog conservation and recovery. habitat would undergo consultation. Benefits of Inclusion—Ladder Ranch Benefits of Exclusion—Ladder Ranch Such a project might be a section 404 Chiricahua Leopard Frog Conservation Chiricahua Leopard Frog Conservation permit under the Clean Water Act from Partnership Partnership the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, for The principle benefit of including an example. In such instances, critical We believe the following benefits area in a critical habitat designation is habitat designation on the ranch would would be realized by forgoing the requirement of Federal agencies to provide an additional regulatory benefit designation of critical habitat for the ensure that actions that they fund, to the conservation of the Chiricahua Chiricahua leopard frog on the Ladder authorize, or carry out are not likely to leopard frog by prohibiting adverse Ranch. The primary benefit includes result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat essential for the allowing for continued collaboration modification of any designated critical conservation of this species. and effective working partnership habitat, which is the regulatory standard Another possible benefit of including between the Service and the Ladder of section 7(a)(2) of the Act under which lands in critical habitat is public Ranch to promote conservation of the consultation is completed. Federal education regarding the potential Chiricahua leopard frog and its habitat. agencies must consult with the Service conservation value of an area that may Based on our partnership with the on actions that may affect critical help focus conservation efforts on areas Ladder Ranch and the number of habitat and must avoid destroying, or of high conservation value for certain conservation activities the ranch has adversely modifying, critical habitat. species. Any information about the implemented for the conservation of the Federal agencies must also consult with Chiricahua leopard frog and its habitat Chiricahua leopard frog, excluding land us on actions that may affect a listed that reaches a wide audience, including on the ranch from critical habitat species, and refrain from undertaking parties engaged in conservation provides the significant benefit of actions that are likely to jeopardize the activities, is valuable. The inclusion of maintaining and strengthening our continued existence of such species. lands in the Chiricahua leopard frog existing conservation partnership and The analysis of effects to critical habitat critical habitat designation that are fostering new Federal-private is a separate and different analysis from managed under the Ladder Ranch could partnerships with other landowners. that of the effects to the species. be beneficial to the species because the The Ladder Ranch is committed to Therefore, the difference in outcomes of critical habitat designation specifically providing protection for the Chiricahua these two analyses represents the identifies lands essential to the leopard frog. In most respects, the regulatory benefit of critical habitat. For conservation of the species and special management activities conducted by the some species (including the Chiricahua management considerations or Ladder Ranch are equal to or better than leopard frog), and in some locations, the protection. The process of proposing what the designation of critical habitat outcome of these analyses will be critical habitat provided an opportunity would provide. Exclusion of this private similar, because effects to habitat will for peer review and public comment on land from critical habitat would help often also result in effects to the species. habitat we determined meets the preserve this important partnership and However, the regulatory standard is definition of critical habitat. This will also foster future partnerships and different, as the jeopardy analysis process is valuable to landowners and conservation of the Chiricahua leopard investigates the action’s impact to managers in prioritizing conservation frog. survival and recovery of the species, and management of identified areas. Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the while the adverse modification analysis Information on the Chiricahua leopard Benefits of Inclusion—Ladder Ranch investigates the action’s effects to the frog and its habitat has also been Chiricahua Leopard Frog Conservation designated habitat’s contribution to provided to the public in the past Partnership conservation. This will, in many through meetings; educational materials instances, lead to different results and and outreach provided by the local, The benefits of excluding lands different regulatory requirements. Thus, State, and Federal jurisdictions; and owned and managed by the Ladder critical habitat designations may general partnerships, coordination, and Ranch from critical habitat outweigh the provide greater benefits to the recovery collaboration with stakeholders in benefits of inclusion, based on our of a species than would listing alone. implementing Chiricahua leopard frog conservation-based partnership with the Critical habitat may provide a regulatory recovery programs. In general, we ranch. Our partnership with the Ladder benefit for the Chiricahua leopard frog believe the designation of critical Ranch promotes site-specific when there is a Federal nexus present habitat for the Chiricahua leopard frog conservation goals and objectives for the for a project that might adversely will provide additional information for benefit of the Chiricahua leopard frog. modify critical habitat. the public concerning the importance of We reviewed and evaluated the The consultation provisions under essential habitat that has not already benefits of inclusion and the benefits of section 7(a) of the Act constitute the been available. exclusion of lands identified for regulatory benefits of designating lands In summary, we believe that exclusion on the Ladder Ranch. as critical habitat. As discussed above, educational benefits are likely realized Including this private land in the Federal agencies must consult with us when any information about the critical habitat designation for the on actions that may affect critical Chiricahua leopard frog and its habitat Chiricahua leopard frog will provide habitat and must avoid destroying or reaches a wide audience. The little additional regulatory protection adversely modifying critical habitat. educational benefits of critical habitat under section 7(a) of the Act when there Critical habitat may provide a regulatory designation on the Ladder Ranch may is a Federal nexus, and educational benefit for the Chiricahua leopard frog not be significant due to extensive past benefits of designation will be when there is a Federal nexus present outreach, ongoing conservation efforts redundant with those achieved through for a project that might adversely by the ranch, the listing of Chiricahua listing and our cooperative efforts

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:12 Mar 19, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20MRR2.SGM 20MRR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 16372 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

working with this private landowner to Required Determinations manufacturing and mining concerns conserve the Chiricahua leopard frog with fewer than 500 employees, Regulatory Planning and Review— and the physical or biological features wholesale trade entities with fewer than Executive Order 12866 essential to the conservation of the 100 employees, retail and service species. We consider the possible The Office of Management and Budget businesses with less than $5 million in benefits of including the Ladder Ranch (OMB) has determined that this rule is annual sales, general and heavy in critical habitat designation to be not significant and has not reviewed construction businesses with less than marginal considering the potential this rule under Executive Order 12866 $27.5 million in annual business, adverse impact that critical habitat (Regulatory Planning and Review). OMB special trade contractors doing less than designation could have on our bases its determination upon the $11.5 million in annual business, and partnership with the private landowner. following four criteria: agricultural businesses with annual We believe past and future coordination (1) Whether the rule will have an sales less than $750,000. To determine with this private landowner will annual effect of $100 million or more on if potential economic impacts on these continue to provide sufficient education the economy or adversely affect an small entities are significant, we regarding the Chiricahua leopard frog economic sector, productivity, jobs, the consider the types of activities that habitat conservation needs on their environment, or other units of the might trigger regulatory impacts under lands, and therefore educational government. this rule, as well as the types of project benefits for these areas are small. (2) Whether the rule will create modifications that may result. In The benefits of excluding the Ladder inconsistencies with other Federal general, the term ‘‘significant economic Ranch from critical habitat based on our agencies’ actions. impact’’ is meant to apply to a typical conservation partnership are significant. (3) Whether the rule will materially small business firm’s business Exclusion of the ranch from critical affect entitlements, grants, user fees, operations. habitat will help preserve the loan programs or the rights and To determine if the rule could partnership we have developed and obligations of their recipients. significantly affect a substantial number reinforce those we are building with (4) Whether the rule raises novel legal of small entities, we consider the other private landowners, and foster or policy issues. number of small entities affected within future partnerships and development of Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 particular types of economic activities management plans. During the public et seq.) (e.g., livestock management, water comment period, we received a letter management, transportation, and from the Ladder Ranch strongly Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act development). We apply the emphasizing the ranch’s desire not to (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), as amended ‘‘substantial number’’ test individually have critical habitat designated on their by the Small Business Regulatory to each industry to determine if land. We are committed to fostering Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of certification is appropriate. However, working relationships with the 1996 (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), whenever an the SBREFA does not explicitly define conservation community, including the agency must publish a notice of ‘‘substantial number’’ or ‘‘significant Ladder Ranch, to further the rulemaking for any proposed or final economic impact.’’ Consequently, to conservation of the Chiricahua leopard rule, it must prepare and make available assess whether a ‘‘substantial number’’ frog and other endangered and for public comment a regulatory of small entities is affected by this threatened species. Therefore, in flexibility analysis that describes the designation, this analysis considers the consideration of the relevant impact to effects of the rule on small entities relative number of small entities likely our relationship with the Ladder Ranch (small businesses, small organizations, to be impacted in an area. In some and other potential private landowners, and small government jurisdictions). circumstances, especially with critical we determined the benefits of exclusion However, no regulatory flexibility habitat designations of limited extent, outweigh the benefits of inclusion in analysis is required if the head of an we may aggregate across all industries critical habitat designation for these agency certifies the rule will not have a and consider whether the total number lands. significant economic impact on a of small entities affected is substantial. substantial number of small entities. In estimating the number of small Exclusion Will Not Result in Extinction The SBREFA amended the RFA to entities potentially affected, we also of the Species—Ladder Ranch require Federal agencies to provide a consider whether their activities have Chiricahua Leopard Frog Conservation certification statement of the factual any Federal involvement. Partnership basis for certifying that the rule will not Designation of critical habitat only We determined that the exclusion of have a significant economic impact on affects activities authorized, funded, or approximately 739 ac (299 ha) of habitat a substantial number of small entities. carried out by Federal agencies. Some from this final designation of critical In this final rule, we are certifying that kinds of activities are unlikely to have habitat for the Chiricahua leopard frog the critical habitat designation for any Federal involvement and so will not based on our conservation partnership Chiricahua leopard frog will not have a be affected by critical habitat with the Ladder Ranch will not result in significant economic impact on a designation. In areas where the species extinction of the species. Lands substantial number of small entities. is present, Federal agencies already are managed by the Ladder Ranch for the The following discussion explains our required to consult with us under Chiricahua leopard frog provide rationale. section 7 of the Act on activities they protection for the frog through site- According to the Small Business authorize, fund, or carry out that may specific habitat management and Administration (SBA), small entities affect the Chiricahua leopard frog. improvement projects. Therefore, the include small organizations, such as Federal agencies also must consult with Secretary is exercising his discretion to independent nonprofit organizations; us if their activities may affect critical exclude approximately 739 ac (299 ha) small governmental jurisdictions, habitat. Designation of critical habitat, of habitat in the Seco Creek, Cuchillo including school boards and city and therefore, could result in an additional Negro Warm Springs and Creek, and town governments that serve fewer than economic impact on small entities due South Fork Palomas Creek Units from 50,000 residents; as well as small to the requirement to reinitiate this final critical habitat designation. businesses. Small businesses include consultation for ongoing Federal

