Vol. 76 Tuesday, No. 50 March 15, 2011

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; Proposed Rule

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:55 Mar 14, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 14126 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: accurate and as effective as possible. Steve Spangle, Field Supervisor, U.S. Therefore, we request comments or Fish and Wildlife Service Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona information from other concerned Ecological Services Field Office, 2321 governmental agencies, tribes, the 50 CFR Part 17 West Royal Palm Road, Suite 103, scientific community, industry, or other [Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2010–0085; MO Phoenix, AZ 85021; telephone: 602/ interested parties concerning this 92210–0–0009–B4] 242–0210; facsimile: 602/242–2513. If proposed rule. We particularly seek you use a telecommunications device comments concerning: RIN 1018–AX12 for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal (1) Information about the status of the Information Relay Service (FIRS) at species, especially the Ramsey Canyon Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 800–877–8339. portion of the range, including: and Plants; Listing and Designation of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Due to a (a) Genetics and taxonomy; Critical Habitat for the Chiricahua (b) Historical and current range, Leopard Frog taxonomic revision of the Chiricahua leopard frog, we must reassess the status including distribution patterns; AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, of and threats to the currently described (c) Historical and current population Interior. Lithobates chiricahuensis. Therefore, levels, and current and projected trends; and ACTION: Proposed rule. this document consists of: (1) A proposed rule to list the Chiricahua (d) Past and ongoing conservation SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and leopard frog (Lithobates chiricahuensis) measures for the species, its habitat, or Wildlife Service (Service), propose to as threatened; and (2) a proposed rule to both. designate critical habitat for the designate critical habitat for the (2) The factors that are the basis for Chiricahua leopard frog (Lithobates Chiricahua leopard frog. making a listing determination for a chiricahuensis) under the Endangered species under section 4(a) of the Act, Previous Federal Actions Species Act of 1973, as amended. In which are: total, we are proposing to designate We published a proposed rule to list (a) The present or threatened approximately 11,136 acres (4,510 the Chiricahua leopard frog as destruction, modification, or hectares) as critical habitat for the threatened in the Federal Register on curtailment of its habitat or range; Chiricahua leopard frog. The proposed June 14, 2000 (65 FR 37343). We (b) Overutilization for commercial, critical habitat is located in Apache, published a final rule listing the species recreational, scientific, or educational Cochise, Gila, Graham, Greenlee, Pima, as threatened on June 13, 2002 (67 FR purposes; Santa Cruz, and Yavapai Counties, 40790). Included in the final rule was a (c) Disease or predation; Arizona; and Catron, Hidalgo, Grant, special rule (see 50 CFR 17.43(b)) to (d) The inadequacy of existing Sierra, and Socorro Counties, New exempt operation and maintenance of regulatory mechanisms; or Mexico. In addition, because of a livestock tanks on non-Federal lands (e) Other natural or manmade factors taxonomic revision of the Chiricahua from the section 9 take prohibitions of affecting its continued existence. leopard frog, we are reassessing the the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as (3) Biological, commercial trade, or status of and threats to the currently amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). For other relevant data concerning any described species Lithobates further information on actions threats (or lack thereof) to Chiricahua chiricahuensis and proposing the listing associated with listing the species, leopard frog and regulations that may be as threatened of the currently described please see the final listing rule (67 FR addressing those threats. (4) Additional information concerning species. 40790; June 13, 2002). In a May 6, 2009, order from the the range, distribution, and population DATES: We will consider comments Arizona District Court, the Secretary of size of Chiricahua leopard frog, received or postmarked on or before the Interior was required to publish a including the locations of any May 16, 2011. We must receive requests critical habitat prudency determination additional populations. for public hearings, in writing, at the for the Chiricahua leopard frog and, if (5) Any information on the biological address shown in the FOR FURTHER found prudent, a proposed rule to or ecological requirements of Chiricahua INFORMATION CONTACT section by April designate critical habitat by December 8, leopard frog. 29, 2011. 2010. Because of unforeseen delays (6) The reasons why we should or ADDRESSES: You may submit comments related to species taxonomic issues, should not designate habitat as ‘‘critical by one of the following methods: which required an inclusion of a threats habitat’’ under section 4 of the Act, • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// analysis, we requested a 3-month including whether there are threats to www.regulations.gov. Follow the extension to the court-ordered deadlines the species from human activities, how instructions for submitting comments for both the proposed and final rules. the designation may ameliorate or on Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2010–0085. On November 24, 2010, the extension worsen those threats, and if any • U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public was granted and new deadlines of potential increase in threats outweighs Comments Processing, Attn: Docket No. March 8, 2011, for the proposed rule the benefits of designation such that the FWS–R2–ES–2010–0085; Division of and March 8, 2012, for the final rule designation of critical habitat may not Policy and Directives Management; U.S. were established for completing and be prudent. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. submitting the critical habitat rules to (7) Specific information on: Fairfax Drive, Suite 222; Arlington, VA the Federal Register. This proposed rule • The amount and distribution of the 22203. is published in accordance with the Chiricahua leopard frog’s habitat; We will not accept e-mail or faxes. We Arizona District Court’s ruling. • What areas occupied at the time of will post all comments on the Internet listing and that contain features at http://www.regulations.gov. This Public Comments essential to the conservation of the generally means that we will post any We intend that any final action species should be included in the personal information you provide us resulting from this proposed rule will be designation, and why; (see the Public Comments section below based on the best scientific and • Special management considerations for more information). commercial data available and be as or protections that the physical and

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:55 Mar 14, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 14127

biological features essential to the draft economic analysis and draft showed no evidence that Ramsey conservation of the Chiricahua leopard environmental assessment. Canyon leopard frog was a separate frog that have been identified in this Comments and materials we receive, species from the Chiricahua leopard frog proposal may require, including as well as supporting documentation we (Goldberg et al. 2004, p. 315). The managing for the potential effects of used in preparing this proposed rule, Society for the Study of Amphibians climate change; and will be available for public inspection and Reptiles later adopted these leopard • What areas not occupied at the time on the Internet at http:// frogs as the same species, L. of listing are essential for the www.regulations.gov, at Docket No. chiricahuensis (Crother 2008, p. 7). conservation of the species, and why. FWS–R2–ES–2010–0085, or by Therefore, we no longer recognize the (8) Land-use designations and current appointment, during normal business Ramsey Canyon leopard frog (L. or planned activities in the subject areas hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife subaquavocalis) as a distinct species and their possible impacts on proposed Service, Arizona Ecological Services and consider it to be synonymous with critical habitat. Field Office, 2321 West Royal Palm the Chiricahua leopard frog (L. (9) Any probable economic, national Road, Suite 103, Phoenix, AZ 85021. chiricahuensis). In this proposed rule, security, or other relevant impacts of we present our analysis of the threats to designating as critical habitat any area Proposed Threatened Status for the Chiricahua Leopard Frog the species given this taxonomic that may be included in the final revision to determine if it is appropriate designation. We are particularly Background to list the Chiricahua leopard frog as interested in any impacts on small Due to a taxonomic revision of the threatened throughout its range (see entities or families, and the benefits of Chiricahua leopard frog, we must Summary of Factors Affecting the including or excluding areas that exhibit reassess the status of and threats to the Species below). these impacts. currently described species. It is our Northern populations of the (10) Whether we could improve or intent to discuss below only those Chiricahua leopard frog in the Mogollon modify our approach to designating topics directly relevant to the listing of Rim region of east-central Arizona east critical habitat in any way to provide for the Chiricahua leopard frog as to the eastern bajada of the Black Range greater public participation and threatened in this section of the in New Mexico are physically separated understanding, or to better proposed rule. For more information on from populations to the south. Previous accommodate public concerns and the Chiricahua leopard frog, refer to the work had suggested these two separate comments. (11) Information on whether the final listing rule published in the divisions might be distinct species benefits of an exclusion of any Federal Register on June 13, 2002 (67 (Platz and Grudzien 1999, p. 51). particular area outweigh the benefits of FR 40790) and the species’ recovery Goldberg et al. (2004, p. 315) inclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the plan (Service 2007). demonstrated that frogs from these two regions showed a 2.4 percent average Act. Species Information (12) Information on the projected and divergence in mitochondrial DNA Description reasonably likely impacts of climate sequences. However, more recent work change on the Chiricahua leopard frog When we listed the Chiricahua using both mitochondrial DNA and and the critical habitat areas we are leopard frog as a threatened species on nuclear microsatellites from frog tissues proposing. June 13, 2002 (67 FR 40790), we throughout the range of the species You may submit your comments and recognized the scientific name as Rana provides no evidence of multiple taxa materials concerning this proposed rule chiricahuensis. Since that time, the within what we now consider to be the by one of the methods listed in the genus name Lithobates was proposed by Chiricahua leopard frog (Herrman et al. ADDRESSES section. We will not accept Frost et al. (2006, p. 249) and adopted 2009, p. 18). comments sent by e-mail or fax or to an by the Society for the Study of The Chiricahua leopard frog is address not listed in the ADDRESSES Amphibians and Reptiles in their most distinguished from other members of section. We will not consider hand- recent listing of scientific and standard the leopard frog complex by a delivered comments that we do not English names of North American combination of characters, including a receive, or mailed comments that are amphibians and reptiles north of distinctive pattern on the rear of the not postmarked, by the date specified in Mexico (Crother 2008, p. 7). With the thigh consisting of small, raised, cream- the DATES section. publication of this proposed rule, we colored spots or tubercles (wart-like We will post your entire comment— officially accept the new scientific name projections) on a dark background; folds including any personal identifying of the Chiricahua leopard frog as on the back and sides that, towards the information you provide—on http:// Lithobates chiricahuensis. rear, are interrupted and deflected www.regulations.gov. If you provide In addition, the Ramsey Canyon towards the middle of the body; stocky personal identifying information, such leopard frog (Lithobates body proportions; relatively rough skin as your street address, phone number, or subaquavocalis), found on the eastern on the back and sides; eyes that are e-mail address, in your written slopes of the Huachuca Mountains, positioned relatively high on the head; comments, you may request at the top Cochise County, Arizona, has recently and often green coloration on the head of your document that we withhold this been subsumed into L. chiricahuensis and back (Platz and Mecham 1979, p. information from public review. (Crother 2008, p. 7) and was noted by 347.1; Degenhardt et al. 1996, pp. 85– However, we cannot guarantee that we the Service as part of the listed entity in 87). The species also has a distinctive will be able to do so. a 90-day finding on 192 species from a call consisting of a relatively long snore A draft economic analysis and draft petition to list 475 species (74 FR 66866; of 1 to 2 seconds in duration (Platz and environmental assessment for this December 16, 2009). Goldberg et al. Mecham 1979, p. 347.1; Davidson 1996, action will be prepared and made (2004, pp. 313–319) examined the tracks 58, 59). Overall body lengths of available to the public for review. At relationships between the Ramsey adults range from approximately 2.1 that time, we will reopen the comment Canyon leopard frog (L. subaquavocalis) inches (in) (5.3 centimeters (cm)) to 5.4 period on this proposed rule and and the Chiricahua leopard frog (L. in (13.7 cm) (Platz and Mecham 1979, concurrently solicit comments on the chiricahuensis). Genetic analysis p. 347.1; Stebbins 2003, pp. 236–237).

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:55 Mar 14, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 14128 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules

Life History 2005, p. 547). Chiricahua leopard frogs environments), rivers, and lakes where The life history of the Chiricahua presumably experience very high the species occurred historically are leopard frog can be characterized as a mortality (greater than 90 percent) in the populated with nonnative predators at complex life cycle, consisting of eggs egg and early tadpole stages, high densities with which the Chiricahua and larvae that are entirely aquatic and mortality when the tadpole turns into a leopard frog cannot coexist. juvenile frog, and then relatively low adults who are primarily aquatic but Dispersal may be terrestrial at times. Egg masses mortality when the frogs are adults (Zug et al. 2001, p. 303; Service 2007, pp. Although one of the most aquatic of of Chiricahua leopard frogs have been southwestern leopard frogs (Degenhardt reported in all months, but reports of C10–C12). Under ideal conditions, Chiricahua leopard frogs may live as et al. 1996, p. 86), Chiricahua leopard egg laying (oviposition) in June and frogs are known to move among aquatic November through January are long as 10 years in the wild (Platz et al. 1997, p. 553). sites, and such movements are crucial uncommon (Zweifel 1968, pp. 45–46; for conserving metapopulations. A Frost and Bagnara 1977, p. 449; Frost Geographical Range and Distribution metapopulation is a set of local and Platz 1983, p. 67; Scott and The range of the Chiricahua leopard populations that interact via individuals Jennings 1985, p. 16; Sredl and Jennings frog includes central and southeastern moving between local populations 2005, p. 547). Frost and Platz (1983, p. Arizona; west-central and southwestern (Hanski and Gilpin 1991, p. 7). If local 67) divided egg-laying activity into two New Mexico; and in Mexico, populations are extirpated through distinct periods with respect to northeastern Sonora, the Sierra Madre drought, disease, or other factors, the elevation. Populations at elevations Occidental of northwestern and west- populations can be recolonized via below 5,900 feet (ft) (1,798 meters (m)) central Chihuahua, and possibly as far dispersal from adjacent populations. tended to lay eggs from spring through south as northern Durango (Platz and Hence, the long-term viability of late summer, with most activity taking Mecham 1984, p. 347.1; Degenhardt et metapopulations may be enhanced over place before June. Populations above al. 1996, p. 87; Sredl and Jennings 2005, that of isolated populations, even 5,900 ft (1,798 m) bred in June, July, and p. 546; Brennan and Holycross 2006, p. though local populations experience August. Scott and Jennings (1985, p. 16) 44; Lemos-Espinal and Smith 2007, pp. periodic extirpations. To determine found a similar seasonal pattern of 287, 579; Rorabaugh 2008, p. 32). The whether metapopulation structure exists reproductive activity in New Mexico distribution of the species in Mexico is in a specific group of local populations, (February through September), as did unclear due to limited survey work and the dispersal capabilities of the frog Frost and Platz (1983, p. 67), although the presence of closely related taxa must be understood. Based on a review they did not note elevational (especially Lithobates lemosespinali (no of available information, the recovery differences. Additionally, Scott and common name)) in the southern part of plan (Service 2007, pp. D–2, D–3, K–3) Jennings (1985, p. 16) noted reduced egg the range of the Chiricahua leopard frog. provides a rule of thumb on dispersal laying in May and June. Zweifel (1968, Based on 2009 data, the species still capabilities. Chiricahua leopard frogs p. 45) noted that breeding in the early occurs in most major drainages in are reasonably likely to disperse 1.0 part of the year appeared to be limited Arizona and New Mexico where it mile (mi) (1.6 kilometers (km)) overland, to sites where water temperatures do not occurred historically; the exception to 3.0 mi (4.8 km) along ephemeral or get too low, such as spring-fed sites. this is the Little Colorado River drainage intermittent drainages (water existing Frogs at warm springs may lay eggs in Arizona. The species is apparently only briefly), and 5.0 mi (8.0 km) along year-round (Scott and Jennings 1985, p. extirpated from the Chiricahua perennial water courses (water present 16). Also, females attach spherical Mountains of Arizona, which harbored at all times of the year), or some masses of fertilized eggs, ranging in the type locality. In Arizona and New combination thereof not to exceed 5.0 number from 300 to 1,485 eggs, to Mexico, the species likely occurs at mi (8.0 km). This is often referred to as submerged vegetation (Sredl and about 14 and 16 to 19 percent of its the ‘‘1–3–5 rule’’ of dispersal. Jennings 2005, p. 547). historical localities, respectively Summary of Factors Affecting the Eggs hatch in approximately 8 to 14 (Service 2007, p. 6). days depending on temperature (Sredl Species and Jennings 2005, p. 547). After Habitat Section 4 of the Act and its hatching, tadpoles remain in the water, Within its geographical range, implementing regulations (50 CFR part where they feed and grow. Tadpoles breeding populations of this species 424) set forth the procedures for adding turn into juvenile frogs in 3 to 9 months historically inhabited a variety of species to the Federal Lists of (Sredl and Jennings 2005, p. 547). aquatic habitats (Service 2007, p. 3); Endangered and Threatened Wildlife Juvenile frogs are typically 1.4 to 1.6 in however, the species is now limited and Plants (Lists). A species may be (35 to 40 millimeters (mm)) in overall primarily to headwater streams and determined to be endangered or body length. Males reach sexual springs, and livestock tanks into which threatened due to one or more of the maturity at 2.1 to 2.2 in (5.3 to 5.6 cm), nonnative predators (e.g., sportfishes, five factors described in section 4(a)(1) a size they can attain in less than a year American bullfrogs (Lithobates of the Act: (A) The present or threatened (Sredl and Jennings 2005, p. 548). catesbeianus), crayfish (Orconectes destruction, modification, or The diet of the Chiricahua leopard virilis), barred tiger salamanders curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) frog includes primarily invertebrates (Ambystoma mavortium mavortium)) overutilization for commercial, such as beetles, true bugs, and flies, but have not yet invaded or been recreational, scientific, or educational fish and snails are also taken (Christman introduced, or where the numbers of purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) and Cummer 2006, pp. 9–18). An adult nonnative predators are low and the inadequacy of existing regulatory was documented eating a hummingbird habitats are complex, allowing mechanisms; and (E) other natural or in southeastern Arizona (Field et al. Chiricahua leopard frogs to coexist with manmade factors affecting its continued 2003, p. 235). Chiricahua leopard frogs these species (Service 2007, p. 15). The existence. The final listing rule for the can be found active both day and night, large valley-bottom cienegas (mid- Chiricahua leopard frog (67 FR 40790; but adults tend to be active more at elevation wetland communities June 13, 2002) contained a discussion of night than juveniles (Sredl and Jennings typically surrounded by relatively arid these five factors, as did the proposed