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:12 Mar 19, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20MRR2.SGM 20MRR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 16373

activities (see Application of the The FEA estimates that within this we anticipate the limited potential ‘‘Adverse Modification’’ Standard designation of critical habitat there are impacts to entities in this sector will not section). 120 entities that engage in water be significant. Our determination is In our final economic analysis of the management, and of these entities 104 based on the fact that any impact to critical habitat designation, we are small. Of these, up to 18 of these small businesses are indirect and that evaluated the potential economic effects small entities may be impacted by this under the RFA we are only required to on small business entities resulting from designation of critical habitat. Stated evaluate direct impacts resulting from conservation actions related to the another way, 17 percent of the small the designation of critical habitat; and as listing of the Chiricahua leopard frog entities engaged in water management such direct costs are borne by the and the designation of critical habitat. may be impacted at the regional scale of Federal action agency. The analysis is based on the estimated this analysis. At the national scale, this In summary, we considered whether impacts associated with the rulemaking percentage is much less. The total this designation would result in a as described in Chapters 3 through 4 annualized impact is estimated to be up significant economic effect on a and Appendix A of the analysis and to $508 for all entities; relative to SBA’s substantial number of small entities. evaluates the potential for economic small entity size standard for this sector Based on the above reasoning and impacts related to livestock ($7 million), this would not represent a currently available information, we management, water management, significant economic impact. concluded that this rule will not result transportation, and development. The FEA estimates that within this in a significant economic impact on a Of the four sectors identified having designation of critical habitat there are substantial number of small entities. small entities, the FEA estimates that up a total of 162 entities engaged in Therefore, we are certifying that the to 171 small entities may be affected by livestock management activities; of designation of critical habitat for section 7 consultations stemming from these 135 are small entities. The FEA Chiricahua leopard frog will not have a this rule. Annualized incremental estimates that all of the small entities significant economic impact on a economic impacts to small businesses may be affected by this designation of substantial number of small entities, range from $254 per year for critical habitat at the regional scale of and a regulatory flexibility analysis is transportation and residential and this analysis. However, at the national not required. commercial development to $8,390 per scale, the percentage of affected small Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use— year for livestock management entities is much less. The total Executive Order 13211 (Industrial Economics 2011, pp. A–2 annualized incremental impact due to —A–7). A detailed analysis of each the designation of critical habiat is Executive Order 13211 (Actions sector is presented below. estimated to be $8,390. Although the Concerning Regulations That The FEA estimates that within this highest annualized impact of $8,390 per Significantly Affect Energy Supply, designation of critical habitat, the year for livestock management may Distribution, or Use) requires agencies development sector has a total of 3,718 represent a significant impact if those to prepare Statements of Energy Effects entities, of which 3,542 are small costs are borne by only a few small when undertaking certain actions. The entities. Of these small entities, up to 9 ranchers with annual revenues that are Office of Management and Budget may be impacted by this designation of considerably lower than the small entity (OMB) has provided guidance for critical habitat. Stated another way, 0.25 revenue size standard of $750,000 per implementing this Executive Order that percent of the small entities in the year; this is an unlikely outcome. In the outlines nine outcomes that may development sector may be impacted by extreme case where a single ranch constitute ‘‘a significant adverse effect’’ this designation of critical habitat at the participates in all 135 consultations, when compared to not taking the regional scale of this analysis. At the annualized impacts to that single entity regulatory action under consideration. national scale, this percentage is much would be $8,390; however, in the other As none of the outcomes that may less. The FEA estimates total annualized extreme, if 135 small ranches each constitute ‘‘a significant adverse effect’’ impacts for the 9 entities to range from participate in a single consultation, are relevant to this analysis, energy- $28 to $254. Relative to the SBA’s small annualized impacts to each entity related impacts within the critical entity size standard for this sector ($7 would be approximately $62. If 68 small habitat designation are not anticipated. million or $33.5 million annual ranches participate (i.e., the midpoint The economic analysis finds that revenues), this forecasted impact would between 1 and 135), the annualized extraction, energy production, and not have a significant economic impact. impacts would be $123 per entity. If distribution are not expected to be The FEA estimates that within this only a few did participate, it is unlikely affected (Industrial Economics 2011, p. designation of critical habitat, the that these entities would be small A–8). Thus, based on information in the transportation sector has a total of 165 businesses. Given that the consultations economic analysis, energy-related entities, of which 154 are small entities. on livestock management activities are impacts associated with Chiricahua Of these small entities, up to 9 may be projected to occur on U.S. Forest leopard frog conservation activities impacted by this designation of critical Service allotments and other federally within critical habitat are not expected. habitat. Stated another way, managed areas that are spread over large As such, the designation of critical approximately 6 percent of the small parts of Arizona and New Mexico, it is habitat is not expected to significantly entities may be impacted by this unlikely that only a few ranchers would affect energy supplies, distribution, or designation of critical habitat at the participate in all 135 of the projected use. Therefore, this action is not a regional scale of this analysis. At the consultations. The analysis does not significant energy action, and no national scale, this percentage is much have access to average annual revenues Statement of Energy Effects is required. less. The total annualized incremental for small entities in the critical habitat Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 impact is estimated to be $254 and units, and thus, cannot estimate U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) relative to the SBA’s small entity size annualized impacts as a percent of standard for this sector ($33.5 million), annual revenues. However, even though In accordance with the Unfunded this would not represent a significant there is potential for 135 entities in this Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et economic impact. sector to be affected by this designation, seq.), we make the following findings:

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:12 Mar 19, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20MRR2.SGM 20MRR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 16374 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

(1) This rule will not produce a in a voluntary Federal aid program, the lands within or affected by the Federal mandate. In general, a Federal Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would designation. mandate is a provision in legislation, not apply, nor would critical habitat Federalism—Executive Order 13132 statute, or regulation that would impose shift the costs of the large entitlement an enforceable duty upon State, local, or programs listed above onto State In accordance with Executive Order Tribal governments, or the private governments. 13132 (Federalism), this rule does not sector, and includes both ‘‘Federal (2) We do not believe that this rule have significant Federalism effects. A intergovernmental mandates’’ and will significantly or uniquely affect federalism impact summary statement is ‘‘Federal private sector mandates.’’ small governments because the not required. In keeping with These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. designation of critical habitat imposes Department of the Interior and 658(5)–(7). ‘‘Federal intergovernmental no obligations on State or local Department of Commerce policy, we mandate’’ includes a regulation that governments. By definition, Federal requested information from, and ‘‘would impose an enforceable duty agencies are not considered small coordinated development of, this critical habitat designation with upon State, local, or Tribal entities, although the activities they appropriate State resource agencies in governments’’ with two exceptions. It fund or permit may be proposed or Arizona and New Mexico. We received excludes ‘‘a condition of Federal carried out by small entities. comments from the Arizona Game and assistance.’’ It also excludes ‘‘a duty Consequently, we do not believe that Fish Department and the New Mexico arising from participation in a voluntary the critical habitat designation would Department of Game and Fish and have Federal program,’’ unless the regulation significantly or uniquely affect small addressed them in the Summary of ‘‘relates to a then-existing Federal government entities. As such, a Small Comments and Recommendations program under which $500,000,000 or Government Agency Plan is not section of this rule. The designation of more is provided annually to State, required. local, and Tribal governments under critical habitat in areas currently entitlement authority,’’ if the provision Takings—Executive Order 12630 occupied by the Chiricahua leopard frog would ‘‘increase the stringency of may pose nominal additional In accordance with Executive Order restrictions to those currently in place conditions of assistance’’ or ‘‘place caps 12630 (Government Actions and upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal and, therefore, may have little Interference with Constitutionally incremental impact on State and local Government’s responsibility to provide Protected Private Property Rights), we governments and their activities. The funding,’’ and the State, local, or Tribal have analyzed the potential takings designation may have some benefit to governments ‘‘lack authority’’ to adjust implications of designating critical these governments in that the areas that accordingly. At the time of enactment, habitat for the Chiricahua leopard frog contain the physical or biological these entitlement programs were: in a takings implications assessment. As features essential to the conservation of Medicaid; Aid to Families with discussed above, the designation of the species are more clearly defined, Dependent Children work programs; critical habitat affects only Federal and the elements of the features of the Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social actions. Although private parties that habitat necessary to the conservation of Services Block Grants; Vocational receive Federal funding, assistance, or the species are specifically identified. Rehabilitation State Grants; Foster Care, require approval or authorization from a This information does not alter where Adoption Assistance, and Independent Federal agency for an action may be and what federally sponsored activities Living; Family Support Welfare indirectly impacted by the designation may occur. However, it may assist local Services; and Child Support of critical habitat, the legally binding governments in long-range planning Enforcement. ‘‘Federal private sector duty to avoid destruction or adverse (rather than having them wait for case- mandate’’ includes a regulation that modification of critical habitat rests by-case section 7 consultations to ‘‘would impose an enforceable duty squarely on the Federal agency. The occur). upon the private sector, except (i) a economic analysis found that no Where State and local governments condition of Federal assistance or (ii) a significant ecomonic impacts are likely require approval or authorization from a duty arising from participation in a to result from the designation of critical Federal agency for actions that may voluntary Federal program.’’ habitat for the Chiricahua leopard frog. affect critical habitat, consultation The designation of critical habitat A significant level of baseline protection under section 7(a)(2) will be required. does not impose a legally binding duty already exists for the frog, which While non-Federal entities that receive on non-Federal Government entities or addresses a broad range of habitat Federal funding, assistance, or permits, private parties. Under the Act, the only threats. The majority of Chiricahua or that otherwise require approval or regulatory effect is that Federal agencies leopard frog habitat and localities are on authorization from a Federal agency for must ensure that their actions do not Federal lands, and a number of an action, may be indirectly impacted destroy or adversely modify critical conservation easements, habitat by the designation of critical habitat, the habitat under section 7. While non- conservation plans, and safe harbor legally binding duty to avoid Federal entities that receive Federal agreements provide protections on destruction or adverse modification of funding, assistance, or permits, or that privately owned lands. Based on critical habitat rests squarely on the otherwise require approval or information contained in the final Federal agency. authorization from a Federal agency for economic analysis assessment and an action, may be indirectly impacted described within this document, it is Civil Justice Reform—Executive Order by the designation of critical habitat, the not likely that economic impacts to a 12988 legally binding duty to avoid property owner would be of a sufficient In accordance with Executive Order destruction or adverse modification of magnitude to support a takings action. 12988 (Civil Justice Reform), the Office critical habitat rests squarely on the Therefore, the takings implications of the Solicitor has determined that the Federal agency. Furthermore, to the assessment concludes that this rule does not unduly burden the judicial extent that non-Federal entities are designation of critical habitat for the system and that it meets the applicable indirectly impacted because they Chiricahua leopard frog does not pose standards set forth in sections 3(a) and receive Federal assistance or participate significant takings implications for 3(b)(2) of the Order. We are designating