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:55 Mar 14, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 14129

rule (65 FR 37343; June 14, 2000). A copper mine (the Rosemont Mine) Disease Threats discussed in the previous listing has been proposed in the northeastern In some areas, Chiricahua leopard frog rules are still affecting the Chiricahua portion of the Santa Rita Mountains, populations are known to be seriously leopard frog today. Please refer to these Pima County, Arizona (recovery unit 2), affected by chytridiomycosis. rules or the Chiricahua leopard frog the footprint of which includes several Chytridiomycosis is an introduced recovery plan (Service 2007; pp. 18–45) sites recently occupied by Chiricahua fungal skin disease caused by the for a more detailed analysis of the leopard frogs. Recent research indicates organism Batrachochytrium threats affecting the species. Because we that Chiricahua leopard frog tadpoles dendrobatidis or ‘‘Bd.’’ Voyles et al. no longer recognize the Ramsey Canyon are sensitive to cadmium and copper (2009) hypothesized that Bd disrupts leopard frog as a distinct species and above certain levels (Little and Calfee normal regulatory functioning of frog consider it to be synonymous with the 2008, pp. 6–10), making the skin, and evidence suggests that Chiricahua leopard frog, we reanalyzed introduction of copper into Chiricahua electrolyte depletion and osmotic factors relevant to the entire listed entity leopard frog habitat a possible imbalance that occur in amphibians below. However, because all the threats significant threat. No analyses have with severe chytridiomycosis are from the previous rules still apply, we been conducted yet to quantify how the sufficient to cause mortality. This provide a summary of those below. frogs and their habitats may be affected disease has been associated with in that region, which potentially A. The Present or Threatened numerous population extirpations, includes the Bureau of Land particularly in New Mexico, and with Destruction, Modification, or Management’s Las Cienegas National Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range major die-offs in other populations of Riparian Conservation Area; however, a Chiricahua leopard frogs (Service 2007). The recovery plan lists the following draft environmental impact statement threats to habitat or range of the will likely be published in 2011. Predation Chiricahua leopard frog: Mining, The Southwest Endangered Species Prior to the invasion of perennial including mining-related contaminants; Act Team (2008, pp. iii-IV–5) published waters by predatory, nonnative species other contaminants; dams; diversions; ‘‘Chiricahua leopard frog (Lithobates (American bullfrog, crayfish, fish stream channelization; groundwater [Rana] chiricahuensis) considerations species), the frog was historically found pumping; woodcutting; urban and for making effects determinations and in a variety of aquatic habitat types. agricultural development; road recommendations for reducing and Today, leopard frogs in the construction; grazing by livestock and avoiding adverse effects,’’ which southwestern United States are so elk; climate change; and altered fire included detailed descriptions of how strongly impacted by harmful nonnative regimes (Service 2007, pp. 31–37). many different types of projects, species, which are most prevalent in Although these threats are widespread including fire management, perennial waters, that the leopard frogs’ and varied, a threats assessment that construction, native fish recovery, and occupied niche is increasingly restricted livestock management projects, may was accomplished as part of the to the uncommon environments that do affect the frog and its habitat. This recovery plan showed chytridiomycosis not contain these nonnative predators, document, in addition to the recovery and predation by nonnative species as and these environments now tend to be plan (Service 2007, pp. 31–37), can be consistently more important threats ephemeral and unpredictable. Witte et referenced for more information about than these habitat-based factors (Service al. (2008, p. 378) found that sites with habitat-related threats to. Habitat-related 2007, pp. 20–27). disappearances of Chiricahua leopard threats to the Chiricahua leopard frog, frogs were 2.6 times more likely to have Chiricahua leopard frogs are fairly while not the most important factors tolerant of variations in water quality, introduced crayfish than were control threatening the species, nevertheless sites. Unfortunately, few sites with but likely do not persist in waters affect the Chiricahua leopard frog such bullfrogs were included in the Witte et severely polluted with cattle feces that the species is likely to become al. (2008, pp. 375–383) study, and at (Service 2007, p. 34), or runoff from endangered within the foreseeable many sites, there was no identification mine tailings or leach ponds (Rathbun future. of the species of fish present. 1969, pp. 1–3; U.S. Bureau of Land Management 1998, p. 26; Service 2007, B. Overutilization for Commercial, Summary of Factor C p. 36). Furthermore, variation in pH, Recreational, Scientific, or Educational Overall, the Chiricahua leopard frog ultraviolet radiation, and temperature, Purposes has made modest population gains in as well as predation stress, can alter the Even though the final listing rule (67 Arizona in spite of disease and potency of chemical effects (Akins and FR 40790; June 13, 2002) discussed predation, but is apparently declining in Wofford 1999, p. 107; Monson et al. over-collection for the pet trade as a New Mexico because of these threats. 1999, pp. 309–311; Reylea 2004, pp. possible threat, we have no information We consider disease, specifically 1081–1084). Chemicals may also serve that leads us to believe that chytridiomycosis, and predation by as a stressor that makes frogs more overutilization for commercial, nonnative species to be threats affecting susceptible to disease, such as recreational, scientific, or educational the species such that the species is chytridiomycosis (see discussion under purposes is currently a threat to the likely to become endangered within the Factor C below) (Parris and Baud 2004, Chiricahua leopard frog. foreseeable future. p. 344). The effects of pesticides and other chemicals on amphibians can be C. Disease and Predation D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory complex because of indirect effects on The threats assessment conducted Mechanisms the amphibian environment, direct during the preparation of the recovery The Chiricahua leopard frog is lethal and sublethal effects on plan (Service 2007, pp. 18–45) found currently listed as a threatened species individuals, and interactions between that disease (chytridiomycosis) and (67 FR 40790; June 13, 2002) with a contaminants and other factors predation by nonnative species special rule (see 50 CFR 17.43(b)) to associated with amphibian decline (bullfrogs, crayfish, fish, and tiger exempt operation and maintenance of (Sparling 2003, pp. 1101–1120; Reylea salamanders) are the most important livestock tanks on non-Federal lands 2008, pp. 367–374). threats to the Chiricahua leopard frog. from the section 9 take prohibitions of

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:55 Mar 14, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 14130 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules

the Act. Even with regulatory systemic lack of genetic diversity within any during the last several hundred protections of the Act currently in place, the Chiricahua leopard frog as a species years (Seager et al. 2007, p. 3). nonnative species used for fishing baits (Herrmann et al. 2009, pp. 12–17). In Drought has likely contributed to loss in Chiricahua leopard frog habitats pose fact, populations were quite variable; up of Chiricahua leopard frog populations a significant threat to the Chiricahua to 16 different genetic groupings were since the species was originally listed in leopard frog; use of these nonnative found. This does not preclude the 2002. Stock tank populations are species as fishing baits presents a possibility that individual populations particularly vulnerable to loss, because vehicle for the distribution of these may suffer from genetic or demographic they tend to dry out during periods of often predatory or competitive bait problems, but the study shows the below normal precipitation. These species into frog habitat and for the species retains good genetic variability. trends are likely to continue, but the dissemination of deadly diseases to the situation is complicated by interactions Climate Change frog. Picco and Collins (2008, pp. 1585– with other factors. For example, the 1587) found waterdogs (tiger The Chiricahua leopard frog recovery effects of drought cannot be separated salamanders; Ambystoma tigrinum) plan (Service 2007, pp. 40–43) describes from the effects of introduced aquatic infected with chytridiomycosis in anticipated effects of climate change on predators, because drought will affect Arizona bait shops, and waterdogs the Chiricahua leopard frog. The plan those predators as well as populations infected with ranavirus in Arizona, New cited literature indicating that of Chiricahua leopard frogs. The Mexico, and Colorado bait shops. temperatures rose in the 20th century interaction between predators and Furthermore, they found that 26 to 67 and warming is predicted to continue drought resistance of frog habitats is percent of anglers released tiger over the 21st century (Service 2007, pp. often a delicate balance. Stock tanks are salamanders bought as bait into the 40–43). Climate models are less certain likely an important habitat for waters where they fish, and 4 percent of about predicted trends in precipitation, Chiricahua leopard frogs in part because bait shops released tiger salamanders but the southwestern United States is these sites dry out periodically, which back into the wild after they were expected to become drier. Since the rids them of most aquatic predators. housed in shops with infected animals, recovery plan was prepared, the Leopard frogs can often withstand despite the fact that release of live Intergovernmental Panel on Climate drying of stock tanks for 30 days or salamanders is prohibited by Arizona Change (IPCC) (2007, pp. 1–8) published more, whereas fish and bullfrogs may Game and Fish Commission Orders. a report stating that global warming is not. However, if stock tanks dry for This study showed the inadequacy of occurring and that precipitation patterns longer periods of time, neither leopard current State regulations in regard to are being affected. frogs nor introduced predators may be According to the IPCC report, global preventing the spread of amphibian capable of persisting. Drought will mean precipitation is anticipated to diseases via the waterdog bait trade. reduce habitats of both leopard frogs increase, but not uniformly (IPCC 2007, Even though the Chiricahua leopard frog and introduced predators, but exactly p. 8). In the American Southwest and is currently listed under the Endangered how that will affect the Chiricahua elsewhere in the middle latitudes, Species Act as a threatened species, leopard frog will probably be site- precipitation is expected to decrease. additional regulation or increased specific. At this time, it is difficult to There is also high confidence that many enforcement of existing regulations or predict how drought will impact the semi-arid areas like the western United both are needed to stem the spread of overall species’ status, but Chiricahua States will suffer a decrease in water amphibian diseases via use of waterdogs leopard frog sites could be buffered from resources due to climate change, as a the effects of drought by wells or other for bait. Therefore, we consider the result of less annual mean precipitation inadequacy of current regulatory anthropogenic water supplies. Even and reduced length of snow season and though drought may contribute to loss mechanisms to prevent the spread of snow depth (IPCC 2007, p. 8). Although amphibian diseases via the bait trade to of site-specific populations, we do not most climate models predict a drying consider it to be a threat to the species be a threat such that the species is likely trend in the 21st century in the to become endangered within the at this time or in the foreseeable future. southwestern United States, these Additionally, the effects of foreseeable future. predictions are less certain than chytridiomycosis on frogs are related to E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors predicted warming trends. The models water temperature. Sites where Affecting Its Continued Existence do not predict summer precipitation Chiricahua leopard frogs coexist with well, and typically at least half of the disease are typically at lower Small Populations precipitation within the range of the elevations and are warmer sites (Service Among the potential threats in this Chiricahua leopard frog occurs in the 2007, p. 26). As a result, if temperatures category discussed in the Chiricahua summer months (Brown 1982, pp. 58– increase as predicted, perhaps more leopard frog recovery plan (Service 62; Guido 2008, p. 5). Furthermore, populations will be able to persist with 2007, pp. i-M–17) and the final listing there have been no trends either in the disease. Thus climate change, rule (67 FR 40790; June 13, 2002), are summer rainfall over the last 100 years particularly in the form of increased genetic and stochastic effects that in Arizona (Guido 2008, pp. 3–5), or water temperatures, does not seem to manifest in small populations. since 1955 in annual precipitation in pose a significant threat to the Specifically, small populations are the western United States (van Mantgem Chiricahua leopard frog into the vulnerable to extirpation due to random et al. 2009, p. 523). On the other hand, foreseeable future. variations in age structure and sex all severe, multi-year droughts in the ratios, as well as from disease or other southwestern United States and Summary of Factor E natural events that a larger population is northwestern Mexico have been The Chiricahua leopard frog recovery more likely to survive. Inbreeding associated with La Nin˜ a events (Seager plan (Service 2007) describes genetic depression and loss of genetic diversity et al. 2007, p. 3), during which sea and stochastic effects that manifest in in small populations can also reduce the surface temperatures in the tropical small populations and the anticipated fitness of individuals and the ability of Pacific decline. Climate models predict effects of climate change on the a population to adapt to change. The that drought driven by La Nin˜ a events Chiricahua leopard frog as potential recent genetic study revealed no will be deeper and more profound than threats to the species. Herrmann et al.’s

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:55 Mar 14, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 14131

recent genetic study (2009, pp. 12–17), populations and metapopulations, we Federal agency actions within the however, revealed no systemic lack of have determined that the species is not species’ habitat that may require genetic diversity within Chiricahua in immediate danger of extinction (i.e., conference or consultation or both as leopard frog populations. Moreover, on the brink of extinction). However, described in the preceding paragraph climate change, particularly in the form because we believe that the present include management and any other of increased water temperatures, does threats are likely to continue in the landscape-altering activities on Federal not seem to pose a significant threat to future (such as chytrid fungus and lands administered by the Department the Chiricahua leopard frog into the nonnative predators spreading and of Defense, U.S. Fish and Wildlife foreseeable future. As such, other increasing in prevalence and range, Service, U.S. Forest Service, and Bureau natural or manmade factors affecting the affecting more populations of the of Land Management; issuance of species’ continued existence do not leopard frog, thus increasing the threats section 404 Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. appear to be a threat affecting the in the foreseeable future), we have 1251 et seq.) permits by the U.S. Army Chiricahua leopard frog such that the determined that the Chiricahua leopard Corps of Engineers; and construction species is likely to become endangered frog is likely to become in danger of and maintenance of roads or highways within the foreseeable future. extinction throughout all or a significant by the Federal Highway Administration. portion of its range in the foreseeable The Act and its implementing Proposed Determination future. Therefore, we determine that the regulations set forth a series of general We have carefully assessed the best Chiricahua leopard frog meets the prohibitions and exceptions that apply scientific and commercial information definition of a threatened species under to all endangered wildlife. The available regarding the past, present, the Act. prohibitions, codified at 50 CFR 17.21 and future threats to the Chiricahua for endangered wildlife and 50 CFR leopard frog. In summary, the most Available Conservation Measures 17.31 for threatened wildlife, in part, significant threats to the Chiricahua Conservation measures provided to make it illegal for any person subject to leopard frog include the effects of the species listed as endangered or the jurisdiction of the United States to disease chytridiomycosis, which has threatened under the Act include take (includes harass, harm, pursue, been associated with major die-offs in recognition, recovery actions, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, some populations of Chiricahua leopard requirements for Federal protection, and or collect; or to attempt any of these), frogs (Service 2007, pp. B8–B88), and prohibitions against certain practices. import, export, ship in interstate predation by nonnative species (Factor Recognition through listing results in commerce in the course of commercial C). Additional factors affecting the public awareness and conservation by activity, or sell or offer for sale in species include degradation and loss of Federal, State, and local agencies; interstate or foreign commerce any habitat as a result of water diversions private organizations; and individuals. listed species. It is also illegal to and groundwater pumping, poor The Act provides for possible possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or livestock management, altered fire cooperation with the States and requires ship any such wildlife that has been regimes due to fire suppression and that recovery actions be carried out for taken illegally. Certain exceptions apply livestock grazing, mining, contaminants, all listed species. The protection to agents of the Service and State development, and other human required of Federal agencies and the conservation agencies. activities; and inadequate regulatory prohibitions against certain activities We may issue permits to carry out mechanisms regarding introduction of involving listed wildlife are discussed otherwise prohibited activities nonnative bait species (Factors A and D) in Effects of Critical Habitat Designation involving endangered or threatened (67 FR 40800–40806, June 13, 2002; and are further discussed, in part, wildlife species under certain Sredl and Jennings 2005, pp. 546–549; below. circumstances. Regulations governing Service 2007, pp. B1–B88). Section 7(a) of the Act requires permits are codified at 50 CFR 17.22 for Evidence indicates that, since the Federal agencies to evaluate their endangered species and 50 CFR 17.32 time of listing, the species has probably actions with respect to any species that for threatened wildlife. You may obtain made modest population gains in is proposed or listed as endangered or permits for scientific purposes, to Arizona, but is apparently declining in threatened and with respect to its enhance the propagation or survival of New Mexico. Overall in the United critical habitat, if any is being the species, and for incidental take in States, the status of the Chiricahua designated. Regulations implementing connection with otherwise lawful leopard frog is either static or this interagency cooperation provision activities. improving. The status and trends for the of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part It is our policy, as published in the species are unknown in Mexico. An 402. Section 7(a)(4) requires Federal Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR aggressive recovery program is agencies to confer with the Service on 34272), to identify to the maximum underway in the United States, and any action that is likely to jeopardize extent practicable at the time a species reestablishment of populations, creation the continued existence of a species is listed, those activities that would or of refugial populations, and habitat proposed for listing or result in would not constitute a violation of enhancement and creation have helped destruction or adverse modification of section 9 of the Act. The intent of this stabilize or improve the status of the proposed critical habitat. If a species is policy is to increase public awareness of species in some areas. Although listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) the effect of a proposed listing on progress has been made to secure some requires Federal agencies to ensure that proposed and ongoing activities within existing populations and establish new activities they authorize, fund, or carry the range of species proposed for listing. populations, the status of the species out are not likely to jeopardize the The following activities could continues to be affected by threats such continued existence of the species or potentially result in a violation of that the species is likely to become destroy or adversely modify its critical section 9 of the Act; this list is not endangered within the foreseeable habitat. If a Federal action may affect a comprehensive: future throughout all or a significant listed species or its critical habitat, the (1) Unauthorized collecting, handling, portion of its range. Due primarily to responsible Federal agency must enter possessing, selling, delivering, carrying, ongoing conservation measures and the into formal consultation with the or transporting of the species, including existence of relatively robust Service. import or export across State lines and

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:55 Mar 14, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 14132 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules

international boundaries, except for population reestablishment or Information Standards under the properly documented antique augmentation; and, in the extraordinary Endangered Species Act (published in specimens of these taxa at least 100 case where population pressures within the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 years old, as defined by section 10(h)(1) a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise FR 34271)), the Information Quality Act of the Act. relieved, may include regulated taking. (section 515 of the Treasury and General (2) Introduction of nonnative species Critical habitat receives protection Government Appropriations Act for that compete with or prey upon the under section 7 of the Act through the Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106–554; H.R. Chiricahua leopard frog, such as the prohibition against Federal agencies 5658)), and our associated Information introduction of competing, nonnative carrying out, funding, or authorizing Quality Guidelines, provide criteria, crayfish to the States of Arizona or New activities likely to result in the establish procedures, and provide Mexico. destruction or adverse modification of guidance to ensure that our decisions (3) The unauthorized release of critical habitat. Section 7(a)(2) requires are based on the best scientific data biological control agents that attack any consultation on Federal actions that available. They require our biologists, to life stage of this species. may affect critical habitat. The the extent consistent with the Act and (4) Unauthorized modification of the designation of critical habitat does not with the use of the best scientific data channel or water flow of any stream or affect land ownership or establish a available, to use primary and original water body in which the Chiricahua refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or sources of information as the basis for leopard frog is known to occur. other conservation area. Such recommendations to designate critical Questions regarding whether specific designation does not allow the habitat. activities would constitute a violation of government or public to access private When we are determining which areas section 9 of the Act should be directed or other non-Federal lands. Such should be designated as critical habitat, to the Arizona Ecological Services Field designation does not require our primary source of information is Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION implementation of restoration, recovery, generally the information developed CONTACT). Requests for copies of the or enhancement measures by non- during the listing process for the regulations concerning listed animals Federal landowners. Where a landowner species. Additional information sources and general inquiries regarding seeks or requests Federal agency may include the recovery plan for the prohibitions and permits may be funding or authorization for an action species; articles in peer-reviewed addressed to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife that may affect a listed species or journals; conservation plans developed Service, Endangered Species Permits, critical habitat, the consultation by Federal agencies, States, or local P.O. Box 1306, Albuquerque, NM 87103; requirements of section 7(a)(2) would governments; scientific status surveys telephone: 505–248–6633; facsimile: apply, but even in the event of a and studies; biological assessments; or 505–248–6788. destruction or adverse modification other unpublished materials and expert finding, the Federal action agency’s and opinion or personal knowledge. Critical Habitat the applicant’s obligation is not to Habitat is often dynamic, and species Background restore or recover the species, but to may move from one area to another over avoid destruction or adverse time. This is particularly true of the Critical habitat is defined in section 3 modification of critical habitat. Chiricahua leopard frog. Furthermore, of the Act as: For inclusion in a critical habitat we recognize that critical habitat (i) The specific areas within the designation, the habitat within the designated at a particular point in time geographical area occupied by the geographical area occupied by the may not include all of the habitat areas species, at the time it is listed in species at the time it was listed must that we may later determine are accordance with the Act, on which are contain the PBFs essential to the necessary for the recovery of the found those physical or biological conservation of the species, and be species. For these reasons, a critical features (PBFs): included only if those features may habitat designation does not signal that (I) Essential to the conservation of the require special management habitat outside the designated area is species and considerations or protection. Critical unimportant or may not be required for (II) Which may require special habitat designations identify, to the recovery of the species. management considerations or extent known using the best scientific Areas that are important to the protection; and and commercial data available, habitat conservation of the species, but are (ii) specific areas outside the areas that provide essential life cycle outside the critical habitat designation, geographical area occupied by the needs of the species (areas on which are will continue to be subject to species at the time it is listed, upon a found the PBFs laid out in the conservation actions we implement determination that such areas are appropriate quantity and spatial under section 7(a)(1) of the Act. Areas essential for the conservation of the arrangement for the conservation of the that support populations are also subject species. species). Under the Act and regulations to the regulatory protections afforded by Conservation, as defined under at 50 CFR 424.12, we can designate the section 7(a)(2) jeopardy standard, as section 3 of the Act, means to use and critical habitat in areas outside the determined on the basis of the best the use of all methods and procedures geographical area occupied by the available scientific information at the that are necessary to bring an species at the time it was listed only time of the agency action. Federally endangered or threatened species to the when we determine that those areas are funded or permitted projects affecting point at which the measures provided essential for the conservation of the listed species outside their designated under the Act are no longer necessary. species and that designation limited to critical habitat areas may still result in Such methods and procedures include, those areas occupied at the time of jeopardy findings in some cases. but are not limited to, all activities listing would be inadequate to ensure Similarly, critical habitat designations associated with scientific resources the conservation of the species. made on the basis of the best available management such as research, census, Section 4 of the Act requires that we information at the time of designation and law enforcement; habitat designate critical habitat on the basis of will not control the direction and acquisition, enhancement, protection, the best scientific and commercial data substance of future recovery plans, and maintenance; propagation and available. Further, our Policy on habitat conservation plans (HCPs), or

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:55 Mar 14, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 14133

other species conservation planning Proposed Critical Habitat Designation continually in existence. Local efforts if new information available at for Chiricahua Leopard Frog populations should be arranged in geographical space in such a way that the time of these planning efforts calls Background for a different outcome. no local population will be greater than It is our intent to discuss only those 5.0 mi (8.0 km) from at least one other Prudency Determination topics directly relevant to the local population during some part of the designation of critical habitat for the year unless facilitated dispersal is Section 4 of the Act, as amended, and Chiricahua leopard frog in this section planned (Service 2007, p. K–3). implementing regulations (50 CFR of the proposed rule. Movement of frogs among local 424.12), require that, to the maximum Physical and Biological Features populations is reasonably certain to extent prudent and determinable, the occur if those populations are separated Secretary designate critical habitat at the In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) by no more than 1.0 mi (1.6 km) time the species is determined to be and 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act and the overland, 3.0 mi (4.8 km) along endangered or threatened. Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.12, in ephemeral or intermittent drainages, 5.0 regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(a)(1) state determining which areas to propose as mi (8.0 km) along perennial water that the designation of critical habitat is critical habitat within the geographical courses, or some combination thereof not prudent when one or both of the area occupied at the time of listing, we not to exceed 5.0 mi (8.0 km) (the ‘‘1– following situations exist: (1) The consider the physical and biological 3–5 rule’’ of dispersal, see ‘‘Dispersal’’ in species is threatened by taking or other features (PBFs) essential to the the Background section above). activity and the identification of critical conservation of the species that may Metapopulations should include at least habitat can be expected to increase the require special management one large, healthy subpopulation (e.g., at degree of threat to the species; or (2) the considerations or protection. These least 100 adults) in order to achieve an designation of critical habitat would not include, but are not limited to: acceptable level of viability as a larger be beneficial to the species. (1) Space for individual and unit. If aquatic habitats can be managed population growth and for normal for persistence through drought periods There is no documentation that the behavior; (e.g., supplying water via a pipeline or Chiricahua leopard frog is significantly (2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or a well, lining a pond), overall threatened by collection. Although other nutritional or physiological metapopulation viability may be human visitation to Chiricahua leopard requirements; achievable with a smaller number of frog habitat carries with it the (3) Cover or shelter; individuals per subpopulation (e.g., 40 possibility of introducing infectious (4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, or to 50 adults) (Service 2007, p. K–3). disease and potentially increasing other rearing (or development) of offspring; Isolated breeding populations are also threats where the frogs occur, the and essential for the conservation of the frog locations of important recovery areas are (5) Habitats that are protected from because they buffer against disease and already accessible to the public through disturbance or are representative of the disease organisms that can spread Web sites, reports, online databases, and historical, geographical, and ecological rapidly through a metapopulation as other easily accessible venues. distributions of a species. infected individuals move among We derived the specific PBFs required Therefore, identifying and mapping aquatic sites. An isolated, but robust, for the Chiricahua leopard frog from the critical habitat is unlikely to increase breeding population should be beyond studies of this species’ habitat, ecology, threats to the species or its habitat. In the reasonable dispersal distance (see and life history as described below. ‘‘ ’’ the absence of finding that the Dispersal in the Background section) These needs are identified in the from other Chiricahua leopard frog designation of critical habitat would species’ recovery plan (Service 2007), populations, contain at least 60 adults, increase threats to a species, if there are particularly in the Habitat and exhibit a diverse age class any benefits to a critical habitat Characteristics and Ecosystems section distribution that is relatively stable over designation, then a prudent finding is of Part 1: Background (pp. 15–18); in the time. A population of 40 to 50 adults warranted. The potential benefits of Recovery Strategy in Part 11: Recovery can also be robust or strong if it resides critical habitat to the Chiricahua leopard (pp. 49–51); in Appendix C—Population in a drought-resistant habitat (Service frog include: (1) Triggering consultation and Habitat Viability Analysis (pp. C8– 2007, p. K–5). At least two under section 7 of the Act, in new areas C35); and in Appendix D—Guidelines metapopulations and one isolated for actions in which there may be a for Establishing and Augmenting robust population are needed in each Federal nexus where it would not Chiricahua Leopard Frog Populations, recovery unit to meet the recovery otherwise occur because, for example, it and for Refugia and Holding Facilities criteria in the recovery plan (Service is or has become unoccupied or the (pp. D2–D5). Additional insight is 2007, p. 53). provided by Degenhardt et al. (1996, pp. occupancy is in question; (2) focusing Food, Water, Air, Light, Minerals, or 85–87), Sredl and Jennings (2005, pp. conservation activities on the most Other Nutritional or Physiological 546–549), and Witte et al. (2008, pp. 5– essential features and areas; (3) Requirements providing educational benefits to State 8). Chiricahua leopard frogs are fairly or county governments or private Space for Individual and Population tolerant of variations in water quality, entities; and (4) preventing people from Growth and for Normal Behavior but likely do not persist in waters causing inadvertent harm to the species. Generally, Chiricahua leopard frogs severely polluted with cattle feces Therefore, because we have determined need aquatic breeding and (Service 2007, p. 34) or runoff from that the designation of critical habitat overwintering sites, both in the context mine tailings or leach ponds (Rathbun will not likely increase the degree of of metapopulations and as isolated 1969, pp. 1–3; U.S. Bureau of Land threat to the species and may provide populations. For this species, a Management 1998, p. 26; Service 2007, some measure of benefit, we find that metapopulation should consist of at p. 36). Furthermore, variation in pH, designation of critical habitat is prudent least four local populations that exhibit ultraviolet radiation, and temperature, for the Chiricahua leopard frog. regular recruitment, three of which are as well as predation stress, can alter the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:55 Mar 14, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 14134 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules

potency of chemical effects (Akins and locales, as well. However, some combination thereof as refugia from Wofford 1999, p. 107; Monson et al. populations persist with the disease predators and extreme climatic 1999, pp. 309–311; Reylea 2004a, pp. (e.g., sites between Interstate 19 and the conditions (Sredl and Jennings 2005, p. 1081–1084). Chemicals may also serve Baboquivari Mountains, Arizona) with 547). In essential breeding habitat, if as a stressor that makes frogs more few noticeable effects on demographics nonnative crayfish, predatory fishes, susceptible to disease, such as or survivorship. Persistence with bullfrogs, or barred tiger salamanders chytridiomycosis (Parris and Baud 2004, disease is enhanced in warm springs are present, they occur only as rare p. 344). The effects of pesticides and and at lower elevations with warmer dispersing individuals that do not other chemicals on amphibians can be water (Service 2007, pp. 22–27, B67). breed, or are at low enough densities in complex because of indirect effects on To be considered essential breeding habitats that are complex and with the amphibian environment, direct habitat, water must be permanent abundant escape cover (e.g., aquatic and lethal and sublethal effects on enough to support breeding, tadpole emergent vegetation cover, diversity of individuals, and interactions between development to metamorphosis (change moving and stationary water) that contaminants and other factors into a frog), and survival of frogs. persistence of both Chiricahua leopard associated with amphibian decline Tadpole development lasts 3 to 9 frogs and nonnative species can occur (Sparling 2003, pp. 1101–1120; Reylea months, and some tadpoles overwinter (Sredl and Howland 1995, pp. 383–384; 2008, pp. 367–374). (Sredl and Jennings 2005, p. 547). Service 2007, pp. 20–22, D3; Witte et al. Juvenile and adult frogs need moisture 2008, pp. 7–8). Cover or Shelter for survival, including sites for Habitats that are protected from Chiricahua leopard frogs are most hibernation. Overwintering sites of disturbance or are representative of the often encountered in or very near water, Chiricahua leopard frogs have not been historical, geographical, and ecological generally at breeding locations. Only investigated; however, hibernacula distributions of a species. rarely are they found very far from (shelter occupied during winter by In some areas, Chiricahua leopard frog water. That said, they can be found inactive animals) of related species populations are known to be seriously basking or foraging in riparian include sites at the bottom of well- affected by the fungal skin disease vegetation and on open banklines out to oxygenated ponds, burial in mud, or chytridiomycosis. This disease has been the edge of riparian vegetation. These moist caves (Service 2007, p. 17). Given associated with numerous population upland areas provide essential foraging these requirements, sites that dry out for extirpations, particularly in recovery and basking sites. A combination of 1 month or more will not provide unit 6 in New Mexico (Service 2007, pp. open ground and vegetation cover is essential breeding or overwintering 5–6, 24–27). The frog appears to be less desirable for basking and foraging, habitat. However, occasional drying for susceptible to mortality from the disease respectively. Vegetation in these areas short periods (less than 1 month) may in warmer waters and at lower provide habitat for prey species and be beneficial in that the frogs can elevations. The precise temperature at protection from terrestrial predators survive, but nonnative predators, which frogs can coexist with the disease (those living on dry land). In particular, particularly fish, and in some cases, is unknown and may depend on a Chiricahua leopard frogs use these American bullfrogs and populations of variety of factors; however, at Cuchillo upland areas during the summer rainy aquatic forms of tiger salamanders, will Negro Warm Springs, Sierra County, season. be eliminated during the dry period New Mexico, Chiricahua and plains leopard frogs (Lithobates blairi) become Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, or (Service 2007, p. D3). Water quality uncommon to nonexistent where winter Rearing (or Development) of Offspring requirements at breeding sites included having a pH equal to or greater than 5.6 water temperatures drop below about 20 Aquatic breeding habitat is essential (Watkins-Colwell and Watkins-Colwell degrees Celsius (°C) (68 degrees for providing space, food, and cover 1998, p. 64), salinities less than 5 parts Fahrenheit (°F)) (Christman 2006a, p. 8). necessary to sustain all life stages of per thousand (Ruibal 1959, pp. 318– A pH of greater than 8 during at least Chiricahua leopard frogs. Suitable 319), and very little chemical pollutants, part of the year may also limit the breeding habitat consists of permanent including but not limited to heavy ability of the disease to be an effective or nearly permanent aquatic habitats metals, pesticides, mine runoff, and fire pathogen (Service 2007, pp. 26–27). from about 3,200 to 8,900 ft (975 to retardants, where the pollutants do not Furthermore, based on experience in 2,715 m) elevation with deep (greater exceed the tolerance of Chiricahua Arizona, particularly the Huachuca than 20 in (0.5 m)) pools in which leopard frogs (Rathbun 1969, pp. 1–3; Mountains, if Chiricahua leopard frogs nonnative predators are absent or occur U.S. Bureau of Land Management 1998, are absent for a period of months or at such low densities and in complex p. 26; Boone and Bridges 2003, pp. 152– years, the disease organism may drop habitats to allow persistence of 167; Calfee and Little 2003, pp. 1527– out of the system or become scarce Chiricahua leopard frogs (Service 2007, 1531; Sparling 2003, pp. 1109–1111; enough that frogs can persist again if pp. 15–18, D–3). Included are cienegas Relyea 2004b, pp. 1741–1746; Service reestablished. Essential breeding or springs, pools, livestock tanks, lakes, 2007, p. 36; Little and Calfee 2008, pp. habitats either lack chytridiomycosis or reservoirs, streams, and rivers. Sites as 6–10). White (2004, pp. 53–54, 73–79, include conditions that allow for small as 6.0-ft (1.8-m) diameter steel 136–140) provides specific pesticide use persistence of Chiricahua leopard frogs troughs can serve as important breeding guidelines for minimizing impacts to with the disease, as in warmer waters or sites, particularly if that population is the Chiricahua leopard frog. at lower elevations. part of a metapopulation that can be Essential aquatic breeding sites recolonized from adjacent sites if require some open water. Chiricahua Dispersal Habitat extirpation occurs. Some of the most leopard frogs can be eliminated from Dispersal habitat provides routes for robust extant breeding populations are sites that become entirely overgrown connectivity and gene flow among local in earthen livestock watering tanks. with cattails (Typha sp.) or other populations within a metapopulation, Absence of the disease chytridiomycosis emergent plants. At the same time, frogs which enhances the likelihood of is crucial for population persistence in need some emergent or submerged metapopulation persistence and allows some regions, particularly in west- vegetation, root masses, undercut banks, for recolonization of sites that are lost central New Mexico and at some other fractured rock substrates, or some due to drought, disease, or other factors

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:55 Mar 14, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 14135

(Hanski and Gilpin 1991, pp. 4–6; provide corridors through which pools or ponds at least 6.0 ft (1.8 m) in Service 2007, p. 50). Detailed studies of leopard frogs can move among aquatic diameter and 20 in (0.5 m) in depth; dispersal and metapopulation dynamics breeding sites in metapopulations. (b) Wet in most years, and do not or of Chiricahua leopard frogs have not These dispersal habitats will often be only very rarely dry for more than a been conducted; however, Jennings and drainages connecting aquatic breeding month; Scott (1991, pp. 1–43) noted that sites, and may include ephemeral, (c) pH greater than or equal to 5.6; maintenance of corridors used by intermittent, and perennial waters that (d) Salinity less than 5 parts per dispersing juveniles and adults that are not suitable for breeding. The most thousand; connect separate populations may be likely dispersal routes may include (e) Pollutants absent or minimally critical to conserving populations of combinations of ephemeral, present at low enough levels that they frogs. As a group, leopard frogs are intermittent, and perennial drainages, as are barely detectable; surprisingly good at dispersal. In well as uplands. Some vegetation cover (f) Emergent and or submerged Michigan, young northern leopard frogs for protection from predators, and vegetation, root masses, undercut banks, (Lithobates pipiens) commonly move up aquatic sites that can serve as buffers fractured rock substrates, or some to 0.5 mi (0.8 km) from their birthplace, against desiccation (drying) and stop- combination thereof; but emergent and three young males established overs for foraging (feeding) are desirable vegetation does not completely cover residency up to 3.2 mi (5.2 km) away along dispersal routes. A lack of barriers the surface of water bodies; from where they were born (Dole 1971, that would block dispersal is critical. (g) Nonnative crayfish, predatory p. 221). Movement may occur via Features on the landscape likely to serve fishes, bullfrogs, barred tiger dispersal of frogs or passive transport of as partial or complete barriers to salamanders, and other introduced tadpoles along stream courses. The dispersal, include cliff faces and urban predators absent or occurring at levels maximum distance moved by a radio- areas (Service 2007, p. D–3), reservoirs that do not preclude presence of the telemetered Chiricahua leopard frog in 20 acres (ac) (50 hectares (ha)) or more Chiricahua leopard frog; (h) Absence of chytridiomycosis, or if New Mexico was 2.2 mi (3.5 km) in one in size that are stocked with sportfishes chytridiomycosis is present, then direction along a drainage (Service or other nonnative predators, highways, conditions that allow persistence of 2007, p. 18). In 1974, Frost and Bagnara major dams, walls, or other structures Chiricahua leopard frogs with the (1977, p. 449) noted passive or active that physically block movement disease (e.g., water temperatures that do movement of Chiricahua and plains (Andrews et al. 2008, pp. 124–132; not drop below 20 °C (68 °F), pH of leopard frogs for 5 mi (8 km) or more Eigenbrod et al. 2009, pp. 32–40; 75 FR greater than 8 during at least part of the along East Turkey Creek in the 12818, March 17, 2010). The effects of year); and Chiricahua Mountains, Arizona. In highways on frog dispersal can be (i) Uplands immediately adjacent to August 1996, Rosen and Schwalbe mitigated with frog fencing and culverts breeding sites that Chiricahua leopard (1998, p. 188) found up to 25 young (Service 2007, pp. I7–I8). Unlike some other species of leopard frogs, frogs use for foraging and basking. adult and subadult Chiricahua leopard (2) Dispersal habitat, consisting of frogs at a roadside puddle in the San Chiricahua leopard frogs have only rarely been found in association with ephemeral (water present for only a Bernardino Valley, Arizona. They short time), intermittent, or perennial believed that the only possible origin of agricultural fields; hence, agriculture may also serve as a barrier to movement. drainages that are generally not suitable these frogs was a stock tank located 3.5 for breeding, and associated uplands mi (5.5 km) away. In September 2009, Primary Constituent Elements for the that provide overland movement 15 to 20 Chiricahua leopard frogs were Chiricahua Leopard Frog corridors for frogs among breeding sites ˜ found at Pena Blanca Lake west of Under the Act and its implementing in a metapopulation with the following Nogales. The nearest likely source regulations, we are required to identify characteristics: population was Summit Reservoir, a the physical and biological features (a) Are not more than 1.0 mi (1.6 km) straight line distance of 3.1 mi (4.9 km) essential to the conservation of the overland, 3.0 mi (4.8 km) along overland or approximately 4.4 mi (7.0 Chiricahua leopard frog in areas ephemeral or intermittent drainages, 5.0 km) along intermittent drainages occupied at the time of listing, focusing mi (8.0 km) along perennial drainages, (Service 2010b, pp. 7–8). on the features’ primary constituent or some combination thereof not to Movements away from water do not elements (PCEs). We consider primary exceed 5.0 mi (8.0 km); appear to be random. Streams are constituent elements to be the elements (b) Provide some vegetation cover for important dispersal corridors for young of physical and biological features that, protection from predators, and in northern leopard frogs (Seburn et al. when laid out in the appropriate drainages, some ephemeral, 1997, pp. 68–70). Displaced northern quantity and spatial arrangement to intermittent, or perennial aquatic sites; leopard frogs will return to their place provide for a species’ life-history and of origin, and may use olfactory, visual, processes, are essential to the (c) Are free of barriers that block or auditory cues, and possibly celestial conservation of the species. movement by Chiricahua leopard frogs, orientation, as guides (Dole 1968, pp. Based on the above needs and our including urban, industrial, or 395–398; 1972, pp. 275–276; Sinsch current knowledge of the life history, agricultural development; reservoirs 1991, pp. 542–544). Based on this and biology, and ecology of the species, and that are 50 ac (20 ha) or more in size and other information (Service 2007, pp. 12– the habitat requirements for sustaining stocked with predatory fishes, bullfrogs, 14) and as noted in the Background the essential life-history functions of the or crayfish; highways that do not section above, Chiricahua leopard frogs species, we have determined that the include frog fencing and culverts; and are reasonably likely to disperse 1.0 mi PCEs essential to the conservation of the walls, major dams, or other structures (1.6 km) overland, 3.0 mi (4.8 km) along Chiricahua leopard frog are: that physically block movement. ephemeral or intermittent drainages, 5.0 (1) Aquatic breeding habitat and With this proposed designation of mi (8.0 km) along perennial immediately adjacent uplands critical habitat, we intend to conserve (continuous) water courses, or some exhibiting the following characteristics: the PCEs essential to the conservation of combination thereof not to exceed 5.0 (a) Perennial (water present during all the species through the identification of mi (8.0 km). Dispersal habitat must seasons of the year) or nearly perennial the appropriate quantity and spatial