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:12 Mar 19, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20MRR2.SGM 20MRR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 16375

critical habitat in accordance with the Tenth Circuit ruling in Catron County designating critical habitat for the provisions of the Act. This final rule Board of Commissioners v. U.S. Fish Chiricahua leopard frog on Tribal lands. uses standard property descriptions and and Wildlife Service, 75 F.3d 1429 (10th References Cited identifies the elements of physical or Cir. 1996), we prepare an environmental biological features essential to the assessment. We prepared a draft A complete list of all references cited conservation of the Chiricahua leopard environmental assessment for critical is available on the Internet at http:// frog within the designated areas to assist habitat designation and notified the www.regulations.gov and upon request the public in understanding the habitat public of its availability in the Federal from the Arizona Ecological Services needs of the species. Register on September 21, 2011 (76 FR Field Office (see FOR FURTHER 58441). Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 INFORMATION CONTACT). U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) Government-to-Government Author Relationship With Tribes This rule does not contain any new The primary authors of this collections of information that require In accordance with the President’s rulemaking are the staff members of the approval by OMB under the Paperwork memorandum of April 29, 1994 Arizona Ecological Services Field Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 (Government-to-Government Relations Office. et seq.). This rule will not impose with Native American Tribal recordkeeping or reporting requirements Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 on State or local governments, Order 13175 (Consultation and Endangered and threatened species, individuals, businesses, or Coordination With Indian Tribal Exports, Imports, Reporting and organizations. An agency may not Governments), and the Department of recordkeeping requirements, conduct or sponsor, and a person is not the Interior’s manual at 512 DM 2, we Transportation. required to respond to, a collection of readily acknowledge our responsibility information unless it displays a to communicate meaningfully with Regulation Promulgation currently valid OMB control number. recognized Federal Tribes on a Accordingly, we amend part 17, government-to-government basis. In subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 accordance with Secretarial Order 3206 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal below: It is our position that, outside the Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust jurisdiction of the U.S. Court of Appeals Responsibilities, and the Endangered PART 17—[AMENDED] for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to Species Act), we readily acknowledge prepare environmental analyses our responsibilities to work directly ■ 1. The authority citation for part 17 pursuant to the National Environmental with Tribes in developing programs for continues to read as follows: Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 16 U.S.C. seq.) in connection with designating Tribal lands are not subject to the same 1531–1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201–4245; Pub. L. 99– critical habitat under the Act. We controls as Federal public lands, to 625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted. published a notice outlining our reasons remain sensitive to Indian culture, and for this determination in the Federal to make information available to tribes. ■ 2. Amend § 17.11(h) by revising the Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR We determined that there are no Tribal entry for ‘‘Frog, Chiricahua leopard’’ 49244). This position was upheld by the lands occupied by the Chiricahua under ‘‘Amphibians’’ in the List of U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth leopard frog at the time of listing that Endangered and Threatened Wildlife to Circuit (Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 contain the features essential for read as follows: F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied conservation of the species, and no 516 U.S. 1042 (1996)). However, when Tribal lands unoccupied by the § 17.11 Endangered and threatened the range of the species includes States Chiricahua leopard frog that are wildlife. within the Tenth Circuit, such as that of essential for the conservation of the * * * * * Chiricahua leopard frog, under the species. Therefore, we are not (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, Chiricahua Lithobates U.S.A (AZ, NM), Entire ...... T 726 17.95(d) 17.43(b) leopard. chiricahuensis. Mexico.

*******

§ 17.43–[Amended] ■ 4. In § 17.95, amend paragraph (d) by § 17.95 Critical habitat—fish and wildlife. adding an entry for ‘‘Chiricahua ■ * * * * * 3. Amend § 17.43(b) by removing the Leopard Frog (Lithobates (d) * * * word ‘‘Rana’’ in the paragraph heading chiricahuensis),’’ in the same and adding in its place the word alphabetical order that the species Chiricahua Leopard Frog (Lithobates ‘‘Lithobates’’. appears in the table at § 17.11(h), to read chiricahuensis) as follows:

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:12 Mar 19, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20MRR2.SGM 20MRR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 16376 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

(1) Critical habitat units are depicted (E) Upland habitats that provide roads, and other paved areas) and the for Apache, Cochise, Gila, Graham, opportunities for foraging and basking land on which they are located existing Greenlee, Pima, Santa Cruz, and that are immediately adjacent to or within the legal boundaries on the Yavapai Counties, Arizona; and Catron, surrounding breeding aquatic and effective date of this rule. Grant, Hidalgo, Sierra, and Socorro riparian habitat. (4) Critical habitat map units. Data Counties, New Mexico, on the maps (ii) Dispersal and nonbreeding habitat, layers defining map units were created below. consisting of areas with ephemeral on a base of USGS 7.5’ quadrangles, the (2) Within these areas, the primary (present for only a short time), Service’s online Lands Mapper, the U.S. intermittent, or perennial water that are constituent elements of the physical or Geological Survey National generally not suitable for breeding, and biological features essential to the Hydrography Dataset, and imagery from conservation of the Chiricahua leopard associated upland or riparian habitat Google Earth. Lentic water bodies were frog are: that provides corridors (overland digitized from Google Earth imagery. (i) Aquatic breeding habitat and movement or along wetted drainages) Point locations for lentic water bodies immediately adjacent uplands for frogs among breeding sites in a (still or non-flowing water bodies) were exhibiting the following characteristics: metapopulation with the following calculated as the geographic centroids of (A) Standing bodies of fresh water characteristics: (with salinities less than 5 parts per (A) Are not more than 1.0 mile (1.6 the digitized polygons defining the thousand, pH greater than or equal to kilometers) overland, 3.0 miles (4.8 critical habitat boundaries. Line 5.6, and pollutants absent or minimally kilometers) along ephemeral or locations for lotic streams (flowing present), including natural and intermittent drainages, 5.0 miles (8.0 water) and drainages are depicted as the manmade (e.g., stock) ponds, slow- kilometers) along perennial drainages, ‘‘Flowline’’ feature class from the moving streams or pools within streams, or some combination thereof not to National Hydrography Dataset off-channel pools, and other ephemeral exceed 5.0 miles (8.0 kilometers). geodatabase. Overland connections were or permanent water bodies that typically (B) In overland and nonwetted digitized from Google Earth imagery. hold water or rarely dry for more than corridors, provide some vegetation Administrative boundaries for Arizona a month. During periods of drought, or cover or structural features (e.g., and New Mexico were obtained from less than average rainfall, these breeding boulders, rocks, organic debris such as the Arizona Land Resource Information sites may not hold water long enough downed trees or logs, small mammal Service and New Mexico Resource for individuals to complete burrows, or leaf litter) for shelter, forage, Geographic Information System, metamorphosis, but they would still be and protection from predators; in wetted respectively. This includes the most considered essential breeding habitat in corridors, provide some ephemeral, current (as of the effective date of this non-drought years. intermittent, or perennial aquatic rule) geospatial data available for land (B) Emergent and or submerged habitat. ownership, counties, States, and streets. vegetation, root masses, undercut banks, (C) Are free of barriers that block Locations depicting critical habitat are fractured rock substrates, or some movement by Chiricahua leopard frogs, expressed as decimal degree latitude combination thereof, but emergent including, but not limited to, urban, and longitude in the World Geographic vegetation does not completely cover industrial, or agricultural development; Coordinate System projection using the the surface of water bodies. reservoirs that are 50 acres (20 hectares) 1984 datum (WGS84). Information on (C) Nonnative predators (e.g., crayfish or more in size and contain predatory Chiricahua leopard frog localities was (Orconectes virilis), bullfrogs (Lithobates nonnative fish, bullfrogs, or crayfish; derived from survey forms, reports, catesbeianus), nonnative predatory fish) highways that do not include frog publications, field notes, and other absent or occurring at levels that do not fencing and culverts; and walls, major sources, all of which reside in our files preclude presence of the Chiricahua dams, or other structures that physically at the Arizona Ecological Services Field leopard frog. block movement. Office, 2321 West Royal Palm Road, (D) Absence of chytridiomycosis, or if (3) With the exception of Suite 103, Phoenix, AZ 85021. present, then environmental, impoundments, livestock tanks and Coordinates given for tanks are the physiological, and genetic conditions other constructed waters, critical habitat approximate center points of those are such that allow persistence of does not include manmade structures tanks. Chiricahua leopard frogs. (such as buildings, aqueducts, runways, BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:12 Mar 19, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20MRR2.SGM 20MRR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 16377

(5) NOTE: Index,map of critical habitat units for the Chiricahua leopard frog follows:

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:12 Mar 19, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\20MRR2.SGM 20MRR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 ER20MR12.000 16378 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

(6) Twin Tanks and Ox Frame Tank south tank (31.836031 N 111.149102 W), (ii) Ox Frame Tank (31.881882 N, Unit, Pima County, Arizona. and the drainage running between them, 111.200318 W). (i) Twin Tanks, including the north a drainage distance of 979 feet (299 (iii) NOTE: Map of Twin Tanks and Ox tank (31.838230 N, 111.149875 W) and meters). Frame Tank Unit follows:

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:12 Mar 19, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\20MRR2.SGM 20MRR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 ER20MR12.001 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 16379

(7) Garcia Tank Unit, Pima County, (i) Garcia Tank (31.477060 N, (ii) NOTE: Map of Garcia Tank Unit Arizona. 111.454114 W). follows:

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:12 Mar 19, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20MRR2.SGM 20MRR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 ER20MR12.002 16380 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

(8) Buenos Aires National Wildlife downstream in Puertocito Wash to its (xviii) Lopez Wash from Carpenter Refuge Central Tanks Unit, Pima confluence with Las Moras Wash Tank (31.528748 N, 111.454642 W) County, Arizona. (31.636031 N, 111.471749 W), including downstream to its confluence with (i) Carpenter Tank (31.528748 N, New Round Hill Tank (31.613784 N, Aguire Lake (31.590582 N, 111.499589 111.454642 W). 111.489390 W); and upstream in Las W), a distance of approximately 6.75 (ii) Rock Tank (31.583905 N, Moras Wash to Chongo Tank (31.64002 drainage miles (10.87 kilometers). 111.462366 W). N, 111.50435 W), a distance of (xix) An unnamed drainage from its (iii) State Tank (31.569254 N, approximately 8.52 drainage miles confluence with Lopez Wash (31.542605 111.477114 W). (13.70 kilometers). N, 111.466699 W) upstream to Choffo (iv) Triangle Tank (31.576105 N, (xv) An unnamed drainage from its Tank (31.544627 N, 111.463126 W), a 111.510909 W). confluence with Puertocito Wash distance of approximately 1,549 (v) New Round Hill Tank (31.613784 (31.619650 N, 111.483551 W) upstream drainage feet (472 meters). N, 111.489390 W). to McKay Tank (31.605788 N, (vi) Banado Tank (31.532759 N, (xx) An unnamed drainage from its 111.474188 W, which is a cluster of confluence with Lopez Wash (31.569735 111.474729 W). three tanks), a distance of approximately (vii) Choffo Tank (31.544627 N, N, 111.482058 W) upstream to State 1.55 drainage miles (2.50 kilometers). 111.463126 W). Tank (31.569254 N, 111.477114 W), a (viii) Barrel Cactus Tank (31.545284 (xvi) Puertocito Wash from its distance of approximately 1,613 N, 111.490310 W). confluence with Bailey Wash drainage feet (492 meters). (ix) Sufrido Tank (31.566364 N, (31.604618 N, 111.494127 W) upstream to Sufrido Tank (31.566364 N, (xxi) An unnamed drainage from 111.445892 W). Banado Tank (31.532759 N, 111.474729 (x) Hito Tank (31.579462 N, 111.445892 W), including Morley Tank (31.599057 N, 111.489088 W), a W) downstream to the confluence with 111.446984 W). an unnamed drainage (31.545399 N, (xi) Morley Tank (31.599057 N, distance of approximately 4.60 drainage miles (7.40 kilometers). 111.496152 W), and then upstream in 111.489088 W). that drainage to Barrel Cactus Tank (xii) McKay Tank (31.605788 N, (xvii) An innamed drainage from its (31.545284 N, 111.490310 W), a 111.474188 W). confluence with Puertocito Wash distance of approximately 2.21 drainage (xiii) Chongo Tank (31.64002 N, upstream to Rock Tank (31.583905 N, miles (3.56 kilometers). 111.50435 W). 111.462366 W), then upstream in an (xiv) Arroyo del Compartidero from unnamed drainage to the top of that (xxii) An unnamed drainage from Triangle Tank (31.576105 N, 111.510909 drainage (31.582637 N, 111.456882 W) Banado Tank (31.532759 N, 111.474729 W) downstream through and including and directly overland to an unnamed W) upstream to a saddle (31.530907 N, Aguire Lake to an unnamed drainage drainage (31.583818 N, 111.455223 W), 111.463162 W), then directly downslope (31.594035 N, 111.504265 W); then and then upstream to Hito Tank to Lopez Wash (31.532093 N, downstream in that unnamed drainage (31.579462 N, 111.446984 W) and 111.462159 W), a distance of to its confluence with Bailey Wash downstream to McKay Tank (31.605788 approximately 3,831 drainage feet (31.596674 N, 111.501912 W); then N, 111.474188 W), a distance of (1,168 meters) and 808 feet (246 meters) downstream in Bailey Wash to its approximately 3.80 drainage miles (6.11 overland. confluence with Puertocito Wash kilometers) and 580 feet (177 meters) (xxiii) NOTE: Map of Buenos Aires (31.604618 N, 111.494127 W); then overland. NWR Central Tanks Unit follows:

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:12 Mar 19, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20MRR2.SGM 20MRR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 16381

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:12 Mar 19, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\20MRR2.SGM 20MRR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 ER20MR12.003 16382 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

(9) Bonita, Upper Turner, and downslope through an unnamed (31.438637 N, 111.341044 W); then Mojonera Tanks Unit, Santa Cruz drainage to Bonita Canyon (31.429806 upstream in that unnamed drainage to a County, Arizona. N, 111.310325 W), and upstream in saddle (31.438497 N, 111.337639 W); (i) Bonita Tank (31.43525 N, Bonita Canyon to Bonita Tank, a then downstream in an unnamed 111.305505 W). distance of approximately 1.29 drainage drainage to Sierra Well (31.433012 N, (ii) Upper Turner Tank (31.429690 N, miles (2.08 kilometers) and 150 feet (46 111.334709 W), to include Sierra Tank 111.318332 W). meters) overland. East (31.435488 N, 111.334736 W) and (iii) Mojonera Tank (31.464250 N, (v) From Mojonera Tank (31.464250 Sierra Tank West (31.435361 N, 111.320203 W). N, 111.320203 W) downstream in 111.336103 W); then directly overland (iv) From Upper Turner Tank Mojonera Canyon to a sharp bend where to Upper Turner Tank (31.429690 N, (31.429690 N, 111.318332 W) upstream the drainage turns west-northwest 111.318332 W), a distance of in an unnamed drainage to its (31.445989 N, 111.343181 W); then approximately 3.45 drainage miles (5.56 confluence with a minor drainage southeast and upstream in an unnamed kilometers) and 5,270 feet (1,606 meters) coming in from the east (31.431029 N, drainage to a saddle (31.443358 N, overland. 111.315846 W), then directly upslope in 111.340675 W) and downslope through (vi) NOTE: Map of Bonita, Upper that drainage and east to a saddle an unnamed drainage to its confluence Turner, and Mojonera Tanks Unit (31.431015 N, 111.314770), and directly with another unnamed drainage follows:

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:12 Mar 19, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20MRR2.SGM 20MRR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 16383

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:12 Mar 19, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\20MRR2.SGM 20MRR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 ER20MR12.004 16384 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

(10) Sycamore Canyon Unit, Santa 111.190679 W), a distance of drainage distance of approximately 611 Cruz County, Arizona. approximately 2,822 drainage feet (860 stream feet (186 meters). (i) Sycamore Canyon from the Ruby meters). (xii) From South Mesa Tank Road bridge (31.434030 N, 111.186537 (ix) From North Mesa Tank (31.406832 N, 111.164505 W) W) south to the International Boundary (31.415697 N, 111.167584 W) downstream in unnamed drainage to its (31.379952 N, 111.222937 W), a downstream in Atascosa Canyon to its confluence with another unnamed distance of 6.35 stream miles (10.23 confluence with Pen˜ asco Canyon drainage (31.403615 N, 111.169213 W), kilometers). (31.402594 N, 111.186647 W), then from then downstream in that unnamed (ii) Yank Tank (31.425426 N, that confluence downstream in Pen˜ asco drainage to its confluence with Pen˜ asco 111.183289 W). Canyon to its confluence with Sycamore Canyon (31.399519 N, 111.177701 W), (iii) North Mesa Tank (31.415697 N, Canyon (31.407395 N, 111.195820 W), a then downstream in Pen˜ asco Canyon to 111.167584 W). distance of approximately 2.91 drainage its confluence with Atascosa Canyon (iv) Horse Pasture Spring (31.406812 miles (4.69 kilometers). (31.402594 N, 111.186647 W), a N, 111.184717 W). drainage distance of approximately 2.05 (v) Bear Valley Ranch Tank (x) From Horse Pasture Spring miles (3.30 kilometers). (31.413617 N, 111.176818 W). (31.406812 N, 111.184717 W) (xiii) From Rattlesnake Tank (vi) South Mesa Tank (31.406832 N, downstream to Pen˜ asco Canyon, a (31.400654 N, 111.163470 W) 111.164505 W). drainage distance of approximately downstream in an unnamed drainage to (vii) Rattlesnake Tank (31.400654 N, 1,759 feet (536 meters). its confluence with another unnamed 111.163470 W). (xi) From Bear Valley Ranch Tank drainage (31.403615 N, 111.169213 W), (viii) Yanks Canyon from Yank Tank (31.413617 N, 111.176818 W) a drainage distance of approximately (31.425426N, 111.183289W) downstream in an unnamed drainage to 2,274 feet (693 meters). downstream to its confluence with its confluence with Atascosa Canyon (xiv) NOTE: Map of Sycamore Canyon Sycamore Canyon (31.428987 N, (31.402583 N, 111.186593 W), a Unit follows:

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:12 Mar 19, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20MRR2.SGM 20MRR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 16385

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:12 Mar 19, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\20MRR2.SGM 20MRR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 ER20MR12.005 16386 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

(11) Pen˜ a Blanca Lake and Spring and Canyon (31.384521 N, 111.121496 W), with Alamo Canyon (31.379693 N, Associated Tanks Unit, Santa Cruz then downstream in Alamo Canyon to 111.126053 W), then downstream in County, Arizona. its confluence with Pen˜ a Blanca Canyon Alamo Canyon to the confluence with (i) Pen˜ a Blanca Lake (31.409091 N, (31.388301 N, 111.093728 W), then the drainage from Summit Reservoir 111.084971 W at the dam). downstream in Pen˜ a Blanca Canyon to (31.384521 N, 111.121496 W), a (ii) Pen˜ a Blanca Spring (31.388895 N, Pen˜ a Blanca Lake (31.409091 N, distance of approximately 1.55 drainage 111.092297 W). 111.084971 W at the dam) to include miles (2.50 kilometers). (iii) Summit Reservoir (31.396565 N, Pen˜ a Blanca Spring (31.388895 N, (x) From Coyote Tank (31.369894 N, 111.141347 W). 111.092297 W), a distance of 111.150751 W) downstream in an (iv) Tinker Tank (31.380107 N, approximately 4.44 drainage miles (7.10 unnamed drainage to its confluence 111.136359 W). kilometers) and 1,040 feet (317 meters) with Alamo Canyon (31.365839 N, (v) Coyote Tank (31.369894 N, overland. 111.138388 W); then downstream in 111.150751 W). (viii) From Thumb Butte Tank Alamo Canyon to the confluence with (vi) Thumb Butte Tank (31.388426 N, (31.388426 N, 111.118105 W) the drainage from Tinker Tank 111.118105 W). downstream in an unnamed drainage to (31.379693 N, 111.126053 W), to (vii) From Summit Reservoir directly its confluence with Alamo Canyon include Alamo Spring (31.365993 N, southeast to a saddle on Summit (31.385228 N, 111.112132 W), a 111.137171 W), a distance of Motorway (31.395580 N, 111.140552 distance of approximately 2,494 approximately 3.09 drainage miles (4.97 W), then directly downslope to an drainage feet (760 meters). kilometers). unnamed drainage at (31.394133 N, (ix) From Tinker Tank (31.380107 N, (xi) NOTE: Map of Pen˜ a Blanca Lake 111.139450 W) and downstream in that 111.136359 W) downstream in an and Spring and Associated Tanks Unit drainage to its confluence with Alamo unnamed drainage to its confluence follows:

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:12 Mar 19, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20MRR2.SGM 20MRR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 16387

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:12 Mar 19, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\20MRR2.SGM 20MRR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 ER20MR12.006 16388 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

(12) Florida Canyon Unit, Pima downstream to just east of the Florida approximately 1,521 stream feet (463 County, Arizona. Workstation entrance gate (31.763186 N, meters). (i) Florida Canyon from a silted-in 110.845511 W), a distance of (ii) NOTE: Map of Florida Canyon Unit dam (31.759444 N, 110.844095 W) follows:

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:12 Mar 19, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\20MRR2.SGM 20MRR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 ER20MR12.007 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 16389

(13) Eastern Slope of the Santa Rita (31.768245 N, 110.752891 W); then (vii) Louisiana Gulch from the metal Mountains Unit, Pima County, Arizona. downslope in an unnamed drainage to tanks (31.74865 N, 110.72839 W) (i) Two galvanized metal tanks in its confluence with Ophir Gulch upstream to the confluence with an Louisiana Gulch (31.74865 N, 110.72839 (31.763978 N, 110.751312 W); then unnamed drainage (31.756493 N, W). upstream in Ophir Gulch to Upper 110.744175 W), then upstream in that (ii) Greaterville Tank (31.767186 N, Granite Mountain Tank (31.760914 N, drainage to its headwaters and across a 110.759818 W). 110.760186 W), to include an ephemeral saddle (31.759879 N, 110.748733 W) (iii) Los Posos Gulch Tank (31.768587 tank (31.761388 N, 110.759184 W) and and downslope through an unnamed N, 110.731583 W). a well (31.761584 N, 110.758169 W), a drainage to its confluence with Ophir (iv) Upper Granite Mountain Tank distance of approximately 2.59 drainage Gulch (31.762953 N, 110.749329 W), (31.760914 N, 110.760186 W). miles (4.17 kilometers) and 984 feet (300 then upstream in Ophir Gulch to the (v) From Los Posos Gulch Tank meters) overland. confluence with an unnamed drainage (31.768587 N, 110.731583 W) upstream (vi) From Greaterville Tank to a saddle (31.771463 N, 110.748676 (31.767186 N, 110.759818 W) (31.763978 N, 110.751312 W), a W); then downslope in an unnamed downstream in an unnamed drainage to distance of approximately 1.98 drainage drainage to the confluence with another its confluence with Ophir Gulch miles (3.19 kilometers) and 327 feet (100 unnamed drainage (31.772830 N, (31.763978 N, 110.751312 W), a meters) overland. 110.752727 W); then upstream and distance of approximately 3,446 (viii) NOTE: Map of Eastern Slope of south in that drainage to a saddle drainage feet (1,050 meters). the Santa Rita Mountains Unit follows:

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:12 Mar 19, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20MRR2.SGM 20MRR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 16390 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:12 Mar 19, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\20MRR2.SGM 20MRR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 ER20MR12.008 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 16391

(14) Las Cienegas National distance of approximately 5.08 stream 110.584422 W upstream to 31.788559 N, Conservation Area Unit, Pima County, miles (8.18 kilometers). 110.584114 W), a distance of Arizona. (ii) Cienega Creek from the Empire approximately 1.91 stream miles (3.08 (i) Empire Gulch near Empire Ranch, Gulch confluence (31.808988 N, kilometers). beginning at a pipeline access road 110.589795 W) upstream to the (iii) NOTE: Map of Las Cienegas crossing (31.787054 N, 110.648665 W) approximate end of the wetted reach and continuing downstream to its and where the creek bends hard to the National Conservation Area Unit confluence with Cienega Creek east (31.776478 N, 110.590382 W), to follows: (31.808988 N, 110.589795 W), a include Cinco Ponds (31.793066 N,

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:12 Mar 19, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\20MRR2.SGM 20MRR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 ER20MR12.009 16392 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

(15) Scotia Canyon Unit, Cochise a sharp bend in the canyon to the south overland distance of approximately 671 County, Arizona. (31.447598 N, 110.409884 W), a feet (205 meters). (i) Peterson Ranch Pond (31.457016 distance of approximately 1.36 stream (v) Overland from the Travertine Seep N, 110.397724 W). miles (2.19 kilometers). (31.453466 N, 110.399386 W) directly (ii) Travertine Seep (31.453466 N, (iv) Overland from Peterson Ranch southeast to Scotia Creek (31.452720 N, 110.399386 W). Pond (31.457016 N, 110.397724 W) to 110.398117 W), an overland distance of (iii) Creek in Scotia Canyon from just the upper end of the Scotia Creek east of Peterson Ranch Pond (31.455723 segment (31.455723 N, 110.396124 W), approximately 348 feet (106 meters). N, 110.396124 W) downstream to the to include an ephemeral pond (vi) NOTE: Map of Scotia Canyon Unit confluence of an unnamed drainage and (31.456929 N, 110.397120 W), an follows:

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:12 Mar 19, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\20MRR2.SGM 20MRR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 ER20MR12.010 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 16393

(16) Carr Barn Pond Unit, Cochise (i) Carr Barn Pond (31.452461 N, (ii) NOTE: Map of Carr Barn Pond Unit County, Arizona. 110.250355 W). follows:

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:12 Mar 19, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\20MRR2.SGM 20MRR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 ER20MR12.011 16394 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

(17) Ramsey and Brown Canyons Preserve, an approximate stream (iii) From the dirt road crossing at the Unit, Cochise County, Arizona. distance of 1.29 miles (2.08 kilometers). mouth of Ramsey Canyon (31.462315 N, (i) Ramsey Canyon from the eastern (ii) Brown Canyon from The Box 110.291248 W) directly overland to boundary of The Nature Conservancy’s (31.456016 N, 110.323853 W) House Pond (31.474068 N, 110.297565 Bledsoe Parcel in the Ramsey Canyon W) on the former Barchas Ranch, a Preserve (31.448160 N, 110.306993 W) downstream to the Wild Duck Pond (31.475355 N, 110.297592 W) and distance of approximately 4,594 feet downstream to a dirt road crossing at (1,400 meters). the mouth of Ramsey Canyon House Pond (31.474068 N, 110.297565 (31.462315 N, 110.291248 W), excluding W) on the former Barchas Ranch, an (iv) NOTE: Map of Ramsey and Brown The Nature Conservancy’s University of approximate drainage distance of 2.26 Canyons Unit follows: Toronto Parcel in the Ramsey Canyon miles (3.64 kilometers).