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:55 Mar 14, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 14136 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules

arrangement of the PCEs sufficient to habitat does not imply that lands Rorabaugh (2010, pp. 7–17) and support the life-history functions of the outside of critical habitat do not play an information cited therein for Arizona, species. Because not all life-history important role in the conservation of the and for New Mexico in Jennings (1995, functions require both PCEs 1 and 2, not Chiricahua leopard frog. Federal pp. 10–21), Painter (2000, pp. 10–21), all areas proposed as critical habitat will activities that may affect areas outside of and 67 FR 40793 (June 13, 2002). We contain both PCEs. Each of the areas critical habitat, such as construction of have also reviewed available proposed in this rule has been water diversions, permitting livestock information that pertains to the habitat determined to contain sufficient PCEs, grazing, sportfish stocking, requirements of this species. The or, with reasonable effort, PCEs can be channelization, levee construction, following were particularly useful: restored, to provide for one or more of energy development, fire and fuels Degenhardt et al. (1996, pp. 85–87), the life-history functions of the management, and road construction, are Sredl and Jennings (2005, pp. 546–549), Chiricahua leopard frog. still subject to review under section 7 of Service (2007, pp. 15–18, 47–48), and Under our regulations, we are the Act if they may affect the Chiricahua Witte et al. (2008, pp. 5–8). required to identify the PCEs within the leopard frog because Federal agencies Units occupied at the time of listing geographical area occupied by the must consider both effects to the frog include the specific sites occupied by Chiricahua leopard frog at the time of and effects to critical habitat Chiricahua leopard frogs in June 2002 listing that are essential to the independently. The prohibitions of that contain sufficient PCEs to support conservation of the species and which section 9 of the Act also continue to life-history functions essential for the may require special management apply both inside and outside of conservation of the species. Included considerations or protections. The PCEs designated critical habitat. are sites where the species was breeding A detailed discussion of activities are laid out in a specific spatial as well as localities where dispersing influencing the Chiricahua leopard frog arrangement and quantity determined to individuals were present, and other and its habitat can be found in the final be essential to the conservation of the sites for which the breeding status was listing rule (67 FR 40790; June 13, 2002) species. All proposed critical habitat unknown. If metapopulation structure and the recovery plan (Service 2007, pp. units are within the species’ historical was known or suspected, dispersal 18–45). The recovery plan also contains geographical range in the United States habitats connecting breeding recovery-unit-specific threat and contain sufficient PCEs to support populations within metapopulations are assessments (Service 2007, pp. B1–B88). at least one life-history function. In also proposed. addition, all but two proposed critical Activities that may warrant special habitat units, units 13 and 17, are management of the physical and Sites not known to be occupied at the currently occupied by Chiricahua biological features that define essential time of listing in June 2002 are also leopard frogs. Units 13 and 17 were habitat (appropriate quantity and proposed as critical habitat if they are occupied at the time of listing and distribution of PCEs) for the Chiricahua essential to the conservation of the currently contain sufficient PCEs to leopard frog include, but are not limited species. Specifically, we assessed support life-history functions essential to, introduction of predators, such as whether they are needed to meet the for the conservation of the species. bullfrogs, crayfish, sportfishes, and following recovery criterion from the These units are needed as future sites barred tiger salamanders; introduction recovery plan: At least two for frog colonization or reestablishment or spread of chytridiomycosis; metapopulations located in different and could be restored (e.g., control of recreational activities; livestock grazing; drainages (defined here as USGS 10- nonnative predators) to allow water diversions and development; digit Hydrologic Units) plus at least one Chiricahua leopard frog persistence construction and maintenance of roads isolated and robust population occur in with a reasonable level of effort. and utility corridors; fire suppression, each recovery unit and exhibit long- fuels management, and prescribed fire; term persistence and stability (even Special Management Considerations or and various types of development. though local populations may go extinct Protection These activities have the potential to in metapopulations, Service 2007, p. When designating critical habitat, we affect critical habitat and PCEs if they 53). If sites are needed to meet that assess whether the specific areas within are conducted within designated units criterion, they are proposed for critical the geographical area occupied by the or upstream and in some cases habitat herein. At the time of listing, 3 species at the time of listing contain downstream in the floodplains of those of the units being proposed for critical features that are essential to the units; however, some of these activities, habitat were unoccupied, and for 10 conservation of the species and that may when conducted appropriately, may be additional units, their occupancy status require special management compatible with maintenance of was unknown (see Table 1). However, considerations or protection. adequate PCEs. all 13 of these units are currently All areas proposed for designation as occupied and possess one or both PCEs, critical habitat will require some level of Criteria Used To Identify Critical or have the ability to develop the PCEs management to address the current and Habitat with a reasonable level of restoration future threats to the Chiricahua leopard As required by section 4(b) of the Act, work. These units, which were frog and to maintain or restore the PCEs. we used the best scientific and unoccupied or not known to be Special management in aquatic breeding commercial data available in occupied at the time of listing, are being sites will be needed to ensure that these determining areas within the proposed as critical habitat because they sites provide water quantity, quality, geographical area occupied at the time currently contain known breeding and permanence or near permanence; of listing that contain the features populations of Chiricahua leopard frogs, cover; and absence of extraordinary essential to the conservation of the which are relatively scarce (33 predation and disease that can affect Chiricahua leopard frog, and areas populations in Arizona and 20 to 23 in population persistence. In dispersal outside of the geographical area New Mexico), are all considered habitat, special management will be occupied at the time of listing that are essential to the conservation of the needed to ensure frogs can move essential for the conservation of the species, and help meet the population through those sites with reasonable species. Areas occupied at the time of goals in the recovery criterion discussed success. The designation of critical listing are identified and described in above.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:55 Mar 14, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 14137

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

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

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

(1) Twin Tanks and Ox Frame Tank ...... Unknown ...... Yes. (2) Garcia Tank ...... Yes ...... Yes. (3) Buenos Aires NWR Central Tanks ...... Yes ...... Yes. (4) Bonita, Upper Turner, and Mojonera Tanks ...... Yes ...... Yes. (5) Sycamore Canyon ...... Yes ...... Yes. (6) Pen˜a Blanca Lake and Spring and Associated Tanks ...... Yes ...... Yes.

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

(7) Florida Canyon ...... Unknown ...... Yes. (8) Eastern Slope of the Santa Rita Mountains ...... Unknown ...... Yes. (9) Las Cienegas National Conservation Area ...... Yes ...... Yes. (10) Pasture 9 Tank ...... No ...... Yes. (11) Scotia Canyon ...... No ...... Yes. (12) Beatty’s Guest Ranch ...... Yes ...... Yes. (13) Carr Barn Pond ...... Yes ...... No. (14) Ramsey and Brown Canyons ...... No ...... Yes.

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

(15) High Lonesome Well ...... Yes ...... Yes. (16) Peloncillo Mountains ...... Yes ...... Yes. (17) Cave Creek ...... Yes ...... No. (18) Leslie Creek ...... Yes ...... Yes. (19) Rosewood and North Tanks ...... Yes ...... Yes.

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

(20) Deer Creek ...... Yes ...... Yes. (21) Oak Spring and Oak Creek ...... Unknown ...... Yes. (22) Dragoon Mountains ...... Yes ...... Yes.

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

(23) Buckskin Hills ...... Yes ...... Yes. (24) Crouch, Gentry, and Cherry Creeks, and Parallel Canyon ...... Yes ...... Yes. (25) Ellison and Lewis Creeks ...... Unknown ...... Yes.

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

(26) Concho Bill and Deer Creek ...... Unknown ...... Yes. (27) Campbell Blue and Coleman Creeks ...... Yes ...... Yes. (28) Tularosa River ...... Yes ...... Yes. (29) Deep Creek Divide Area ...... Yes ...... Yes. (30) Main Diamond Creek ...... Yes ...... Yes. (31) Beaver Creek ...... Unknown ...... Yes.

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

(32) Left Prong of Dix Creek ...... Unknown ...... Yes. (33) Rattlesnake Pasture Tank and Associated Tanks ...... Unknown ...... Yes. (34) Coal Creek ...... Unknown ...... Yes. (35) Blue Creek ...... Yes ...... Yes.

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

(36) Seco Creek ...... Yes ...... Yes. (37) Alamosa Warm Springs ...... Yes ...... Yes. (38) Cuchillo Negro Warm Springs and Creek ...... Yes ...... Yes (39) Ash and Bolton Springs ...... Yes ...... Yes (40) Mimbres River ...... Yes ...... Yes.

Recovery planning is focused on these populations needed to meet the Mountains, Arizona and Sonora), 2 existing breeding populations and recovery criterion. Such work is (Santa Rita-Huachuca-Ajos Bavispe, building on them with habitat underway in all recovery units, but is Arizona and Sonora), 3 (Chiricahua rehabilitation and population further along in some than others. In Mountains-Malpai Borderlands-Sierra reestablishments to construct particular, recovery units 1 Madre), 4 (Pinalen˜ o-Galiuro-Dragoon metapopulations and isolated robust (Tumacacori-Atascosa-Pajarito Mountains, Arizona), 5 (Mogollon

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:55 Mar 14, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 14138 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules

Rim—Verde River, Arizona), and 8 exists, plus several isolated populations, habitat. Therefore, if the critical habitat (Black-Mimbres-Rio Grande, New but we have not been able to find is finalized as proposed, a Federal Mexico) are moving towards meeting aquatic sites that meet the definition of action involving these lands would not the above-cited recovery criterion, and critical habitat to build a second trigger section 7 consultation with metapopulations and isolated, robust metapopulation. In particular, other respect to critical habitat and adverse populations have been or are being aquatic sites, some of which were modification would not be prohibited identified (Rorabaugh 2010, pp. 17–30; occupied at the time of listing, lack the under 7(a)(2) unless the specific action Service 2010a, pp. 2–7; 2010b, pp. 2–9). PCEs sufficient to support life-history would affect the PCEs in the adjacent In these recovery units, unoccupied functions essential for the conservation critical habitat. sites have sometimes been identified by of the species, primarily due to presence We are proposing for designation of the Service, in cooperation with the of chytridiomycosis, which is a very critical habitat lands that we have recovery team steering committees and serious threat in recovery unit 6. This determined are occupied at the time of local recovery groups, where population recovery unit will require further listing and contain sufficient PCEs to reestablishment is needed to complete a investigation, and habitat restoration or support life-history functions essential metapopulation or to establish an creation may be needed to provide for the conservation of the species and isolated, robust population (Rorabaugh additional habitat for breeding lands outside of the geographical area 2010, pp. 17–30; Service 2010a, pp. 2– Chiricahua leopard frog populations occupied at the time of listing that we 7; 2010b, pp. 2–9). These unoccupied that can contribute to meeting the have determined are essential for the sites are proposed as critical habitat population goals in the recovery conservation of the species. herein. criterion discussed above. Critical habitat units are proposed for Identification of such recovery sites in Also included in this critical habitat designation based on sufficient PCEs recovery units 6 (White Mountains- proposal are dispersal corridors among being present to support the Chiricahua Upper Gila, Arizona and New Mexico) subpopulations within a leopard frog’s life processes. Some units and 7 (Upper Gila-Blue River, Arizona metapopulation. These corridors were contain both PCEs 1 and 2 and support and New Mexico) is more difficult, selected as the most likely routes for multiple life processes. Some units because less work or progress in dispersal of frogs among sites, based on contain one of the PCEs or only the recovery has been made in these areas. reasonable dispersal distances along potential to develop PCEs necessary to The recovery plan identifies perennial and ephemeral or intermittent support the Chiricahua leopard frog’s management areas, which are areas drainages, or via overland routes where particular use of that habitat. In most within recovery units with the greatest PCE 2 is present. Our selection of routes cases, aquatic sites within potential for successful recovery actions assumes perennial drainages are better metapopulations contain both PCEs 1 and threat alleviation (Service 2007, p. dispersal corridors than ephemeral or and 2. Isolated aquatic sites contain 49). Within recovery units 6 and 7, intermittent drainages, and the only PCE 1, and dispersal corridors only critical habitat has been proposed at ephemeral or intermittent drainages are contain PCE 2, or a reasonable potential specific sites within management areas better dispersal corridors than overland to develop those PCEs. with the greatest potential for building routes. We also assume that, if all else metapopulations and isolated robust is equal, the shorter the route the more Proposed Critical Habitat Designation populations. As in other recovery units, likely Chiricahua leopard frogs will We are proposing 40 units as critical existing breeding populations were used successfully disperse along it. In habitat for the Chiricahua leopard frog. either as subpopulations in addition, we considered the presence of The critical habitat areas we describe metapopulations or as isolated, robust waterfalls, steep slopes, and other below constitute our current best populations. Metapopulations were obstacles that may be difficult for a frog assessment of areas that meet the constructed with these existing breeding to negotiate. definition of critical habitat for the populations, sites occupied at the time When determining proposed critical species. All 40 units we are proposing of listing that still retain PCEs sufficient habitat boundaries within this proposed as critical habitat are within the species’ to support life-history functions rule, we made every effort to avoid geographical range, including areas essential for the conservation of the including developed areas such as lands occupied at the time of listing and areas species, and unoccupied sites with one covered by buildings, pavement, and not known to be occupied at the time of or more PCEs or the potential to support other structures because such lands lack listing but identified as essential for the PCEs with a reasonable level of PCEs for the Chiricahua leopard frog. conservation of the species (Platz and restoration work. In metapopulations, The scale of the maps we prepared Mecham 1984, p. 347.1). Table 1 below all of these sites are within reasonable under the parameters for publication shows the specific occupancy status of dispersal distance (the ‘‘1–3–5 rule’’ within the Code of Federal Regulations each unit at the time of listing and described above) of each other. In may not reflect the exclusion of such currently (based on the most recent data recovery unit 7, enough sites could not developed lands. Any such lands available) (Rorabaugh 2010, pp. 7–30; be found that meet the definition of inadvertently left inside critical habitat Service files). The approximate area of critical habitat to construct two boundaries shown on the maps of this each proposed critical habitat unit is metapopulations and one isolated, proposed rule have been excluded by shown in Table 2. The 40 areas we robust population. Similarly, in text in the proposed rule and are not propose as critical habitat are grouped recovery unit 6, one metapopulation proposed for designation as critical herein by recovery unit.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:55 Mar 14, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 14139

TABLE 2—PROPOSED 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 Size of unit Critical habitat unit acres (hectares) in acres Federal State Private (hectares)

(1) Twin Tanks and Ox Frame Tank ...... 0 1.3 (0.5) 0.4 (0.2) 1.7 (0.7) (2) Garcia Tank ...... 0.7 (0.3) 0 0 0.7 (0.3) (3) Buenos Aires NWR Central Tanks ...... 1,720 (696) 0 0 1,720 (696) (4) Bonita, Upper Turner, and Mojonera Tanks ...... 201 (81) 0 0 201 (81) (5) Sycamore Canyon ...... 262 (106) 0 7 (3) 268 (108) (6) Pen˜a Blanca Lake and Spring and Associated Tanks ...... 202 (82) 0 0 202 (82) (7) Florida Canyon ...... 4 (2) 0 0 4 (2) (8) Eastern Slope of the Santa Rita Mountains ...... 172 (70) 0 14 (6) 186 (75) (9) Las Cienegas National Conservation Area ...... 1,235 (500) 186 (75) 0 1,420 (575) (10) Pasture 9 Tank ...... 0 0 0.5 (0.2) 0.5 (0.2) (11) Scotia Canyon ...... 70 (29) 0 0 70 (29) (12) Beatty’s Guest Ranch ...... 0 0 10 (4) 10 (4) (13) Carr Barn Pond ...... 0.6 (0.3) 0 0 0.6 (0.3) (14) Ramsey and Brown Canyons ...... 58 (24) 0 65 (26) 123 (50) (15) High Lonesome Well ...... 0 0 0.4 (0.2) 0.4 (0.2) (16) Peloncillo Mountains ...... 366 (148) 0 289 (117) 655 (265) (17) Cave Creek ...... 234 (95) 0 92 (37) 326 (132) (18) Leslie Creek ...... 26 (11) 0 0 26 (11) (19) Rosewood and North Tanks ...... 0 78 (31) 19 (8) 97 (39) (20) Deer Creek ...... 17 (7) 69 (28) 34 (14) 120 (48) (21) Oak Spring and Oak Creek ...... 27 (11) 0 0 27 (11) (22) Dragoon Mountains ...... 74 (30) 0 0 74 (30) (23) Buckskin Hills ...... 232 (94) 0 0 232 (94) (24) Crouch, Gentry, and Cherry Creeks, and Parallel Canyon ...... 334 (135) 64 (26) 6 (3) 404 (163) (25) Ellison and Lewis Creeks ...... 83 (34) 0 15 (6) 99 (40) (26) Concho Bill and Deer Creek ...... 17 (7) 0 0 17 (7) (27) Campbell Blue and Coleman Creeks ...... 174 (70) 0 0 174 (70) (28) Tularosa River ...... 335 (135) 0 1,575 (637) 1,910 (772) (29) Deep Creek Divide Area ...... 408 (165) 0 102 (41) 510 (206) (30) Main Diamond Creek ...... 14 (6) 0 40 (16) 54 (22) (31) Beaver Creek ...... 132 (54) 0 25 (10) 157 (64) (32) Left Prong of Dix Creek ...... 13 (5) 0 0 13 (5) (33) Rattlesnake Pasture Tank and Associated Tanks ...... 59 (24) 0 0 59 (24) (34) Coal Creek ...... 7 (3) 0 0 7 (3) (35) Blue Creek ...... 24 (10) 0 12 (5) 37 (15) (36) Seco Creek ...... 66 (27) 0 610 (247) 676 (273) (37) Alamosa Warm Springs ...... 0.2 (0.1) 25 (10) 54 (22) 79 (32) (38) Cuchillo Negro Warm Springs and Creek ...... 3 (1) 3 (1) 23 (9) 28 (12) (39) Ash and Bolton Springs ...... 0 0 49 (20) 49 (20) (40) Mimbres River ...... 0 0 1,097 (444) 1,097 (444)

Total ...... 6,571 426 (173) 4,139 11,136 (2,661) ...... (1,676) (4,510) Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding.