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:12 Mar 19, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\20MRR2.SGM 20MRR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 ER20MR12.012 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 16395

(18) Peloncillo Mountains Tanks Unit, stream distance of 3,711 feet (1,131 (31.488563 N, 109.036527 W), then Hidalgo County, New Mexico. meters). directly overland to the headwaters of (i) Geronimo Tank (31.520685 N, (vii) From Geronimo Tank (31.520685 Cloverdale Creek (31.487477 N, 109.016775 W). N, 109.016775 W) downstream in an 109.028002 W), and then downstream in (ii) State Line Tank (31.498451 N, unnamed drainage to its confluence Cloverdale Creek to Javelina Tank 109.044940 W). with Clanton Draw (31.520590 N, (31.484995 N, 109.024970 W), an (iii) Javelina Tank (31.484995 N, 109.012263 W), then upstream to the approximate drainage distance of 1.40 109.024970 W). confluence with an unnamed drainage miles (2.26 kilometers) and 2,245 feet (iv) Canoncito Ranch Tank (31.449553 (684 meters) overland. N, 109.986836 W). (31.515818 N, 109.018117 W), and (v) Maverick Spring (31.469376 N, upstream in that drainage to its (ix) From Javelina Tank (31.484995 N, 109.011142 W). headwaters (31.501854 N, 109.031898 109.024970 W) downstream in (vi) Cloverdale Creek from the W), across a mesa to the headwaters of Cloverdale Creek to the Canoncito Canoncito Ranch Tank (31.449553 N, an unnamed drainage (31.502220 N, Ranch Tank (31.449553 N, 109.986836 109.986836 W) downstream, including 109.033839 W), then downslope W), to include Maverick Spring the cienega, to rock pools (31.432972 N, through that drainage to State Line Tank (31.469376 N, 109.011142 W), and 108.966535 W) about 630 feet (31.498451 N, 109.044940 W), an excluding portions of Cloverdale Creek downstream of the Cloverdale road approximate drainage distance of 3.07 within private lands of Canoncito crossing of Cloverdale Creek, excluding miles (4.94 kilometers) and 775 feet (236 Ranch, an approximate stream distance portions of Cloverdale Creek and the meters) overland. of 3.12 miles (5.02 kilometers). cienega within private lands of (viii) From State Line Tank upstream (x) NOTE: Map of Peloncillo Canoncito Ranch, an approximate in an unnamed drainage to a mesa Mountains Unit follows:

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:12 Mar 19, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20MRR2.SGM 20MRR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 16396 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:12 Mar 19, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\20MRR2.SGM 20MRR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 ER20MR12.013 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 16397

(19) Cave Creek Unit, Cochise County, (iii) Cave Creek from Herb Martyr N, 109.20470 W), an approximate Arizona. Pond (31.87243 N, 109.23418 W) stream distance of 4.76 miles (7.67 (i) Herb Martyr Pond (31.87243 N, downstream to the U.S. Forest Service kilometers). 109.23418 W). boundary (31.899659 N, 109.159987 W), (iv) NOTE: Map of Cave Creek Unit (ii) John Hands Pond below the dam to include John Hands Pond (31.87868 follows: (31.87868 N, 109.20470 W).

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:12 Mar 19, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\20MRR2.SGM 20MRR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 ER20MR12.014 16398 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

(20) Leslie Creek Unit, Cochise (31.591072 N, 109.505311 W) an approximate stream distance of 4,094 County, Arizona. downstream to the Leslie Canyon Road feet (1,248 meters). (i) Leslie Creek from the upstream crossing (31.588510 N, 109.511598 W), (ii) NOTE: Map of Leslie Creek Unit National Wildlife Refuge boundary follows:

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:12 Mar 19, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\20MRR2.SGM 20MRR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 ER20MR12.015 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 16399

(21) Deer Creek Unit, Graham County, the western drainage to Clifford Tank W) directly overland to an unnamed Arizona. (32.67130 N, 110.264877 W); then tank (32.688150 N, 110.260309 W), and (i) Home Ranch Tank (32.656879 N, upstream from that confluence in the downstream in an unnamed drainage to 110.274556 W). west-central drainage to an unnamed the aforementioned confluence (ii) Penney Mine Tanks, which tank (32.666108 N, 110.269204 W); then (32.671318 N, 110.262600 W), including includes a series of 10 small directly overland southeast to another another unnamed tank (32.669324 N, impoundments in a drainage from unnamed tank (32.665124 N, 110.261672 W) situated in that drainage, approximately 32.668795 N, 110.257763 110.265580 W); then downstream from a distance of approximately 948 W downstream to 32.670055 N, that tank in an unnamed drainage to the drainage feet (289 meters) and 1,051 feet 110.257310 W. aforementioned confluence (32.671318 (320 meters) overland. (iii) Clifford Tank (32.67130 N, N, 110.262600 W), and upstream in that (viii) From Vermont Tank (32.676883 110.264877 W). unnamed drainage to a saddle N, 110.262404 W) directly overland for (iv) Vermont Tank (32.676883 N, (32.662529 N, 110.265717 W); then approximately 468 feet (143 meters) to 110.262404 W). downstream from that saddle in an Deer Creek (32.677037 N, 110.260815 (v) Middle Tank (32.679691 N, unnamed drainage to its confluence W). 110.252180 W). with an unnamed tributary to Gardner (ix) From Middle Tank (32.679691 N, (vi) Deer Creek from a point where it Creek (32.660409 N, 110.265303 W); 110.252180 W) upstream in an unnamed exits a canyon and turns abruptly to the and upstream in that unnamed tributary drainage to a saddle (32.677989 N, east (32.683937 N, 110.255290 W) to Home Ranch Tank (32.656879 N, 110.256915 W), then directly downslope upstream to its confluence with an 110.274556 W), a distance of to Deer Creek (32.678307 N, 110.258257 unnamed drainage (32.673318 N, approximately 3.28 drainage miles (5.27 W), an approximate drainage distance of 110.262748 W); then upstream in that kilometers) and 1,216 feet (371 meters) 1,530 feet (466 meters) and 436 feet (133 drainage to a confluence with four other overland. meters) overland. drainages (32.671318 N, 110.262600 W); (vii) From the largest of the Penney (x) NOTE: Map of Deer Creek Unit then upstream from that confluence in Mine Tanks (32.669696 N, 110.257652 follows:

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:12 Mar 19, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20MRR2.SGM 20MRR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 16400 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:12 Mar 19, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\20MRR2.SGM 20MRR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 ER20MR12.016 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 16401

(22) Oak Spring and Oak Creek Unit, downstream to where a hiking trail (ii) NOTE: Map of Oak Spring and Oak Graham County, Arizona. intersects the creek (32.682618 N, Creek Unit follows: (i) Oak Creek from Oak Spring 110.283915 W), an approximate stream (32.673538 N, 110.293214 W) distance of 1.06 miles (1.71 kilometers).

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:12 Mar 19, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\20MRR2.SGM 20MRR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 ER20MR12.017 16402 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

(23) Dragoon Mountains Unit, Cochise 109.977963 W) downstream to Cochise Middlemarch Canyon to its confluence County, Arizona. Spring (31.912026 N, 109.963266 W), with an unnamed drainage (31.883322 (i) Shaw Tank (31.906230 N, then upstream in an unnamed canyon to N, 109.949925 W), then upstream in that 109.958350 W). Shaw Tank (31.906230 N, 109.958350 drainage to Tunnel Spring (31.881018 (ii) Tunnel Spring (31.881018 N, W), and continuing upstream to the N, 109.948182 W), an approximate 109.948182 W). headwaters of that unnamed canyon distance of 3.71 drainage miles (5.97 (iii) Halfmoon Tank (31.912453 N, (31.898491 N, 109.956589 W), then kilometers) and 1,300 feet (396 meters) 109.977963 W). across a saddle and directly downslope overland. (iv) Stronghold Canyon from to Middlemarch Canyon (31.894591 N, (v) NOTE: Map of Dragoon Mountains Halfmoon Tank (31.912453 N, 109.956429 W), downstream in Unit follows:

(24) Buckskin Hills Unit, Yavapai (ii) Middle Tank (34.473076 N, (iv) Partnership Tank (34.452241 N, County, Arizona. 111.624488 W). 111.646271 W). (i) Sycamore Basin Tank (34.481619 (iii) Walt’s Tank (34.455959 N, (v) Black Tank (34.462968 N, N, 111.641676 W). 111.638497 W). 111.623554 W).

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:12 Mar 19, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20MRR2.SGM 20MRR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 ER20MR12.018 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 16403

(vi) Buckskin Tank (34.472660 N, (34.450688 N, 111.638111 W), to (34.469515 N, 111.624979 W) west to a 111.652468 W). include Walt’s Tank (34.455959 N, point where the drainage turns (vii) Doren’s Defeat Tank (34.446271 111.638497 W), and upstream in that southwest (34.469911 N, 111.630080 N, 111.641269 W). unnamed drainage to Partnership Tank W), then directly overland to the top of (viii) Needed Tank (34.461023 N, (34.452241 N, 111.646271 W); then Sycamore Basin (34.473970 N, 111.631271 W). upstream from the aforementioned 111.633584 W), and then downstream in (ix) From Middle Tank (34.473076 N, confluence (34.466209 N, 111.636096) Sycamore Basin to Sycamore Basin 111.624488 W) downstream in Boulder in the unnamed drainage that includes Tank (34.481619 N, 111.641676 W), an Canyon to its confluence with an Walt’s Tank to a point where the approximate distance of 4,658 drainage unnamed drainage that comes in from drainage turns east towards Boulder feet (1,420 meters) and 1,827 feet (557 the northwest (34.455688 N, 111.625895 Canyon (34.469911 N, 111.630080 W), meters) overland. W), to include Black Tank (34.462968 N, an approximate distance of 3.65 (xii) From Buckskin Tank upstream in 111.623554 W); then upstream in that drainage miles (5.87 kilometers) and 425 an unnamed drainage to the top of that unnamed drainage to a saddle feet (130 meters) overland. drainage (34.465121 N, 111.641428 W), (34.464120 N, 111.633633 W), to (x) From Doren’s Defeat Tank then directly overland to an unnamed include Needed Tank (34.461023 N, (34.446271 N, 111.641269 W) upstream drainage (34.462851 N, 111.637797 W) 111.631271 W); then downstream from in an unnamed drainage to Partnership that contains Walt’s Tank, an the saddle in an unnamed drainage to Tank (34.452241 N, 111.646271 W), an approximate distance of 1,109 drainage its confluence with another unnamed approximate drainage distance of 3,310 feet (338 meters) and 1,429 feet (435 drainage (34.466209 N, 111.636096); feet (1,009 meters). meters) overland. then downstream in that drainage to the (xi) From the confluence of an (xiii) NOTE: Map of Buckskin Hills confluence with an unnamed drainage unnamed drainage with Boulder Canyon Unit follows:

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:12 Mar 19, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20MRR2.SGM 20MRR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 16404 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

(25) Crouch, Gentry, and Cherry saddle to Cunningham Spring unnamed drainage to Trail Tank Creeks, and Parallel Canyon Unit, Gila (34.121883 N, 110.841424 W), an (34.176747 N, 110.812383 W), an County, Arizona. approximate distance of 3,837 drainage approximate distance of 3.77 drainage (i) Trail Tank (34.176747 N, feet (1,169 meters) and 1,883 feet (574 miles (6.07 kilometers) and 975 feet (297 110.812383 W). meters) overland. meters) overland. (ii) HY Tank (34.148580 N, (v) Pine Spring (34.148580 N, (viii) Crouch Creek from its 110.831331 W). 110.831331 W). headwaters just south of Highway 288 (iii) Carroll Spring (34.133090 N, (vi) Bottle Spring (34.145180 N, 110.838673 W). 110.837515 W). (34.143151 N, 110.836876 W) (iv) West Prong of Gentry Creek from (vii) Cherry Creek from Rock Spring downstream to an unnamed drainage the confluence with an unnamed (34.155505 N, 110.852478 W) upstream leading to Pine Spring (34.102235 N, drainage (34.133243 N, 110.827755 W) to its confluence with an unnamed 110.864341 W), to include Cunningham downstream to a point (34.123475 N, drainage (34.166956 N, 110.815587 W), Spring and Carroll Spring; then 110.827872 W) where the creek turns then upstream in that drainage and upstream in that unnamed drainage southwest and is directly east of a across a saddle (34.176129 N, from Crouch Creek to Pine Spring saddle, then west overland across that 110.808920 W), then downstream in an (34.148580 N, 110.831331 W), an

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:12 Mar 19, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20MRR2.SGM 20MRR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 ER20MR12.019 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 16405

approximate drainage distance of 5.48 (34.145180 N, 110.837515 W), an approximate distance of 762 feet (232 miles (8.82 kilometers). approximate stream distance of 1.66 meters) overland. (ix) From HY Tank (34.176747 N, miles (2.67 kilometers). (xi) NOTE: Map of Crouch, Gentry, and 110.812383 W) downstream in an (x) From Bottle Spring (34.145180 N, Cherry Creeks, and Parallel Canyon Unit unnamed drainage to its confluence 110.837515 W) south over a low saddle follows: with Cherry Creek (34.154309 N, to the headwaters of Crouch Creek 110.85077 W), to include Bottle Spring (34.143151 N, 110.836876 W), an

(26) Ellison and Lewis Creeks Unit, (iii) Unnamed tributary to Ellison over a low saddle to Lewis Creek below Gila County, Arizona. Creek from its confluence with an Pyle Ranch (34.364391 N, 111.186742 (i) Moore Saddle Tank #2 (34.374063 unnamed drainage (34.371458 N, W), then downstream in Lewis Creek to N, 111.205040 W). 111.169111 W) downstream to Ellison its confluence with an unnamed Creek below Pyle Ranch (34.364667 N, drainage (34.354912 N, 111.192547 W), (ii) Low Tank (34.36768 N, 111.19347 111.179966 W), then directly west and then upstream in that unnamed W). across the Ellison Creek floodplain and drainage to Low Tank (34.36768 N,

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:12 Mar 19, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20MRR2.SGM 20MRR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 ER20MR12.020 16406 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

111.19347 W), an approximate distance (iv) NOTE: Map of Ellison and Lewis of 2.52 drainage miles (4.05 kilometers) Creeks Unit follows: and 1,070 feet (326 meters) overland.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:12 Mar 19, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\20MRR2.SGM 20MRR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 ER20MR12.021 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 16407

(27) Concho Bill and Deer Creek Unit, downstream in Deer Creek to its approximate drainage distance of 2,667 Apache County, Arizona. confluence with an unnamed drainage feet (813 meters). (i) From Concho Bill Spring (33.827115 N, 109.359495 W), an (ii) NOTE: Map of Concho Bill and (33.830088 N, 109.366540 W) Deer Creek Unit follows:

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:12 Mar 19, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\20MRR2.SGM 20MRR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 ER20MR12.022 16408 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

(28) Campbell Blue and Coleman (33.738560 N, 109158679 W), an to its confluence with Canyon Creek Creeks Unit, Greenlee County, Arizona. approximate stream distance of 2.04 (33.750139 N, 109.168850 W), an (i) Campbell Blue Creek from the miles (3.28 kilometers). approximate stream distance of 1.04 upstream boundary of Luce Ranch (ii) Coleman Creek from its miles (1.68 kilometers). (33.735956 N, 109.127746 W) upstream confluence with Campbell Blue Creek (iii) NOTE: Map of Campbell Blue and to its confluence with Coalman Creek (33.738560 N, 109158679 W) upstream Coleman Creeks Unit follows:

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:12 Mar 19, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\20MRR2.SGM 20MRR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 ER20MR12.023 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 16409

(29) Kerr Canyon Unit, Catron County, drainage in Kerr Canyon to Kerr Canyon (ii) NOTE: Map of Kerr Canyon Unit New Mexico. Pond (33.649088 N, 108.517011 W), a follows: (i) From Kerr Spring (33.900561 N, distance of approximately 0.98 drainage 108.664732 W) downstream in unnamed miles (1.58 km).

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:12 Mar 19, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\20MRR2.SGM 20MRR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 ER20MR12.024 16410 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

(30) Tularosa River Unit, Catron 108.501926 W) downstream to the an approximate river distance of 19.31 County, New Mexico. entrance to the canyon downstream of miles (31.08 kilometers). (i) Tularosa River from the upper end Hell Hole (33.762737 N, 108.681551 W), (ii) NOTE: Map of Tularosa River Unit of Tularosa Spring (33.903798 N, follows:

(31) Deep Creek Divide Area Unit, Negrito Creek (33.607082 N, 108.631340 three other impoundments along the Catron County, New Mexico. W) upstream to its confluence with an channel (33.601890 N, 108.622227 W; (i) Long Mesa Tank (33.551664 N, unnamed drainage (33.612529 N, 33.602845 N, 108.622764 W; and 108.686841 W). 108.614731 W), an approximate stream 33.603810 N, 108.623971 W), an (ii) Cullum Tank (33.554864 N, distance of 1.37 miles (2.20 kilometers). approximate stream distance of 4,821 108.676961 W). (v) South Fork of Negrito Creek from feet (1,469 meters). (iii) Burro Tank (33.571146 N, its confluence with North Fork of (vi) From Burro Tank (33.571146 N, 108.638682 W). Negrito Creek (33.607082 N, 108.631340 108.638682 W) downstream in Burro (iv) North Fork of Negrito Creek from E) upstream to an impoundment Canyon to Negrito Creek (22.609589 N, its confluence with South Fork of (33.599047 N, 108.621300 W), including 108.638448 W), then upstream in

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:12 Mar 19, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20MRR2.SGM 20MRR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 ER20MR12.025 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 16411

Negrito Creek to the confluence of North approximate distance of 2,003 drainage northeast (33.567121 N, 108.646776 W), and South Forks of Negrito Creeks feet (610 meters) and 1,801 feet (549 then upstream in that drainage and (33.607082 N, 108.631340 W), an meters) overland. directly east-northeast across Rainy approximate stream distance of 3.80 (viii) From Cullum Tank (33.554864 Mesa to Burro Tank (33.571146 N, miles (6.12 kilometers). N, 108.676961 W) downstream in 108.638682 W), an approximate (vii) From Long Mesa Tank Shotgun and Bull Basin Canyons to a distance of 3.88 drainage miles (6.24 (33.551664 N, 108.686841 W) directly confluence with an unnamed drainage kilometers) and 1,863 feet (568 meters) overland and east to Shotgun Canyon (33.581626 N, 108.663624 W), then overland. (33.550816 N, 108.681110 W), then upstream in that drainage to the downstream in that canyon to Cullum confluence with a minor drainage (ix) NOTE: Map of Deep Creek Divide Tank (33.554864 N, 108.676961 W), an leading off Rainy Mesa from the east- Area Unit follows:

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:12 Mar 19, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\20MRR2.SGM 20MRR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 ER20MR12.026 16412 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

(32) West Fork Gila River Unit, Catron its confluence with West Fork Gila River distance of approximately 6.97 drainage County, New Mexico. (33.32593 N, 108.517011 W), then miles (11.22 km). (i) From Turkeyfeather Spring downstream and southeast in West Fork (ii) NOTE: Map of West Fork Gila River (33.337486 N, 108.528607 W) Gila River to its confluence with White Unit follows: downstream in Turkeyfeather Creek to Creek (33.3274675 N, 108.4925 W), a

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:12 Mar 19, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\20MRR2.SGM 20MRR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 ER20MR12.027 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 16413

(33) Main Diamond Creek Unit, downstream to the confluence with an approximate stream distance of 3,980 Catron County, New Mexico. unnamed drainage that comes in from feet (1,213 meters). (i) Main Diamond Creek, from the the south, which is also where Main (ii) NOTE: Map of Main Diamond downstream boundary of Links Ranch Diamond Creek enters a canyon Creek Unit follows: (33.269512 N, 108.105542 W) (33.264514 N, 108.116019 W), an

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:12 Mar 19, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\20MRR2.SGM 20MRR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 ER20MR12.028 16414 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

(34) Beaver Creek Unit, Catron W) downstream to its confluence with (ii) NOTE: Map of Beaver Creek Unit County, New Mexico. Taylor Creek (33.334694 N, 108.101543 follows: (i) Beaver Creek from an unnamed W), an approximate stream distance of warm spring (33.380952 N, 108.111761 5.59 miles (8.89 kilometers).