We present brief descriptions of all of time, govern the shape and size of the denser or taller specimens of upland units, and reasons why they meet the river channel (Rosgen 1996, pp. 2–2 to species, channel characteristics such as definition of critical habitat for the 2–4; Leopold 1997, pp. 62–63, 66). The sandy or gravelly soils that contrast with Chiricahua leopard frog, below. Unless use of bankfull stage and 328 ft (100 m) upland soils, the presence of cut banks, indicated otherwise below, the physical on either side recognizes the naturally or some combination of these. Where and biological features of critical habitat dynamic nature of riverine systems, dispersal corridors cross uplands, in stream and riverine lotic (actively recognizes that floodplains are an proposed critical habitat is 328 ft (100 moving water) systems are contained integral part of the stream ecosystem, m) wide, the centerline of which is the within the riverine and riparian and contains the features essential to the line delineated on our critical habitat ecosystems formed by the wetted conservation of the species. maps and legal descriptions. channel and adjacent floodplains within Ephemeral drainages (containing In ponds proposed as critical habitat, 328 lateral ft (100 lateral m) on either water for only brief periods) proposed as most of which are impoundments for side of bankfull stage. Bankfull stage is critical habitat for dispersal corridors watering cattle or other livestock, generally considered to be that level of among breeding sites in proposed critical habitat extends for 20 stream discharge reached just before metapopulations will, in some cases, be ft (6.1 m) beyond the high water line or flows spill out onto the adjacent less distinct than the stream or river to the boundary of the riparian and floodplain. The discharges that occur at reaches where frogs breed. Nonetheless, upland vegetation edge, whichever is bankfull stage, in combination with the these ephemeral drainages will still be greatest. The frogs are commonly found range of flows that occur over a length defined by wetland plant species, foraging and basking within 20 feet of

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:55 Mar 14, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 14140 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules

the shoreline of tanks. In addition, history functions essential for the Puertocito Wash upstream to Rock proposed critical habitat extends conservation of the species. Tank, including Morley Tank, then upstream from ponds from the extent of A breeding site, this unit was known upstream in an unnamed drainage to the the boundary for 328 ft (100 m) from the to have been occupied in 2002 and top of that drainage, directly overland to high water line. The proposed critical 2006. Leopard frogs were noted in 2010, an unnamed drainage, and then habitat extends to 328 ft (100 m) but they were not identified to species upstream to Hito Tank and downstream upstream because there is often a (the lowland leopard frog, Lithobates to McKay Tank; (4) from Sufrido Tank riparian drainage coming into the tank, yavapaiensis, is known to occur in the downstream in an unnamed drainage to and the frogs are likely moving along area). It is about 3.6 mi (5.8 km) over its confluence with an unnamed those drainages. Also, the high water land across dissected and hilly terrain to drainage running between Rock and line is defined as that water level which, the next nearest population at Lower Morley tanks; (5) Lopez Wash from if exceeded, results in overflow of the Carpenter Tank. The nearest known Carpenter Tank downstream to Aguire pond. In most cases, this is the elevation populations to the east are on the Lake; (6) an unnamed drainage from its of the spillway in livestock Coronado National Forest more than 9.0 confluence with Lopez Wash upstream impoundments. mi (14 km) away. Hence, this site is to Choffo Tank; (7) an unnamed isolated and is managed as an isolated, drainage from its confluence with Lopez Recovery Unit 1 (Tumacacori-Atascosa- robust population. The greatest threats Wash upstream to State Tank; (8) an Pajarito Mountains, Arizona and needing management are introductions unnamed drainage from Banado Tank Mexico) of or colonization by nonnative species, downstream to its confluence with an Unit 1: Twin Tanks and Ox Frame Tank such as bullfrogs and crayfish; and unnamed drainage, then upstream in drought that could greatly reduce or that drainage to Barrel Cactus Tank; and Unit 1 consists of 1.3 ac (0.5 ha) of eliminate the aquatic habitat. (9) an unnamed drainage from Banado lands owned by the Arizona State Land Tank upstream to a saddle, then directly Department and 0.4 ac (0.2 ha) of Unit 3: Buenos Aires NWR Central Tanks downslope to Lopez Wash. private lands in the Sierrita Mountains, In this unit, bullfrogs remain a threat, Pima County, Arizona. Twin Tanks is This unit, consisting of 1,720 ac (696 but efforts are underway to eliminate on lands owned and managed by the ha) within the Buenos Aires National the last known populations of bullfrogs Arizona State Land Department and Wildlife Refuge (NWR), Pima County, in the Altar Valley (on the Santa consists of two tanks in proximity to Arizona, includes former cattle tanks Margarita Ranch to the south of Buenos each other as well as a drainage running and other waters used as breeding and Aires NWR). Frogs in this area have between them. Ox Frame Tank is on dispersal sites plus intervening and tested positive for chytridiomycosis, but private lands. This unit is proposed as connecting drainages and uplands. This the disease appears to have little effect critical habitat because it is essential for unit is proposed as critical habitat on population viability. the conservation of the species. because it was occupied at the time of Occupancy of these livestock tanks at listing and currently contains sufficient Unit 4: Bonita, Upper Turner, and the time of listing is unknown, as they PCEs (PCEs 1 and 2) to support life- Mojonera Tanks were not surveyed for frogs until 2007; history functions essential for the This unit includes 201 ac (81 ha) of however, these sites are important conservation of the species. Coronado National Forest lands in the breeding sites for recovery. Twin Tanks Core breeding sites at permanent or Pajarito and Atascosa Mountains, Santa held more than 1,000 frogs in 2008, and nearly permanent tanks (Carpenter, Cruz County, Arizona. This unit is is a robust breeding population. Ox Rock, State, Triangle, and New Round proposed as critical habitat because it Frame and Twin tanks are too far apart Hill) support the strongest was occupied at the time of listing and (4.3 mi (7.0 km) overland) across rugged metapopulation known within the range currently contains sufficient PCEs to terrain to expect frogs to move between of the species. Chongo Tank, where a support life-history functions essential these sites. Hence, these tanks serve as population was established in 2009, for the conservation of the species. isolated populations. PCE 1 is present at may become a sixth breeding site. Seven Two breeding sites (Bonita Tank and both sites. The Twin Tanks area is less other tanks support frogs periodically to Mojonera Tank), combined with a than 0.5 mi (0.8 km) upslope of active regularly, and breeding and recruitment dispersal site or site where breeding and mining at Freeport McMoRan’s Sierrita likely takes place at these tanks in wet recruitment may occur in wet years Copper Mine and could be affected by cycles. Frogs occupied Carpenter, Rock, (Upper Turner Tank), form the nucleus those mining activities. Both sites are and Triangle Tanks in 2002 at or about for a future metapopulation. Three also at risk of introduction of nonnative the time of listing. Tanks proposed for additional waters—Sierra Tank East, predators, such as bullfrogs and designation include Carpenter, Rock, Sierra Tank West, and Sierra Well—may crayfish. Presence of chytridiomycosis State, Triangle, New Round Hill, have the potential to support breeding at these tanks has not been investigated. Banado, Choffo, Barrel Cactus, Sufrido, with habitat work. Frogs currently Hito, Morley, McKay, and Chongo occupy Bonita and Mojonera Tanks, and Unit 2: Garcia Tank Tanks. McKay Tank is actually a cluster Bonita was occupied at the time of Unit 2, consisting of 0.7 ac (0.3 ha), of three tanks, all of which are proposed listing. Frogs were last found at Upper is a former cattle tank located on the as critical habitat. Also proposed as Turner Tank in 2004. The occupancy Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge critical habitat are the intervening status of Mojonera and Upper Turner (NWR), Pima County, Arizona. It is a drainages, including: (1) Puertocito Tanks at the time of listing is unknown. double tank; the southwest or Wash from Triangle Tank north through The proposed critical habitat in Unit 4 downstream impoundment is what and including Aguire Lake to New also includes intervening drainages, dependably holds water, but both parts Round Hill Tank, then upstream to the uplands, and ephemeral or intermittent of the tank are proposed as critical confluence with Las Moras Wash, and waters as follows: (1) From Upper habitat. This unit is proposed as critical upstream in Las Moras Wash to Chongo Turner Tank upstream in an unnamed habitat because it was occupied at the Tank; (2) an unnamed drainage from drainage to its confluence with a minor time of listing and currently contains Puertocito Wash upstream to McKay drainage coming in from the east, then sufficient PCEs (PCE 1) to support life- Tank; (3) an unnamed drainage from directly upslope in that drainage and

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:55 Mar 14, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 14141

east to a saddle, and directly downslope pockets formed in bedrock depressions lands, Santa Cruz County, Arizona. This to Bonita Canyon, and upstream in that occur below waterfalls or are carved area is proposed as critical habitat Bonita Canyon to Bonita Tank; and (2) out by spring flow or seepage). because it was occupied at the time of from Mojonera Tank downstream in A number of livestock tanks in the listing and currently contains sufficient Mojonera Canyon to a sharp bend where region form a strong metapopulation PCEs (PCEs 1 and 2) to support life- the drainage turns west-northwest, then with Sycamore Canyon. Proposed history functions essential for the southeast and upstream in an unnamed critical habitat includes the following conservation of the species. drainage to a saddle, downslope through tanks and their connecting drainages: (1) This unit is a metapopulation that an unnamed drainage to its confluence From Yank Tank downstream in an includes Pen˜ a Blanca Lake, Pen˜ a Blanca with another unnamed drainage, unnamed drainage to Sycamore Canyon; Spring, Summit Reservoir, Tinker Tank, upstream in that unnamed drainage to a (2) from North Mesa Tank downstream Thumb Butte Tank, and Coyote Tank. saddle, and then downstream in an in Atascosa Canyon to its confluence These sites were all occupied in 2009. unnamed drainage to Sierra Well, to with Pen˜ asco Canyon, then from that Chiricahua leopard frogs and tadpoles include Sierra Tank West and Sierra confluence downstream in Pen˜ asco were found in Pen˜ a Blanca Lake in 2009 Tank East, then directly overland to Canyon to Sycamore Canyon; (3) from and 2010, after the lake had been Upper Turner Tank. Horse Pasture Spring downstream to drained and then refilled, which In this unit, bullfrogs are a continuing Pen˜ asco Canyon; (4) from Bear Valley eliminated the nonnative predators. threat, and illegal border activity and Ranch Tank downstream in an unnamed However, early in 2010, rainbow trout associated law enforcement have drainage to Atascosa Canyon; (5) from (Oncorhynchus mykiss) were restocked resulted in watershed damage. A road South Mesa Tank downstream in an back into the lake, and plans are on the berm of Upper Turner Tank is unnamed drainage to Pen˜ asco Canyon; underway to reestablish a variety of scheduled for improvement to access a and (6) from Rattlesnake Tank warm water fishes, as well. Currently, surveillance tower operated by U.S. downstream in an unnamed canyon to the Service is working with project Customs and Border Protection. Frogs in its confluence with another unnamed proponents to help design the sportfish this region have tested positive for drainage, then upstream in that drainage project in a way that will allow chytridiomycosis, but the disease to South Mesa Tank. persistence of Chiricahua leopard frogs, appears to have little effect on Bullfrogs have been a continuing but whether this site retains the PCEs population viability. problem in this unit, although recent necessary for breeding will be evaluated control efforts seem to have eliminated in our final critical habitat Unit 5: Sycamore Canyon them from Sycamore Canyon. Nonnative determination. This unit includes 262 ac (106 ha) of green sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus) have In 2002, Chiricahua leopard frogs Coronado National Forest land and 7 ac occasionally been found in Sycamore were only known to occur at Pen˜ a (3 ha) of private lands along Atascosa Canyon, as well. Pools critical to Blanca Spring. Occupancy status at the Canyon through Bear Valley Ranch in survival of frogs and tadpoles through time of listing for the other sites is the Pajarito and Atascosa Mountains, the dry season, are sensitive to unknown. Proposed critical habitat also Santa Cruz County, Arizona. This unit sedimentation and erosion upstream in includes: (1) From Summit Reservoir is proposed as critical habitat because it the watershed of Sycamore Canyon. The directly southeast to a saddle on was occupied at the time of listing and earliest records of chytridiomycosis in Summit Motorway, then downslope to currently contains sufficient PCEs (PCEs the United States are from Sycamore an unnamed drainage and downstream 1 and 2) to support life-history functions Canyon (1972). A robust population of in that drainage to its confluence with essential for the conservation of the Chiricahua leopard frogs persists at this Alamo Canyon, then downstream in species. site despite the disease and periodic Alamo Canyon to its confluence with Sycamore Canyon is the only die-offs. Illegal border activity and Pen˜ a Blanca Canyon, then downstream significant site with moving water in associated law enforcement have in Pen˜ a Blanca Canyon to Pen˜ a Blanca recovery unit 1 to support breeding resulted in many trails and new vehicle Lake, to include Pen˜ a Blanca Spring; (2) Chiricahua leopard frogs. Most other routes in the area, as well as trampling from Thumb Butte Tank downstream in sites are livestock tanks or impounded in the canyon. an unnamed drainage to its confluence springs. Sycamore Canyon, Bear Valley Sycamore Canyon is designated a with Alamo Canyon; (3) from Tinker Ranch Tank, Rattlesnake Tank, and Research Natural Area by the Coronado Tank downstream in an unnamed Atascosa Canyon downstream of Bear National Forest and is closed to drainage to its confluence with Alamo Valley Ranch were all occupied by livestock grazing. Critical habitat is Canyon, then downstream in Alamo Chiricahua leopard frogs at the time of designated for the Sonora chub (Gila Canyon to the confluence with the listing. The occupancy status of the ditaenia) in Sycamore Canyon from drainage from Summit Reservoir; and other sites at the time of listing is Hank and Yank Spring (about 0.25 mi (4) from Coyote Tank downstream in an unknown. Sycamore Canyon, Yank (0.40 km) downstream of the Ruby Road unnamed drainage to its confluence Tank, North Mesa Tank, South Mesa crossing) downstream to the with Alamo Canyon, and then Tank, and Bear Valley Ranch Tank are international border, and in a 25-ft (7.6- downstream in Alamo Canyon to the currently occupied. The current m) strip on both sides of the creek (51 confluence with the drainage from occupancy status of Rattlesnake Tank FR 16042; April 30, 1986). Much of this Tinker Tank, to include Alamo Spring. and Atascosa Canyon downstream of unit also lies within the Pajarita Nonnative introduced predators, Bear Valley Ranch Tank is unknown. Wilderness area. These designations particularly bullfrogs and sportfish, Proposed critical habitat includes provide some level of protection to remain a serious threat in this region. A approximately 6.35 mi (10.23 km) of Chiricahua leopard frog habitats in concerted effort was made in 2008–2010 Sycamore Canyon from Ruby Road to Sycamore Canyon. to clear the area of bullfrogs. The effort the international border, which supports appears to be successful, and Chiricahua frogs and breeding, although in the Unit 6: Pen˜ a Blanca Lake and Spring leopard frogs have benefited. However, driest months (May and June) the stream and Associated Tanks there is a continuing threat of reinvasion dries to pools and tinajas (a term used This unit includes 202 ac (82 ha) and or introduction of bullfrogs. As in the American Southwest for water is all on Coronado National Forest discussed, sportfish at Pen˜ a Blanca Lake

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:55 Mar 14, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 14142 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules

are an additional threat. Frogs in this Posos Gulch Tank in 2008. It was once from a pipeline road crossing above the region test positive for thought to be a robust breeding site; breeding site downstream to Cienega chytridiomycosis; however, the disease however, it dried, and the frogs Creek; and (2) Cienega Creek from the appears to have little effect on disappeared in 2009. These four sites Empire Gulch confluence upstream to population viability. collectively form a metapopulation. A the approximate end of the wetted reach number of other sites in this region have and where the creek bends hard to the Recovery Unit 2 (Santa Rita-Huachuca- been found to support dispersing east, to include Cinco Ponds. An Ajos Bavispe, Arizona and Mexico) Chiricahua leopard frogs; however, only enclosed Chiricahua leopard frog Unit 7: Florida Canyon a few frogs and no breeding have been facility exists along Empire Gulch and is observed at these sites, so they are used to headstart eggs and tadpoles for This unit includes 4 ac (2 ha) and is thought to represent dispersing frogs. release to augment the wild population. all on Coronado National Forest lands in The occupancy status of these other Frogs may breed periodically at Cinco the Santa Rita Mountains, Pima County, sites at the time of listing is unknown. Ponds. These sites are too far (more than Arizona. This unit is proposed as Proposed critical habitat also includes 8.0 mi (13 km) straight line distance) critical habitat because it is essential for intervening drainages as follows: (1) from the next nearest population, which the conservation of the species. From Los Posos Gulch upstream to a is in Unit 8; thus the population(s) in Chiricahua leopard frogs currently saddle, then downslope in an unnamed Unit 9 currently acts as an isolated occupy this site; however, its occupancy drainage to the confluence with another population(s). status at the time of listing is unknown. unnamed drainage, then upstream and The recovery program for the A single frog was found in 2008, which south in that drainage to a saddle, and Chiricahua leopard frog at Las Cienegas was augmented with frogs from downslope through an unnamed is a collaborative, multi-partner elsewhere in the Santa Rita Mountains drainage to its confluence with Ophir approach that recently got a boost with in 2009. The site is too far from other Gulch, then in Ophir Gulch to upper a substantial grant from the National known breeding populations to be part Granite Mountain Tank, to include an Fish and Wildlife Foundation. However, of a metapopulation (the next nearest ephemeral tank near upper Granite bullfrogs are present and represent a population is about 5 mi (8 km) straight Mountain Tank and a well; (2) from persistent problem. Chiricahua leopard line distance away in Unit 8; hence, it Greaterville Tank downstream in an frogs suffer from chytridiomycosis in will be managed as an isolated, robust unnamed drainage to Ophir Gulch; and this unit, which has resulted in periodic population). PCE 1 is present and will (3) Louisiana Gulch from the metal die-offs; however, the frogs are be enhanced in 2010, with the addition tanks upstream to the headwaters of persisting with the disease. Crayfish of a steel tank for breeding. Included in Louisiana Gulch then across a saddle occur within a few miles and pose a the proposal is approximately 1,521 ft and downslope through an unnamed significant threat if they reach Cienega (463 m) of Florida Canyon from a silted- drainage to its confluence with Ophir Creek or Empire Gulch. The frog in dam to the downstream end of the Gulch. population in this unit is not robust. Florida Workstation property. Surface water is a primary limiting Las Cienegas National Conservation Water is a limiting factor in this factor in this unit. The breeding habitat Area is managed under the principles of system, particularly during drought. at Louisiana Gulch, although limited to multiple-use and ecosystem Fire in the watershed could result in two 6.0-ft (1.8-m) diameter steel tanks, management for future generations. scouring and sedimentation in the pools is dependable because it is fed by a Empire Gulch and Cienega Creek important as habitat for the frog. The well. The other tanks are filled by runoff downstream of its confluence with addition of a steel tank will provide and susceptible to drying during Empire Gulch is designated critical dependable water for breeding that is drought. Nonnative predators and habitat for the endangered Gila chub safe from erosion or sedimentation chytridiomycosis are not known to be (Gila intermedia) (70 FR 66663; events. Chyridiomycosis and introduced imminent threats in this area. November 2, 2005). The chub and the predators are potential threats, but endangered Gila topminnow Unit 9: Las Cienegas National neither has been recorded at this site. (Poeciliopsis occidentalis) occur in Conservation Area Cienega Creek adjacent to Empire Unit 8: Eastern Slope of the Santa Rita This unit is in Pima County, Arizona, Mountains Gulch. The Gila topminnow also occurs and includes 1,235 ac (500 ha) of in Empire Gulch. Neither species occurs This unit includes 172 ac (70 ha) of Bureau of Land Management lands and in Cinco Ponds. Where these species or Coronado National Forest lands and 14 186 ac (75 ha) of Arizona State Land critical habitat occur, some level of ac (6 ha) of private lands in the Department lands, including an protection may be afforded to Greaterville area in Pima County, approximate 4.33-mi (6.98-km) reach of Chiricahua leopard frog habitat. Arizona. This unit is proposed as Empire Gulch and 1.91 mi (3.08 km) of critical habitat because it is essential for Cienega Creek, including the Cinco Unit 10: Pasture 9 Tank the conservation of the species. Ponds. This unit is proposed as critical This unit includes 0.5 ac (0.2 ha) and Included in the proposed critical habitat because it was occupied at the is a former cattle pond entirely on habitat designation are two metal time of listing and currently contains private lands of the San Rafael Ranch, troughs in Louisiana Gulch, Greaterville sufficient PCEs (PCEs 1 and 2) to San Rafael Valley, Santa Cruz County, Tank, Los Posos Gulch Tank, and support life-history functions essential Arizona. It is proposed as critical habitat Granite Mountain Tank complex. The for the conservation of the species. because it is essential for the Granite Mountain Tank complex At the time of listing, Empire Gulch conservation of the species. includes two impoundments and a well. was occupied; however the occupancy This unit was not known to be All but Los Posos Gulch Tank are status of Cinco Ponds at that time is occupied at the time of listing; however, currently occupied breeding sites; unknown. Currently, Chiricahua Chiricahua leopard frogs were however, the occupancy status at the leopard frogs are extant at Empire Gulch established at this site through a time of listing for these sites is and Cinco Ponds. Frogs breed in a reach reintroduction in 2009. The next nearest unknown. PCEs 1 and 2 are present. of Empire Gulch near Empire Ranch. population is about a 10.5-mi (16.8-km), More than 60 frogs were observed at Los This reach includes: (1) Empire Gulch straight-line distance away in the Unit

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:55 Mar 14, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 14143