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:12 Mar 19, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\20MRR2.SGM 20MRR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 ER20MR12.029 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 16415

(35) Left Prong of Dix Creek Unit, 109.149176 W) above ‘‘The Hole’’ 109.157754 W), an approximate stream Greenlee County, Arizona. downstream to its confluence with the distance of 4,248 feet (1,295 meters). (i) Left prong of Dix Creek from an right prong of Dix Creek (33.186657 N, (ii) NOTE: Map of Left Prong of Dix unnamed warm spring (33.179413 N, Creek Unit follows:

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:12 Mar 19, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\20MRR2.SGM 20MRR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 ER20MR12.030 16416 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

(36) Rattlesnake Pasture Tank and its confluence with Red Tank Canyon (33.090898 N, 109.155386 W), then Associated Tanks Unit, Greenlee (33.109603 N, 109.155549 W), to directly upslope to a saddle (33.091771 County, Arizona. include Buckhorn Tank (33.105613 N, N, 109.152380), and across that saddle (i) Rattlesnake Pasture Tank 109.155506 W); then upstream in Red and directly downslope to Rattlesnake (33.093987 N, 109.151714 W). Tank Canyon to Rattlesnake Gap Tank Pasture Tank (33.093987 N, 109.151714 (ii) Rattlesnake Gap Tank (33.098497 (33.098497 N, 109.162152 W), an W), an approximate distance of 3,722 N, 109.162152 W). approximate drainage distance of 2.27 drainage feet (1,134 meters) and 1,645 (iii) Buckhorn Tank (33.105613 N, miles (3.65 kilometers). feet (501 meters) overland. 109.155506 W). (v) From Rattlesnake Gap Tank (iv) From Rattlesnake Pasture Tank (33.098497 N, 109.162152 W) upstream (vi) NOTE: Map of Rattlesnake Pasture (33.093987 N, 109.151714 W) in an unnamed drainage to its Tank and Associated Tanks Unit downstream in an unnamed drainage to confluence with a minor drainage follows:

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:12 Mar 19, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00094 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\20MRR2.SGM 20MRR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 ER20MR12.031 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 16417

(37) Coal Creek Unit, Greenlee downstream to the confluence with an (ii) NOTE: Map of Coal Creek Unit County, Arizona. unnamed drainage (33.110025 N, follows: (i) Coal Creek from the Highway 78 109.065847 W), an approximate stream crossing (33.103667 N, 109.062458 W) distance of 3,447 feet (1,051 meters).

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:12 Mar 19, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00095 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\20MRR2.SGM 20MRR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 ER20MR12.032 16418 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

(38) Blue Creek Unit, Grant County, 108.835761 W) downstream to its stream distance of 2.37 miles (3.81 New Mexico. confluence with an unnamed drainage kilometers). (i) Blue Creek from just east of a corral that comes in from the east (32.825785 (ii) NOTE: Map of Blue Creek Unit on private lands (32.848702 N, N, 108.824742 W), an approximate follows:

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:12 Mar 19, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00096 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\20MRR2.SGM 20MRR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 ER20MR12.033 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 16419

(39) South Fork Palomas Creek Unit, downstream in South Fork Palomas Ladder Ranch, a distance of Sierra County, New Mexico. Creek to its confluence with an approximately 2.32 drainage miles (3.73 (i) From the confluence of an unnamed tributary in Dark Canyon km). unnamed tributary in Wagonbed (33.167074 N, 107.68853 W), excluding (ii) NOTE: Map of South Fork Palomas Canyon and South Fork Palomas Creek the portions of South Fork Palomas Creek Unit follows: (33.164592 N, 107.723155 W), Creek on privately owned lands of the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:12 Mar 19, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00097 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\20MRR2.SGM 20MRR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 ER20MR12.034 16420 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

(40) Seco Creek Unit, Sierra County, boundary of the Ladder Ranch Well (33.112421 N 107.728650 W), an New Mexico. (33.112689 N, 107.709554 W), to approximate drainage distance of 3.32 (i) North Seco Creek from Sawmill include Sawmill Well (33.112052 N, miles (5.35 kilometers). Well (33.112052 N, 107.760165 W) 107.760165 W), Sucker Ledge (ii) NOTE: Map of Seco Creek Unit downstream to the private land (33.113545 N, 107.747370 W), and Davis follows:

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:12 Mar 19, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00098 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\20MRR2.SGM 20MRR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 ER20MR12.035 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 16421

(41) Alamosa Warm Springs Unit, Alamosa Creek to the confluence with 107.600153 W), an approximate stream Socorro County, New Mexico. an unnamed drainage that comes in distance of 4,974 feet (1,516 meters). (i) From the confluence of Wildhorse from the north (33.569199 N, (ii) NOTE: Map of Alamosa Warm Canyon and Alamosa Creek (33.570315 107.577137 W), to include Alamosa Springs Unit follows: N, 107.608474 W) downstream in Warm Springs (33.572365 N,

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:12 Mar 19, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00099 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\20MRR2.SGM 20MRR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 ER20MR12.036 16422 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

(42) Cuchillo Negro Warm Springs 107.563619 W) downstream in Cuchillo Negro Creek on privately owned lands, and Creek Unit, Sierra County, New Negro Creek to its confluence with an an approximate stream distance of 2,518 Mexico. unnamed drainage that comes in from feet (768 meters). (i) From the upper of the two Cuchillo the north (33.271386 N, 107.557843 W), (ii) NOTE: Map of Cuchillo Negro Negro Warm Springs (33.268403 N, excluding the portions of Cuchillo Warm Springs and Creek Unit follows:

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:12 Mar 19, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00100 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\20MRR2.SGM 20MRR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 ER20MR12.037 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 16423

(43) Ash and Bolton Springs Unit, 108.072542 W) west to a low saddle another unnamed drainage (32.715207 Grant County, New Mexico. (32.714373 N, 108.075263 W) and N, 108.092094 W), then downstream in (i) Ash Spring (32.715625 N, directly downslope into an unnamed that unnamed drainage to its confluence 108.071980 W). drainage (32.713983 N, 108.076665 W), with Bolton Canyon (32.707844 N, (ii) Unnamed spring in Bolton Canyon then downstream in that drainage to its 108.099267 W), and then upstream in locally known as Bolton Springs confluence with another unnamed Bolton Canyon to the locally known (32.713419 N, 108.099679 W). drainage (32.712829 N, 108.078131 W), Bolton Springs (32.713419 N, (iii) From the spring box at Ash then downstream in that unnamed 108.099679 W), an approximate Spring (32.715625 N, 108.071980 W) downstream to a dirt road crossing of drainage to its confluence with another distance of 2.41 drainage miles (3.87 the drainage (32.708769 N, 108.073579 unnamed drainage (32.708210 N, kilometers) and 2,650 feet (808 meters) W), an approximate stream distance of 108.086360 W), then upstream in that overland. 2,830 feet (863 meters). unnamed drainage to the top of that (v) NOTE: Map of Ash and Bolton (iv) From the the ruins of a house in drainage (32.715476 N, 108.087719 W) Springs Unit follows: the Ash Spring drainage (32.714562 N, and directly downslope and west to

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:12 Mar 19, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00101 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\20MRR2.SGM 20MRR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 ER20MR12.038 16424 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

(44) Mimbres River Unit, Grant to include Moreno Spring (32.887107 N, southern boundary of The Nature County, New Mexico. 107.989492 W) and ponds at Milagros Conservancy’s Disert property near (i) The Mimbres River from the Ranch, an approximate river distance of Faywood (32.743884 N, 107.880297 W), northern boundary of The Nature 2.42 miles (3.89 kilometers). an approximate river distance of 5.82 Conservancy’s Mimbres River Preserve (ii) The Mimbres River from the miles (9.36 kilometers). property (32.912474 N, 108.004529 W) bridge just west of the town of San NOTE: downstream to its confluence with Bear Lorenzo (32.808190 N, 107.924589 W) (iii) Map of Mimbres River Unit Canyon (32.883926 N, 107.988252 W), downstream to its intersection with the follows:

* * * * * Dated: March 5, 2012. Rachel Jacobson, Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks. [FR Doc. 2012–5953 Filed 3–19–12; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310–55–C

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:12 Mar 19, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00102 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\20MRR2.SGM 20MRR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 ER20MR12.039