11; hence, Pasture 9 Tank is being mountainous terrain. Hence this site is frog in 2008 (Crothers 2008, p. 7). Frogs managed as an isolated population. PCE managed as an isolated population, but and habitat in these four units have 1 is present in this unit. there is some potential for creating been managed intensively since 1995. A The site is fenced with bullfrog connectivity to the metapopulation in conservation agreement and very active exclusion fencing, which also excludes Unit 14 via population reestablishment conservation partnership was livestock, and the pond is equipped in Garden Canyon at Fort Huachuca. formalized in 1997. The conservation with a solar-powered pump and well Scotia Canyon, with its pond and stream agreement implements the Chiricahua that provides a continual source of habitats, has the potential to be a robust leopard frog recovery plan in this water for the pond. The design of the population. portion of the Huachuca Mountains. fence allows Chiricahua leopard frogs to This canyon, and sites around it, has More recently, landowners in this unit exit the fenced area, but they cannot been the subject of intensive bullfrog enrolled their lands in the Arizona return. Proposed critical habitat eradication and habitat enhancement Game and Fish Department’s (AGFD) includes all areas within the fence. This work in preparation for reestablishing Safe Harbor Agreement with a is a cooperative project with the the Chiricahua leopard frog. However, Certificate of Inclusion. Currently, The landowner through the Service’s bullfrog reinvasion is a significant, Nature Conservancy is in the process of Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program. continuing threat, and other nonnative enrolling their Ramsey Canyon Preserve The landowner has also entered into a predators could potentially reach Scotia in Unit 14, as well. Because frogs would Safe Harbor Agreement for the Canyon via natural or human assisted not exist on these properties but for Chiricahua leopard frog; however, immigration. In addition, tiger reestablishment projects by the Service bullfrogs are in the area and remain a salamanders (Ambystoma mavortium) and AGFD with the permission of the threat if the fence is breached. from the Peterson Ranch Pond tested landowners, Beatty’s Guest Ranch and Chytridiomycosis is present in positive for chytridiomycosis in 2009; The Nature Conservancy’s Ramsey endangered Sonoran tiger salamander however, in 2010, the frogs appeared to Canyon Preserve have been assigned a (Ambystoma tigrinum stebbinsi) be doing well in that same pond, and it zero baseline for frogs under the Safe populations in the San Rafael Valley, is unclear as to whether tiger Harbor Agreement. and the disease has caused mass die-offs salamander have persisted at that pond. Frogs were present in Unit 12 at the and extirpations of Chiricahua leopard Nonetheless, disease has resulted in time of listing and are currently extant. frogs in the nearby Huachuca extirpations elsewhere in the Huachuca This is a robust breeding population Mountains; as a result, chytridiomycosis Mountains, and is considered a serious that inhabits a number of constructed is considered a threat at Pasture 9 Tank. threat in Scotia Canyon. Further, heavy ponds on the property. Frogs freely This unit is being considered for fuel loads could result in a catastrophic move among the ponds through an exclusion from the final rule for critical wildfire, which would have significant apple orchard, connecting streams, and habitat under section 4(b)(2) of the Act detrimental effects on the frog and its overland. Beatty’s Guest Ranch is too far (see Application of Section 4(b)(2) of the aquatic habitats. Finally, a road through from other populations (about a 3.0-mi Act section below). the canyon is eroded in places and (4.8-km), straight-line distance from contributes sediment to the stream; it Unit 14 over rugged terrain, or about 2.0 Unit 11: Scotia Canyon receives much use by recreationists and mi (3.2 km) along ephemeral or This unit includes 70 ac (29 ha) in U.S. Customs and Border Protection. intermittent drainages and 1.7 mi (2.7 Scotia Canyon, Huachuca Mountain, The proposed critical habitat km) overland to Unit 13) to form a Cochise County, Arizona, and is entirely designation for the Chiricahua leopard metapopulation, and because of on Coronado National Forest lands. This frog largely overlaps that of critical presence of chytridiomycosis and unit is proposed as critical habitat habitat for the endangered plant population decline and extirpation because it is essential for the Huachuca water-umbel (Lilaeopsis associated with the disease in Units 13, conservation of the species. schaffneriana var. recurva). Several 14, and 15, such connection is not The unit encompasses an approximate listed and candidate species have been desirable. As a result, Unit 12 is 1.36-mi (2.19-km) reach of the canyon recorded in Scotia Canyon. These managed as an isolated, robust with perennial pools, as well as a occurrences of critical habitat and listed population. This is the most stable and perennial travertine (a form of species provide some level of protection robust population of Chiricahua leopard limestone) seep, a spring fed, perennial to Chiricahua leopard frog habitat in frogs known in recovery unit 2. impoundment (Peterson Ranch Pond), this unit. Given the presence of and an ephemeral impoundment chytridiomycosis in Units 13, 14, and 15 adjacent to Peterson Ranch Pond. There Unit 12: Beatty’s Guest Ranch and its apparent dire effects on is also a perennial or nearly perennial This unit includes 10 ac (4.0 ha) of Chiricahua leopard frog populations impoundment in the channel private lands in Miller Canyon on the there, chytridiomycosis is an ever downstream of the travertine seep. east slope of the Huachuca Mountains, present threat in Unit 12. However, Breeding habitat occurs at Peterson Cochise County, Arizona. This unit is frogs at the Beatty’s Guest Ranch have Ranch Pond and possibly at other proposed as critical habitat because it never tested positive for the disease. perennial or nearly perennial pools. was occupied at the time of listing and Factors may be acting at this site to Chiricahua leopard frogs were currently contains sufficient PCEs (PCEs prevent its establishment as an epizootic reestablished in this canyon via a 1 and 2) to support life-history functions disease (an outbreak of disease affecting translocation in 2009; the last record of essential for the conservation of the many animals of one kind at the same a Chiricahua leopard frog in the canyon species. time). Because of the diligent before that was 1986. Scotia Canyon was Beatty’s Guest Ranch is one of four management of the Beatty family, no not occupied at the time of listing. PCEs proposed critical habitat units (12, 13, other factors threaten this population. 1 and 2 are present. 14, and 15) which was considered to be The frogs are present as a result of a Currently, this site is isolated from populated by the Ramsey Canyon translocation agreed to by the Beattys, other populations, the nearest of which leopard frog, until the Ramsey Canyon who are signatories to the conservation is in Unit 15, about a 4.4-mi (7.0-km), leopard frog was determined to be the agreement described above, and have straight-line distance away over same species as the Chiricahua leopard also enrolled their property into a Safe

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:55 Mar 14, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 14144 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules

Harbor Agreement for the Chiricahua in Brown and Ramsey Canyons, and goldfish were once introduced. leopard frog. Under section 4(b)(2) of Huachuca Mountains, Cochise County, Those two ponds are buffered against the Act, this unit is being considered for Arizona. This unit is proposed as drought and drying by a pipeline from exclusion from the final rule for critical critical habitat because it was occupied a spring and a windmill. However, the habitat (see Application of Section at the time of listing and currently Box in Brown Canyon is subject to low 4(b)(2) of the Act section below). contains sufficient PCEs to support life- water and drying during drought. That history functions essential for the Unit 13: Carr Barn Pond later population depends upon conservation of the species. immigration or active reestablishment This unit includes 0.6 ac (0.3 ha) of This unit along with other Units (12, for long-term persistence. The Trout and Coronado National Forest lands in the 13, and 15) have been managed Meadow Ponds in Ramsey Canyon are Huachuca Mountains, Cochise County, intensively for Ramsey Canyon fed by pipelines; thus the water supply Arizona. Carr Barn Pond is an (=Chiricahua) leopard frog conservation is dependable. The Trout Pond could impoundment with a small, lined pond since 1995. This unit is managed as a however be filled in with sediment with water provided from a well. During metapopulation. Places where frogs during a flood. Further, a fire in the runoff events, the size of the pond have bred and that still retain PCE 1 watershed could threaten aquatic expands considerably and then include Ramsey Canyon, Trout and breeding sites in both canyons. gradually shrinks back to the lined Meadow Ponds on private lands owned Lands owned by The Nature section. by The Nature Conservancy, and the Conservancy in Ramsey Canyon are This unit is proposed as critical Ramsey Canyon Box; and in Brown known as the Ramsey Canyon Preserve habitat because it was occupied at the Canyon, the Wild Duck Pond, House and are managed for preservation of time of listing and currently contains Pond, and the Brown Canyon Box (on natural features and species, including sufficient PCEs to support life-history Coronado National Forest lands). PCEs 1 functions essential for the conservation and 2 are present within this unit. the Chiricahua leopard frog. The Nature of the species. In addition to the breeding ponds, this Conservancy has been an active As with Units 12, 14, and 15, this unit critical habitat proposal also includes participant in Chiricahua leopard frog has been the subject of a conservation dispersal sites and corridors for recovery for many years; the Ramsey agreement and much intensive connectivity among breeding ponds as Canyon Preserve is currently in the management for the Ramsey Canyon follows: (1) From the top of the Box in process of being signed onto a Safe (=Chiricahua) leopard frog. The Ramsey Canyon downstream to a dirt Harbor Agreement, and The Nature Coronado National Forest created and road crossing of Ramsey Canyon at the Conservancy signed the Ramsey Canyon now maintains Carr Barn Pond mouth of the canyon; (2) Brown Canyon leopard frog conservation agreement, consistent with the Ramsey Canyon from the Box downstream to the Wild which implements the Chiricahua (=Chiricahua) leopard frog conservation Duck Pond and House Pond on the leopard frog recovery plan in the agreement, to which they are a former Barchas Ranch; and (3) from the Huachuca Mountains. Under section signatory. This site was occupied at the dirt road crossing of Ramsey Canyon 4(b)(2) of the Act, the Ramsey Canyon time of listing and was occupied into directly overland to House Pond. Preserve is being considered for 2009, but the population has since been The Ramsey Canyon portion of the exclusion from the final rule for critical eliminated, probably by unit was not occupied at the time of habitat (see Application of Section chytridiomycosis. This site is too far listing, but Brown Canyon was 4(b)(2) of the Act section below). away (3.4 mi (5.4 km) from Unit 14 and occupied. Both canyons are considered Recovery Unit 3 (Chiricahua Mountains- about 3.0 mi (4.8 km) from Unit 12 by currently occupied, but although frogs Malpai Borderlands-Sierra Madre, way of a straight-line distance over have bred at the Box in Brown Canyon, Arizona, New Mexico, and Mexico) rugged terrain) to be part of a the site is too small to support more metapopulation; hence, it is currently than just a few frogs. In addition, recent Unit 15: High Lonesome Well considered isolated. There is some die-offs associated with This unit includes 0.4 ac (0.2 ha) of potential for connecting it to Units 11, chytridiomycosis have significantly privately owned lands in the Playas 14, and 15 (see discussion above), but reduced populations in both canyons. Valley, Hidalgo County, New Mexico. additional habitat creation or The House and Wild Duck ponds as This unit is proposed as critical habitat enhancement and population well as Ramsey Canyon have a history because it was occupied at the time of reestablishment would be needed. of chytridiomycosis outbreaks. The listing and currently contains sufficient The unit has a history of nonnative Ramsey Canyon population has been PCEs (PCE 1) to support life-history predator problems and disease. We eliminated twice and then reestablished; functions essential for the conservation believe PCE 1 is present, but disease is the Wild Duck and House Ponds have of the species. a serious threat here that may be an also undergone repeated disease-related impediment to viable frog populations. declines and extirpations followed by This unit consists of an elevated The population has been eliminated reestablishments. The populations tend concrete tank into which Chiricahua after chytridiomycosis die-offs three to do well for months or years after leopard frogs were introduced prior to times; twice the population has reestablishment only to experience listing (Painter 2000, p. 15). The tank is subsequently been reestablished epizootic (an outbreak of disease supplied with water from a windmill through translocations. Largemouth bass affecting many animals of one kind at and provides water for livestock. The have been introduced illegally into the the same time) chytridiomycosis site supports a robust breeding pond and then removed, and bullfrogs outbreaks followed by declines or population, but is much too far from periodically invade the site but are extirpation. other populations to be part of a promptly removed before they breed. Additional threats in this unit include metapopulation (the nearest population nonnative species, drying, is in Unit 17, 25.4 mi (40.6 km) to the Unit 14: Ramsey and Brown Canyons sedimentation, and fire. Nonnative west). Furthermore, although frogs can This unit includes 65 ac (26 ha) of predators threaten populations at the exit the tank, they cannot get back into private lands in Ramsey Canyon and 58 House and Wild Duck Ponds, where the tank. As a result, it is managed as ac (24 ha) of Coronado National Forest bullfrogs have been found periodically an isolated, robust population.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:55 Mar 14, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 14145

Chiricahua leopard frogs were present Javelina Tank; and (4) from Javelina observed in Cave Creek on the at the time of listing and are currently Tank downstream in Cloverdale Creek Southwest Research Station property extant. The population is threatened by to the Canoncito Ranch Tank, to include indicates it may be suitable for breeding, deterioration of the concrete tank, Maverick Spring. although the creek dries to shallow which needs repair or replacement. Periodic drought dries most of the pools in most years in May and June. Catastrophic failure of the tank would aquatic sites completely or to small This unit is not currently occupied by result in loss of this population. pools, which limits population growth Chiricahua leopard frogs; however, the Chytridiomycosis has not been detected potential. Nonnative sportfish are Southwest Research Station is at this site, but disease testing has been present at Geronimo Tank and may headstarting tadpoles collected from minimal. Nonnative predators have not preclude successful recruitment. Leslie Canyon NWR (Unit 18); they will been recorded. Because of the nature of Occurrence of chytridiomycosis in this be captively bred and released at the the site, such predators could not area has not been investigated, but may pond on the station’s property as early colonize the tank on their own; they also be a limiting factor. as 2011. would have to be introduced. Sky Island Alliance is working with Scarcity of water can occur in drought partners to restore the Cloverdale years; however, the pond at the Unit 16: Peloncillo Mountains Cienega, which should improve aquatic Southwest Research Station is fed by a This unit includes 366 ac (148 ha) of habitats for Chiricahua leopard frogs. well and thus is buffered against Coronado National Forest lands and 289 The owner of the Canoncito Ranch has drought. Bullfrogs occur to the east but ac (117 ha) of private lands in Hidalgo signed onto a Safe Harbor Agreement for have never been recorded in the unit. County, New Mexico. This unit is the Chiricahua leopard frog. Under The current status and past history of proposed as critical habitat because it section 4(b)(2) of the Act, the private chytridiomycosis in this unit are was occupied at the time of listing and lands in Unit 16 are being considered unknown; however, the pond at the currently contains sufficient PCEs (PCEs for exclusion from the final rule for Southwest Research Station is fed by a 1 and 2) to support life-history functions critical habitat (see Application of warm spring and could provide some essential for the conservation of the Section 4(b)(2) of the Act section below). buffer against the disease. Rainbow trout species. Unit 17: Cave Creek were present and occurred concurrently Aquatic habitats proposed as critical with Chiricahua leopard frogs at Herb habitat in this unit include Geronimo, This unit includes 234 ac (95 ha) of Martyr Pond, but no trout are currently Javelina, State Line, and Canoncito Coronado National Forest lands and 92 known in the unit. Ranch Tanks; Maverick Spring; and ac (37 ha) of private lands owned by the The Southwest Research Station has pools or ponds in the Cloverdale American Museum of Natural History in signed a Safe Harbor Agreement for the Cienega and along Cloverdale Creek the Chiricahua Mountains, Cochise Chiricahua leopard frog and is an active below Canoncito Ranch Tank. Breeding County, Arizona. This unit is proposed participant in recovery. The Service and occurs in State Line and Canoncito as critical habitat because it was AGFD are working with additional Ranch Tanks, and possibly other aquatic occupied at the time of listing and private landowners downstream of the sites. Canoncito Ranch and Geronimo currently contains sufficient PCEs to proposed critical habitat to bring them tanks were occupied at the time of support life-history functions essential into the Safe Harbor Agreement. Under listing. The occupancy status of the for the conservation of the species. section 4(b)(2) of the Act, the American other sites at that time is unknown. All Included in the proposed critical Museum of Natural History lands are four of the tanks and Maverick Spring habitat are an approximate 5.84-mi being considered for exclusion from the have recent records of frogs (2007 to the (9.41-km) reach of Cave Creek and final rule for critical habitat (see present) and are considered currently associated ponds in or near the channel, Application of Section 4(b)(2) of the Act occupied. Frogs disperse from from Herb Martyr Pond downstream to section below). Canoncito Ranch Tank into Cloverdale the eastern U.S. Forest Service Cienega and Cloverdale Creek when boundary, to include John Hands Pond Unit 18: Leslie Creek water is present. This unit is managed and a spring-fed pond at the Southwest The unit consists of 26 ac (11 ha) of as a metapopulation. Research Station. PCEs 1 and 2 are National Wildlife Refuge lands on Leslie Also included in this critical habitat present. This site will be managed as a Canyon NWR, Cochise County, Arizona. proposal are intervening drainages and metapopulation. This unit is proposed as critical habitat uplands needed for connectivity among Herb Martyr Pond is the type locality because it was occupied at the time of these aquatic sites, including: (1) for the Chiricahua leopard frog; listing and currently contains sufficient Cloverdale Creek from Canoncito Ranch however, no frogs have been observed at PCEs (PCE 1) to support life-history Tank downstream to rock pools about the site since 1977. The pool behind the functions essential for the conservation 630 feet (192 m) below the Cloverdale dam is entirely silted in, and pools at of the species. Road crossing of Cloverdale Creek, the base of the dam are probably not This unit is a stream system with including Cloverdale Cienega; (2) from adequate for Chiricahua leopard frog intermittent pools and two small Geronimo Tank downstream in an survival or reproduction. However, with impoundments. Its upstream limit is the unnamed drainage to its confluence restoration this site could once again Leslie Canyon NWR boundary, and its with Clanton Draw, then upstream to support Chiricahua leopard frogs. The downstream limit is at the crossing of the confluence with an unnamed pond below the dam at John Hands Leslie Canyon Road, an approximate drainage, and upstream in that drainage appears suitable for occupancy, but stream distance of 4,094 ft (1,248 m). to its headwaters, across a mesa to the Chiricahua leopard frogs have not been Chiricahua leopard frogs were present headwaters of an unnamed drainage, recorded there since 1966. The spring- in this unit at the time of listing and are then downslope through that drainage fed pond at the Southwest Research currently extant. This population is too to State Line Tank; (3) from State Line Station appears to be excellent habitat, far (24.8 mi (36.7 km)) from the next Tank upstream in an unnamed drainage but we have no record of the species nearest breeding site (North Tank in to a mesa, then directly overland to the occurring there. Chiricahua leopard Unit 19) to be part of a metapopulation. headwaters of Cloverdale Creek, and frogs were occasionally seen in Cave Hence it is managed as an isolated then downstream in Cloverdale Creek to Creek through 2002, and an egg mass population.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:55 Mar 14, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 14146 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules

Drought and lack of pools are limiting confluence with a large unnamed supports a robust or nearly robust factors in this unit. Chiricahua leopard drainage, then upstream in that population of Chiricahua leopard frogs. frogs are positive for chytridiomycosis drainage; (2) under Guadalupe Canyon This unit functions as a metapopulation. at this site, and although they are Road and east to its confluence with a Intervening drainages include: (1) Deer persisting with the disease, the minor unnamed drainage; (3) upstream Creek from a point where it exits a population is not robust, and the effects in that unnamed minor drainage to its canyon and turns abruptly to the east, of the disease may be responsible in headwaters; (4) then overland to the upstream to its confluence with an part. Bullfrogs occur in ponds to the headwaters of another unnamed unnamed drainage, upstream in that east, but have never been recorded in drainage; (5) downstream in that drainage to a confluence with four other Leslie Creek. drainage to its confluence with the drainages, upstream from that The endangered Huachuca water- drainage containing North Tank; and (6) confluence in the western drainage to umbel, endangered Yaqui chub (Gila downstream in that drainage to North Clifford’s Tank, upstream from that purpurea), and endangered Yaqui Tank. confluence in the west-central drainage topminnow (Poeciliopsis occidentalis Chytridiomycosis has not been to an unnamed tank, then directly sonoriensis) all occur in Leslie Creek, recorded in this unit despite its overland southeast to another unnamed and the area is managed to conserve the presence nearby at San Bernardino tank, then downstream from that tank in aquatic and riparian habitats of the NWR. High pH at Rosewood Tank may an unnamed drainage to the canyon. A landowner adjacent to the the be a limiting factor for the disease aforementioned confluence and refuge has signed a Safe Harbor organism. No nonnative predators have upstream in that unnamed drainage to a Agreement for the Chiricahua leopard been found at either of these tanks. saddle, and downstream from that frog and other species. With future Rosewood Tank has been equipped with saddle in an unnamed drainage to its habitat renovations and population two small, concrete-lined refugia ponds confluence with an unnamed tributary reestablishments, there is some fed by a well so that the frogs can persist to Gardner Canyon, and upstream in potential for developing additional at this site even if the livestock tank, that unnamed tributary to Home Ranch populations of Chiricahua leopard frogs which is filled by runoff, goes dry. Tank; (2) from the largest of the Penney in this area, which could form a For many years, the owners of the Mine Tanks directly overland and metapopulation with the Leslie Canyon Magoffin Ranch in this unit have made southwest to an unnamed tank, and population. unprecedented efforts to maintain this downstream from that tank in an Unit 19: Rosewood and North Tanks population. The private and Arizona unnamed drainage to the State Land Department lands in the aforementioned confluence, to include This unit includes 19 ac (8 ha) of proposal are covered by a Safe Harbor another unnamed tank situated in that private land and 78 ac (31 ha) of land Agreement for the Chiricahua leopard drainage; (3) from Vermont Tank owned by the Arizona State Land frog. The Magoffin Ranch owners have directly overland and east to Deer Creek; Department in the San Bernardino worked tirelessly for the recovery of this and (4) from Middle Tank upstream in Valley, Cochise County, Arizona. This species. Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, an unnamed drainage to a saddle, and unit is proposed as critical habitat lands in this unit are being considered then directly downslope to Deer Creek. because it was occupied at the time of for exclusion from the final rule for The primary threat to Chiricahua listing and currently contains sufficient critical habitat (see Application of leopard frogs and their habitats in this PCEs (PCEs 1 and 2) to support life- Section 4(b)(2) of the Act section below). unit is periodic drought that results in history functions essential for the breeding sites drying out. During a conservation of the species. Recovery Unit 4 (Pin˜ aleno-Galiuro- severe drought in 2002, all but one of Included in this proposed unit are Dragoon Mountains, Arizona) the waters in the unit dried out. The two livestock tanks (Rosewood and Unit 20: Deer Creek occupancy status of the unit at the time North Tanks) and drainages and of listing is unknown. Frogs in this unit uplands to allow for movement of frogs This unit consists of 17 ac (7 ha) of reportedly died for unknown reasons in between them. North Tank is on private Coronado National Forest, 69 ac (28 ha) the 1980s (Goforth 2005, p. 2), possibly land, while Rosewood Tank and the of Arizona State Land Department indicative of chytridiomycosis; connecting drainage are on Arizona lands, and 34 ac (14 ha) of private lands however, no Chiricahua leopard frogs State Land Department lands. Rosewood in the Galiuro Mountains, Graham have tested positive for the disease from Tank was occupied at the time of listing, County, Arizona. This unit is proposed this unit. The only nonnative aquatic but North Tank was not. Both tanks are as critical habitat because it is essential predator recorded in this unit is the currently occupied. Rosewood Tank is a for the conservation of the species. PCEs barred tiger salamander. breeding population, and North Tank 1 and 2 are present in this unit. Recovery work has occurred in this probably supports breeding. The North Included in proposed critical habitat unit, including headstarting of egg Tank is a recent (2008) reestablishment are Home Ranch, Clifford’s, Vermont, masses and reestablishment and site for which breeding has not yet been and Middle Tanks, a series of 10 augmentation of populations. The documented. Two interconnected impoundments on the Penney Mine Service, AGFD, Arizona State Land breeding sites do not make a lease, and intervening drainages, Department, and an agate miner (Penney metapopulation (four or more primarily Deer Creek, and associated Mine Tanks) have drafted a interconnected breeding sites are uplands and ephemeral tanks that conservation plan for managing habitats necessary, Service 2007, p. K–3); hence provide corridors for movement among on the mine lease, but funds are lacking this unit is considered an isolated these tanks. Breeding has been to implement that plan. population. confirmed on Deer Creek above The intervening drainages and Clifford’s Tank, and in Home Ranch and Unit 21: Oak Spring and Oak Creek uplands proposed as critical habitat are Vermont Tanks, and is suspected in the This unit consists of 27 ac (11 ha) of as follows: (1) From Rosewood Tank other three sites named above when Coronado National Forest lands in the downstream in an unnamed drainage water is present long enough for Galiuro Mountains, Graham County, that is parallel to and just south of the tadpoles to metamorphose into adults (3 Arizona. Oak Spring and Oak Creek are Guadalupe Canyon Road to its to 9 months). Home Ranch Tank proposed as critical habitat because they

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:55 Mar 14, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 14147

are essential for the conservation of the and recent drought. The tank is in need (0.8 km) from Partnership Tank and 0.67 species. of renovation so that it may again mi (1.07 km) from Walt’s Tank. Needed The unit is currently occupied; dependably hold water and support Tank may not hold water long enough however, its occupancy status at the breeding. for breeding, but it provides a stopover time of listing is unknown. It is just Currently, not enough breeding sites for dispersing frogs. north of Deer Creek (Unit 20) but is too exist to comprise a metapopulation (four This proposed critical habitat also far (about 1.6 mi (2.6 km)) overland (via are necessary) in this unit; however, includes drainages and uplands likely straight-line distance) from the nearest with additional habitat creation or used as dispersal corridors among these aquatic sites (Home Ranch and renovation, a metapopulation may be tanks, including: (1) From Middle Tank Clifford’s Tanks) in that unit. possible, which is needed for this downstream in Boulder Canyon to its Connectivity is further complicated by a recovery unit (the only other confluence with an unnamed drainage ridgeline between Oak Spring and Home metapopulation is in Unit 20). that comes in from the northwest, to Ranch Tank. Hence, this site is managed Also included in this critical habitat include Black Tank, then upstream in as an isolated population. proposal are intervening drainages for that unnamed drainage to a saddle, to PCEs 1 and 2 are present in this unit. connectivity, including Stronghold include Needed Tank, downstream from The site does not support enough frogs Canyon from Halfmoon Tank to Cochise the saddle in an unnamed drainage to to be considered a robust population. Spring, then upstream in an unnamed its confluence with another unnamed This unit is an approximate 1.06-mi canyon to Shaw Tank, and continuing drainage, downstream in that drainage (1.71-km) intermittent reach of an upstream to the headwaters of that to the confluence with an unnamed incised canyon punctuated by pools of canyon, across a saddle and drainage, to include Walt’s Tank, and varying permanence, from Oak Spring downstream in Middlemarch Canyon to upstream in that unnamed drainage to downstream in Oak Creek to where a Tunnel Spring. Partnership Tank; (2) from Doren’s hiking trail intersects the creek. The Threats to the Chiricahua leopard frog Defeat Tank upstream in an unnamed largest pool, Cattail Pool, is permanent and its habitat are primarily scarcity of drainage to Partnership Tank; (3) from or nearly so and typically supports suitable breeding habitat and loss of that the confluence of an unnamed drainage several Chiricahua leopard frogs and habitat during drought. Tunnel Spring is with Boulder Canyon west to a point breeding. The reach proposed for spring-fed and thus buffered against where the drainage turns southwest, critical habitat captures the area where drought; however, Shaw and Halfmoon then directly overland to the top of Chiricahua leopard frogs have been Tanks are filled with runoff. Neither Sycamore Canyon, and then seen. nonnative predators nor downstream in Sycamore Canyon to The primary threat in this unit is chytridiomycosis have been noted in Sycamore Basin Tank; and (4) from extended drought during which all of these populations and habitats, although Buckskin Tank upstream in an unnamed the pools are subject to reduction or if introduced they would constitute drainage to the top of that drainage, then drying. Cattail Pool is spring-fed, and is additional stressors. directly overland to an unnamed likely the last pool to dry out. Oak Recovery work, including drainage that contains Walt’s Tank. Spring is also tapped for water headstarting of eggs collected from The greatest threats are reintroduction developments, which may limit the Tunnel Spring and establishment of a of nonnative species and drought. capability of the site to support frogs. new population at Shaw Tank with Divide Tank, which is adjacent to Chiricahua leopard frogs have been reared tadpoles and frogs, has been Highway 260, has supported nonnatives headstarted and released at this site to accomplished in this unit, and the U.S. in the past and is a likely place for augment the population. Forest Service’s livestock permittee has future illegal stockings of fish or bullfrogs. If established there, Unit 22: Dragoon Mountains been an enthusiastic participant in those recovery activities. nonnatives could spread to sites This unit includes 74 ac (30 ha) of proposed herein as critical habitat. All Coronado National Forest lands in Recovery Unit 5 (Mogollon Rim-Verde of the tanks proposed as critical habitat Cochise County, Arizona. This uit is River, Arizona) are filled by runoff; hence, they are proposed as critical habitat because it vulnerable to drying during drought. Unit 23: Buckskin Hills was occupied at the time of listing and When the species was proposed for currently contains sufficient PCEs (PCEs This unit includes 232 ac (94 ha) of listing, the populations in the Buckskin 1 and 2) to support life-history functions Coconino National Forest lands in Hills were unknown; however, during essential for the conservation of the Yavapai County, Arizona. This unit is 2000–2001, frogs were found at 11 sites. species. proposed as critical habitat because it After a severe drought in 2002, frogs Shaw Tank and Tunnel Spring in was occupied at the time of listing and only remained at Sycamore Basin and Middlemarch Canyon are proposed as currently contains sufficient PCEs (PCEs Walt’s Tanks. Drilling a well to make critical habitat in this unit and are 1 and 2) to support life-history functions one or more of the tanks less susceptible currently occupied breeding sites. The essential for the conservation of the to drying is cost prohibitive because of latter is a robust population that was species. the extreme depth to groundwater. occupied at the time of listing. Shaw Included in this proposed critical Because the tanks depend on runoff, Tank is a reestablishment site that was habitat unit are six tanks occupied at the and as most tanks went dry in 2002, not known to be occupied in 2002. time of listing (Sycamore Basin, Middle, protecting more than the minimum four Also included in the proposal as Walt’s, Partnership, Black, and breeding sites needed for a proposed critical habitat is Halfmoon Buckskin) that form a metapopulation. metapopulation is warranted. Tank, which supported a robust Frogs currently occur at Middle and Chytridiomycosis has not been found in population of Chiricahua leopard frogs Walt’s Tanks. Also included in the any wild frogs in the Buckskin Hills; until 2002. It dried or nearly dried that critical habitat proposal are two tanks however, the disease occurs in Arizona year and may or may not have occupied in 2001 that probably dried treefrogs (Hyla wrightorum) and western supported Chiricahua leopard frogs at out during a drought in 2002: Doren’s chorus frogs (Pseudacris triseriata) less the time of listing. PCE 1 at Halfmoon Defeat and Needed Tanks. The former than 10 mi (16 km) to the east, and frogs Tank has been compromised by siltation holds water well and is about 0.5 mi collected from Walt’s Tank

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:55 Mar 14, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 14148 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules

subsequently tested positive for the translocate Chiricahua leopard frogs to and (4) then upstream in that unnamed disease in captivity. It is unknown Trail Tank. drainage to Low Tank. whether they contracted the disease in Chiricahua leopard frogs were moved Moore Saddle Tank #42 is about 0.8 the wild or while captive. to Pine Spring in 2006, and habitat work mi (1.3 km) overland from Low Tank; Much recovery work has been was accomplished there to improve pool hence, it is within the one-mile accomplished in this unit, including habitats. However, no frogs were overland distance for reasonable captive rearing, population observed during a site visit in May 2010. dispersal likelihood; however, there are reestablishments, tank renovations, The connectivity of Pine Spring to four drainages that bisect that route, and erosion control, fencing, and Cunningham Spring and other sites it is likely that any Chiricahua leopard elimination of nonnative predators such upstream in Crouch Creek is frogs traversing those uplands would as sportfishes and crayfish. complicated by a waterfall below move down or upstream in one of those Unit 24: Crouch, Gentry, and Cherry Cunningham Spring; however, an drainages rather than crossing them. As Creeks, and Parallel Canyon overland route of less than a mile a result, Moore Saddle Tank #42 will be provides access around the waterfall. managed as an isolated and potentially This unit includes 334 ac (135 ha) of Chiricahua leopard frogs were first robust population. Tonto National Forest lands, 64 ac (26 noted in Cherry Creek in 2008, just This leaves the other sites one short ha) of AGFD lands, and 6 ac (3 ha) of before additional frogs were released of the four needed to form a private lands in Gila County, Arizona. into that site. Reproduction has been metapopulation; however, no other sites This unit is proposed as critical habitat noted and frogs were observed in Cherry in the area are known that contain the because it was occupied at the time of Creek in 2010. PCEs or have the potential for listing and currently contains sufficient Threats in this unit include predation developing the PCEs. Additional PCEs (PCEs 1 and 2) to support life- exploration of the area and likely some history functions essential for the by nonnative species, including bullfrogs, crayfish, and sportfish; habitat renovation will be needed to conservation of the species. secure a fourth site. Included as proposed critical habitat predation by tiger salamanders (presumably native); chytridiomycosis, Chiricahua leopard frogs have are Trail Tank, HY Tank, Carroll Spring, occasionally been found in Ellison West Prong of Gentry Creek, Pine which was found in a Cherry Creek frog Creek. In 1998, small numbers of frogs Spring, and portions of Cherry and in 2009; and minimal water. None of the were found here, but were not seen Crouch Creeks, all of which provide populations are robust due to the small again until 2006. Despite intensive breeding or potential breeding habitat. size of breeding habitats. It is hoped that surveys, no frogs were found in 2007 or Also included are intervening drainages Trail Tank may provide enough aquatic 2008. and uplands needed for connectivity habitat for a robust population. Other Whether this unit was occupied at the among breeding sites, including: (1) sites have renovation potential and time of listing is unclear. In 2009, egg Cherry Creek from Rock Spring could possibly in the future support masses from Crouch Creek in Unit 24 upstream to its confluence with an robust populations, but none of the were headstarted, and tadpoles and unnamed drainage, upstream in that other sites currently have the PCEs due young frogs were stocked at the four drainage and across a saddle, then to presence of nonnative species or sites listed above as potential breeding downstream in an unnamed drainage to other factors. sites. Frogs from those releases appeared Trail Tank; (2) Crouch Creek from its This unit has received habitat work, to be doing well at all four sites in 2010. headwaters just south of Highway 288 renovations, nonnative species control, downstream to an unnamed drainage headstarting, population Additional releases of Crouch Creek leading to Pine Spring, to include reestablishment, and population frogs occurred in July 2010. Cunningham Spring and Carroll Spring, augmentation. Recovery Unit 6 (White Mountains- then upstream in that unnamed Unit 25: Ellison and Lewis Creeks Upper Gila, Arizona and New Mexico) drainage from Crouch Creek to Pine Spring; (3) from HY Tank downstream This unit includes 83 ac (34) of Tonto Unit 26: Concho Bill and Deer Creek in an unnamed drainage to Cherry National Forest lands and 15 ac (6 ha) This unit includes 17 ac (7 ha) of Creek, to include Bottle Spring; (4) from of private lands in Gila County, Arizona. Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest in Cunningham Spring east across a low This unit is proposed as critical habitat Apache County, Arizona. This unit is saddle to West Prong of Gentry Creek because it is essential for the proposed as critical habitat because it is where the creek turns southwest; and (5) conservation of the species. PCEs 1 and essential for the conservation of the from Bottle Spring south over a low 2 are present in this unit. species. PCE 1 is present. Included in saddle to the headwaters of Crouch Included in this critical habitat this critical habitat proposal is a spring Creek. proposal are potential breeding sites at at Concho Bill and a meadow-ephemeral At the time of listing, Chiricahua Moore Saddle Tank #42, Ellison Creek stream reach extending for leopard frogs occurred in Crouch Creek, just east of Pyle Ranch, Lewis Creek approximately 2,667 ft (813 m) below Carroll Spring, HY Tank, Bottle Spring, downstream of Pyle Ranch, and Low the spring. and West Prong of Gentry Creek. Trail Tank. Intervening drainages that This is an isolated population that Tank has nearly permanent water and is provide connectivity among the latter was established through captive in the Parallel Canyon drainage, but three sites are also proposed as critical breeding and translocation of stock from close to the divide with Cherry Creek. habitat as follows: (1) Unnamed Three Forks, which is also in recovery In May 2010, it was renovated to remove tributary to Ellison Creek from its unit 6 in Arizona. Frogs were first a breeding population of bullfrogs and confluence with an unnamed drainage released at the spring pool in 2000; green sunfish. Additional followup downstream to Ellison Creek; (2) then subsequent releases have augmented the removal of bullfrogs occurred in July directly west across the Ellison Creek population. Whether the frogs persisted 2010. Bullfrogs at the nearby ephemeral floodplain and over a low saddle to after that initial release until the time of Roadside Tank were also eliminated in Lewis Creek below Pyle Ranch; (3) then listing is unknown. The population is 2010. Once bullfrogs are confirmed downstream in Lewis Creek to its small and generally only a few frogs if absent, plans will move forward to confluence with an unnamed drainage; any are detected during surveys.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:55 Mar 14, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 14149

The primary threat is the limited pool This unit is an approximate 19.31-mi 2009. Frogs were last found in South habitat for breeding and overwintering, (31.08-km) reach of the Tularosa River Fork of Negrito Creek in 2006, and at which thus far has limited the size of from Tularosa Spring downstream to the Burro Tank in 2002. Four the population. Small populations are entrance to the canyon below Hell Hole. impoundments on private lands along subject to extirpation from random Frogs were observed in this reach in South Fork of Negrito Creek have not variations in demographics of age 2002 at the time of listing and continue been surveyed for frogs; however, it is structure and sex ratio, and from disease to persist. This unit is isolated from presumed they serve or once served as and natural events (Service 2007, p. 38). other populations, but is a large system habitat for Chiricahua leopard frogs. In addition, crayfish are nearby in the potentially capable of supporting a Long Mesa, Cullum, and Burro Tanks, Black River and could invade this site. robust population. and South Fork of Negrito Creek were In 2009, small numbers of frogs were occupied at the time of listing. All sites Unit 27: Campbell Blue and Coleman found at two sites in the unit. The frogs are thought to retain the PCEs. Creeks may occur throughout this reach of the Also included in this proposed The unit includes 174 ac (70 ha) of river, but breeding is likely limited to critical habitat are intervening drainages Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest in isolated localities where nonnative and uplands for movement among these Greenlee County, Arizona. This unit is predators are rare or absent. Crayfish are breeding sites as follows: (1) From Burro proposed as critical habitat because it abundant, rainbow trout are present, Tank downstream in Burro Canyon to was occupied at the time of listing and and bullfrogs have recently been found Negrito Creek, then upstream in Negrito currently contains sufficient PCEs (PCE downstream of the Apache Creek Creek to the confluence of South Fork 1) to support life-history functions confluence and just below Hell Hole. and North Fork of Negrito Creek; (2) essential for the conservation of the Chytridiomycosis is present. The first from Long Mesa Tank overland and east species. Chiricahua leopard frogs to test positive to Shotgun Canyon, then downstream in Included as critical habitat is an for the disease in New Mexico (1985) that canyon to Cullum Tank; and (3) approximate 2.04-mi (3.28-km) reach of were found at Tularosa Spring. The from Cullum Tank downstream in Campbell Blue Creek from the western frogs were found at that site through Shotgun and Bull Basin Canyons to an boundary of Luce Ranch upstream to the 2005, but none have been observed unnamed drainage, then upstream in Coleman Creek confluence, and since. A robust population was present that drainage to its confluence with a Coleman Creek from its confluence with nearby at a pond in a tributary to Kerr minor drainage coming off Rainy Mesa Campbell Blue Creek upstream to its Canyon, in Kerr Canyon, and at Kerr from the east-northeast, then upstream confluence with Canyon Creek, an Spring, but experienced a die-off from in that drainage and across Rainy Mesa approximate stream distance of 1.04 mi chytridiomycosis in 2009; it is unknown to Burro Tank. (1.68 km). if frogs persist in that area. Populations in this unit have suffered This unit is too far from other known Chytridiomycosis is considered a from chytridiomycosis. A complex of Chiricahua leopard frog populations to serious threat in this unit. Both bullfrogs tanks, springs, and streams in the Deep be considered part of a metapopulation. and crayfish are relatively recent Creek Divide area was once a stronghold The nearest population is about 12.2 mi arrivals in this system and limit, but for the Chiricahua leopard frog on the (19.6 km) to the northwest in Unit 26. thus far have not precluded, recovery Gila National Forest. However, most of Frogs were observed in Unit 27 in 2002, opportunities. those populations contracted the and then again in 2010. No more than The proposed critical habitat does not disease, suffered die-offs, and a few frogs were seen during surveys extend much below Hell Hole because disappeared. Frogs on the North Fork of (two were observed in 2010); however, of a lack of recent frog observations in Negrito Creek were few in number and the site is difficult to survey and frogs that reach, presumably due to appeared sick in 2008. Their possible have many opportunities for hiding prevalence of nonnative species and absence in 2010 may be a result of a from observers. disease. Chiricahua leopard frogs disease-related die-off. Presence of the Crayfish and introduced rainbow occurred in the 1980s in this lower disease compromises PCE 1 and limits trout are present throughout this stream reach but have not been observed since. recovery opportunities in this unit. system, which likely limit recruitment of frogs into the population. In 2010, the Unit 29: Deep Creek Divide Area Unit 30: Main Diamond Creek creeks had numerous beaver ponds and This unit consists of 408 ac (165 ha) This unit consists of 14 ac (6 ha) of vegetation cover that are probably of Gila National Forest and 102 ac (41 Gila National Forest and 40 ac (16 ha) important as protection from predators. ha) of private lands in Catron County, of private lands along Main Diamond Backwaters and off-channel pools New Mexico. This unit is proposed as Creek downstream of Links Ranch, provide better habitat than the often critical habitat because it was occupied Catron County, New Mexico. This unit swiftly moving, shallow water in the at the time of listing and currently is proposed as critical habitat because it creeks. The presence of contains sufficient PCEs (PCEs 1 and 2) was occupied at the time of listing and chytridiomycosis has not been to support life-history functions currently contains sufficient PCEs (PCE investigated in this unit. essential for the conservation of the 1) to support life-history functions species. essential for the conservation of the Unit 28: Tularosa River Included as proposed critical habitat species. This unit contains 335 ac (135 ha) of are three livestock tanks (Long Mesa, This site currently supports a robust Gila National Forest and 1,575 ac (637 Cullum, and Burro Tanks) in the Deep population. Chiricahua leopard frogs ha) of private lands in Catron County, Creek Divide area and connecting may occur periodically or regularly at New Mexico. This unit is proposed as reaches of North and South Fork of an impoundment at Links Ranch, but critical habitat because it was occupied Negrito Creek above their confluence. that impoundment also contains at the time of listing and currently Long Mesa Tank is currently occupied; bullfrogs and may have sportfish, as contains sufficient PCEs (PCEs 1 and 2) surveys in 2010 did not find frogs at well. This proposed critical habitat to support life-history functions Cullum Tanks or the North Fork of includes an approximate 3,980-ft (1,213- essential for the conservation of the Negrito Creek, although Chiricahua m), perennial or nearly perennial reach species. leopard frogs occupied these sites in of Main Diamond Creek from the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:55 Mar 14, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 14150 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules

downstream (western) boundary of Recovery Unit 7 (Upper Gila-Blue River, Unit 33: Rattlesnake Pasture Tank and Links Ranch downstream through a Arizona and New Mexico) Associated Tanks meadow to the confluence of a drainage Unit 32: Left Prong of Dix Creek This unit contains 59 ac (24 ha) of that comes in from the south, which is Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest in also where the creek enters a canyon. This unit contains 13 ac (5 ha) of Greenlee County, Arizona. This unit is This population is about a 4.6-mi (7.4- Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest lands proposed as critical habitat because it is km), straight-line distance over rugged in Greenlee County, Arizona. This unit essential for the conservation of the terrain to the next nearest population at is proposed as critical habitat because it species. PCEs 1 and 2 are present in this Beaver Creek (Unit 31). As a result, it is is essential for the conservation of the unit. managed as an isolated, robust species. PCE 1 is present. Included in the proposed critical population. habitat are three stock tanks: Rattlesnake This reach runs from a warm spring Chytridiomycosis has not been found Pasture, Rattlesnake Gap, and Buckhorn. above ‘‘The Hole’’ and continues to the Also included are intervening drainages in this population, but is a potential confluence with the right prong of Dix threat. Bullfrogs at the impoundment and uplands for connectivity, including: Creek, an approximate stream distance (1) From Rattlesnake Pasture Tank likely prey upon Chiricahua leopard of 4,248 ft (1,296 m). This population frogs. The creek is primarily privately downstream in an unnamed drainage to was discovered in 2003; its status at the owned; the future plans of the Red Tank Canyon (including Buckhorn time of listing is unknown. Chiricahua landowners regarding land management Tank), then upstream in Red Tank leopard frogs were found again in 2005. in the area are unknown. Canyon to Rattlesnake Gap Tank; and They were not observed in 2010, but a (2) from Rattlesnake Gap Tank upstream Unit 31: Beaver Creek large boulder has lodged itself in the in an unnamed drainage to its canyon, blocking access to the spring; confluence with a minor drainage, then This unit consists of 132 ac (54 ha) of hence, the warm spring was not upslope to a saddle, and across that Gila National Forest and 25 ac (10 ha) surveyed. In 2003, Chiricahua leopard saddle and directly downslope to of private lands near Wall Lake, Catron frogs were also reported from below a Rattlesnake Pasture Tank. County, New Mexico. This unit is an warm spring in the Right Prong of Dix Chiricahua leopard frogs were approximate 5.59-mi (8.89-km) portion Creek; however, surveys in 2010 only discovered at Rattlesnake Pasture Tank of Beaver Creek beginning at a warm found lowland leopard frogs. Either the in 2003, and are currently there. Status spring and running downstream to its frogs in this reach were misidentified in at the time of listing is unknown. The confluence with Taylor Creek. Below 2003, or lowland leopard frogs have species has not been found at that confluence, the stream is known as displaced Chiricahua leopard frogs in Rattlesnake Gap or Buckhorn Tanks; the East Fork of the Gila River. This unit the Right Prong. Currently, the however, all three tanks are close to is proposed as critical habitat because it population in the Left Prong is isolated. each other and well connected via is essential for the conservation of the drainages to allow movement of frogs species. PCE 1 is present in this unit. The next nearest known Chiricahua from Rattlesnake Pasture Tank to these leopard frog population is at Rattlesnake The status of the population at the other tanks. Rattlesnake Gap and Pasture Tank (Unit 33), about a 6.0-mi time of listing is unknown; however, Buckhorn Tanks appear to have fairly (9.6-km), straight-line distance over Chiricahua leopard frogs are currently permanent water. Other tanks in the rough terrain. A number of stock tanks present. The population is not well area, including Cold Spring Mountain have potential to connect these two sites studied; Beaver Creek is, however, a Tank and Rattlesnake Tanks #1 and 2, and form a metapopulation; however, long enough reach that it could support do not hold water consistently enough they have not been investigated in a robust population. The nearest known to support a breeding population of enough detail to understand whether population of Chiricahua leopard frogs frogs (and Chiricahua leopard frogs have PCEs are present or have the potential is at Main Diamond Creek (Unit 30), not been found at these other tanks). approximately a 4.6-mi (7.4-km), to be developed. No Chiricahua leopard The three tanks proposed form a nucleus from which a metapopulation straight-line distance away over rugged frogs have ever been found in these could be constructed; however, habitat terrain. As a result, this site is managed tanks. work will be needed to achieve the as an isolated population. This proposed critical habitat overlaps that of critical habitat for Gila fourth breeding site of the The spring at the upstream end of the metapopulation. chub (Gila intermedia), which provides unit is a warm spring, which may help Tiger salamanders, presumably native a level of protection for this unit. A frogs survive with chytridiomycosis, if Arizona tiger salamanders (Ambystoma the disease is present or colonizes the healthy population of Gila chub, as well mavortium nebulosum), occur in all area in the future (Johnson and as other native fishes, occurs in the Left three tanks and likely prey upon Smorynski 1998, p. 45; Service 2007, p. Prong of Dix Creek. A natural rock Chiricahua leopard frogs to some 26). Rainbow trout, bass (Microptus sp.), barrier about a mile below the degree. However, a healthy population and bullfrogs reportedly occur along confluence of the Right and Left Prongs of Chiricahua leopard frogs occurs with Beaver Creek with Chiricahua leopard serves as a barrier to upstream Arizona tiger salamanders at Rattlesnake frogs, although trout are limited to the movement of nonnative fishes from the Pasture Tank. Three juvenile to small cooler waters near the confluence with San Francisco River. The warm waters adult bullfrogs, which were likely Taylor Creek (Johnson and Smorynski of the spring may allow persistence of immigrants from another site, were 1998, pp. 44–45). The mechanisms by Chiricahua leopard frogs if found at Rattlesnake Gap Tank in June which Chiricahua leopard frogs coexist chytridiomycosis is present or if it 2010. If a population of bullfrogs is with these nonnative predators are colonizes this area in the future. A established at Rattlesnake Gap Tank, it unknown; however, habitat complexity rough dirt road crosses the left prong of would threaten Chiricahua leopard frogs and adequate cover are likely important Dix Creek in the proposed critical in Rattlesnake Pasture Tank and the features that may need special habitat unit. It likely contributes some capacity for recovery in this recovery management. sediment to the stream. unit 7. These tanks are fed by rainfall

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:55 Mar 14, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 14151

runoff, but Rattlesnake Pasture Tank critical habitat because it was occupied downstream to its confluence with the may be spring fed as well. Nonetheless, at the time of listing and currently North Fork of Seco Creek; (3) Seco Creek there is some risk that these tanks, contains sufficient PCEs to support life- from the confluence with North and particularly Buckhorn Tank, could dry history functions essential for the South Forks of Seco Creek to the out during an extended drought. conservation of the species. confluence with Ash Creek, including Included in this unit is an Unit 34: Coal Creek Fish Well and Johnson Well; and (4) approximate 2.37-mi (3.81-km) reach of Ash Creek from Artesia Well This unit consists of 7 ac (3 ha) of Blue Creek from adjacent to a corral on downstream to Seco Creek. Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest in private lands downstream to the Chiricahua leopard frogs are known to Greenlee County, Arizona, and is confluence of a drainage that comes in breed at all of the above mentioned proposed as critical habitat because it is from the east. This is an area where wells except Sawmill and Johnson essential for the conservation of the Chiricahua leopard frogs are currently species. This is an approximate 3,447-ft known to breed. Additional habitat may Wells. They also breed in a perennial (1,051-m) reach of Coal Creek from occur upstream on private or State reach of Seco Creek below Johnson Highway 78 downstream to the lands; however, the private reach Well. Frogs were extant at Davis Well, confluence with an unnamed drainage. immediately above the proposed critical LM Bar Well, North Seco Well, Pauge Seasonally this creek dries up to habitat lacks breeding pools and no Well, and Sucker Ledge at the time of isolated pools where Chiricahua leopard frogs have been found there (Barnitz listing. Status at other sites in 2002 is frogs take refuge. However, during the 2010, p. 1). The lands upstream of there unknown. All of the aquatic sites are spring and summer, Coal Creek have not been surveyed. currently occupied. PCEs 1 and 2 are typically carries water and the frogs PCE 1 is present in this unit; however, present in the unit. distribute themselves throughout this this unit is much too far from other The aquatic sites form a reach. PCE 1 is present. known Chiricahua leopard frog metapopulation, and frogs move among This population was discovered in populations to be considered part of a these sites via reaches of the intervening 2003, and is considered to be still in metapopulation. The nearest population creeks. This unit represents the existence. Status at the time of listing is is at Coal Creek (Unit 34) more than 22 unknown. This unit is isolated from strongest metapopulation in New mi (35 km) away by way of a straight- Mexico. other Chiricahua leopard frog line distance. Chytridiomycosis has caused populations, the nearest of which is The primary limiting factor in this Rattlesnake Pasture Tank in Unit 33, 5.1 proposed critical habitat reach is lack of extirpations in this region, and in 2001, mi (8.2 km) to the west over rugged perennial flow and periodic flash four tadpoles from Seco Creek appeared terrain. Hence, it is currently managed flooding during the summer. In some to have damaged mouthparts consistent as an isolated population; however, it years, the entire reach goes dry in June; with the disease. However, no frogs may not have sufficient habitat to however, in wetter periods frogs breed have tested positive since then. support a robust population in most throughout this reach. Scouring floods, Bullfrogs have been found occasionally, years. There may be some potential for which happen during or after summer but the landowner (Ladder Ranch) linking this population to Units 32 or rains, likely wash tadpoles downstream dispatches them as they are discovered. 33, if aquatic habitats in between could and out of the unit. Nonnative aquatic Tiger salamanders (Ambystoma be identified, renovated as needed, and predators are not known in the unit, and mavortium) occur in most waters on the populations of frogs established. although a Chiricahua leopard frog from Ladder Ranch and likely prey upon However, potential sites and presence of this unit tested positive for Chiricahua leopard frog tadpoles and PCEs have not been investigated in any chytridiomycosis in 2009, no die-offs small frogs, but the frogs and detail. No Chiricahua leopard frogs have have been noted. Wildfire in the area salamanders are able to coexist together. been found at sites between Units 32, could result in ash flow, sedimentation, Most of the wells listed above are either 33, and 34. and erosion in Blue Creek, degrading or artesian or equipped with solar-powered Neither chytridiomycosis nor eliminating habitat for Chiricahua pumps, and thus provide dependable nonnative predators is known to be a leopard frogs. water through drought periods. problem in this unit; however, if introduced, they could be a serious Recovery Unit 8 (Black-Mimbres-Rio Recovery work in this unit has impediment to recovery, particularly Grande, New Mexico) included fencing some of the waters when the creek dries to isolated pools, from the bison that graze the area and Unit 36: Seco Creek concentrating frogs and any predators or reestablishment of populations using disease in remaining waters. Wildfire in This unit includes 610 ac (247 ha) of wild-to-wild translocations. The Ladder the area could result in ash flow, private lands and 66 ac (27 ha) of Gila Ranch also monitors the frogs and sedimentation, and erosion in Coal National Forest in Sierra County, New habitats, and recently they have Creek, degrading or eliminating habitat Mexico. This area is proposed as critical initiated a captive breeding facility and for Chiricahua leopard frogs. The habitat because it was occupied at the program to rear frogs for population primary threat is probably extended time of listing and currently contains augmentation and reestablishment. drought, during which the aquatic sufficient PCEs to support life-history They also hold Seco Creek frogs in habitats of the frog could be severely functions essential for the conservation refugia near the ranch headquarters. limited or could dry out completely, of the species. Research on movements of Chiricahua resulting in extirpation of this isolated The proposed critical habitat leopard frogs using radiotelemetry has population. includes: (1) The North Fork of Seco been funded by the Ladder Ranch and Creek from Sawmill Well downstream carried out in the Seco Creek area. Unit 35: Blue Creek to the confluence with South Fork of Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, private This unit includes 24 ac (10 ha) of Seco Creek, including from west to east, lands in this unit are being considered Bureau of Land Management and 12 ac Sucker Ledge, Davis Well, North Seco for exclusion from the final rule for (5 ha) of private lands in Grant County, Well, Pauge Well, and LM Bar Well; (2) critical habitat (see Application of New Mexico. This unit is proposed as South Seco Creek from South Seco Well Section 4(b)(2) of the Act section below).

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:55 Mar 14, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 14152 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules

Unit 37: Alamosa Warm Springs Mexico. This unit is proposed as critical rule for critical habitat (see Application This unit consists of 54 ac (22 ha) of habitat because it was occupied at the of Section 4(b)(2) of the Act section private, 25 ac (10 ha) of New Mexico time of listing and currently contains below). sufficient PCEs to support life-history State, and 0.2 ac (0.1 ha) of Bureau of Unit 39: Ash and Bolton Springs functions essential for the conservation Land Management lands at the This unit consists of 49 ac (20 ha) of headwaters of Alamosa Creek, Socorro of the species. Two springs on Bureau of Land private lands east of Hurley in Grant County, New Mexico. This unit is Management land are the source of a County, New Mexico. This unit is proposed as critical habitat because it mostly perennial stream flow that runs proposed as critical habitat because it was occupied at the time of listing and for about 6.0 mi (9.6 km) down Cuchillo was occupied at the time of listing and currently contains sufficient PCEs to Negro Creek; however, the Chiricahua currently contains sufficient PCEs to support life-history functions essential leopard frogs are rarely found more than support life-history functions essential for the conservation of the species. PCE 1.2 mi (2.0 km) downstream of the warm for the conservation of the species. 1 is present in this unit. springs (Christman 2006a, p. 8). The Included in the critical habitat Proposed critical habitat includes an proposed critical habitat begins at the proposal are Ash Spring and a spring in approximate 4,974-ft (1,516-m) spring upper of the two springs and follows Bolton Canyon locally known as Bolton run from the confluence of Wildhorse Cuchillo Negro Creek downstream to the Springs. Also included are ephemeral or Canyon and Alamosa Creek downstream confluence with an unnamed drainage intermittent drainages and uplands to the confluence with a drainage that that comes in from the south, for an needed for movement of frogs among comes in from the north, which is below approximate stream distance of 1.58 mi these two breeding sites as follows: (1) the gauging station in Monticello Box. (2.54 km). From the spring box at Ash Spring This reach includes areas where frogs Chytridiomycosis is present in this downstream in a drainage to a dirt road have been found in recent years population, and it is likely that frogs crossing; and (2) west and overland (Christman 2006b, p. 11). persist where the water is warm, but from the ruins of an old house below At its source, waters at Alamosa succumb to the disease in the cooler Ash Spring to a low saddle, then ° Warm Springs range from 77 to 85 F waters downstream. Chiricahua leopard downslope into an unnamed drainage, ° (25.0 to 29.3 C) (Christman 2006b, p. 3). frogs currently persist in very low and downstream in that drainage to its Chytridiomycosis is present in this numbers in this unit. confluence with another unnamed population, and presumably the warm PCE 1 is present in this unit; however, drainage, downstream in that unnamed waters allow persistence despite the this site is too far from other Chiricahua drainage its confluence with another disease. leopard frog populations to be unnamed drainage, then upstream in This is a robust, breeding population, considered part of a metapopulation. that unnamed drainage to the top of that but it is too far removed from other The nearest population is in Unit 36, drainage and directly downslope and Chiricahua leopard frog populations to about 12.7 mi (20.3 km) to the south- west to another unnamed drainage, be part of a metapopulation. The nearest southwest. Hence, this population is downstream in that unnamed drainage population is in Unit 38, 20.3 mi (32.5 managed as an isolated population. to its confluence with Bolton Canyon, km) to the south-southeast. As a result, Chiricahua leopard frogs coexist with and upstream in Bolton Canyon to the this site is managed as an isolated, plains leopard frogs at this site; and it locally known Bolton Springs. robust population. is likely the plains leopard frogs Populations at Ash and Bolton Alamosa Warm Springs is at the occasionally prey upon Chiricahua Springs were present at the time of northeastern edge of the distribution of leopard frog tadpoles and small frogs. listing and currently still exist. PCEs 1 the Chiricahua leopard frog. The species Bullfrogs have been recorded in and 2 are present in this unit. These was present at the time of listing and is Cuchillo Negro Creek, but only rarely, sites were once part of a currently present. This site is drought- and apparently do not breed or persist metapopulation, but recent extirpations resistant because of perennial spring in the reach with the leopard frogs have left only these two populations. flow. Nonnative aquatic predators are (Christman 2006a, p. 9). There may be potential in the future to unknown at this site, but if introduced The primary threats in this unit are rebuild a metapopulation through could pose a serious threat to the periodic cleaning out of the channel by natural recolonization or population population. Heavy livestock grazing on the Cuchillo Acequia Association, reestablishments, if threats can be the site, in the watershed, and a dirt seasonal flooding that eliminates managed. road through the canyon have degraded tadpoles and fills in pools, and The lands are owned by Freeport- the habitat for Chiricahua leopard frogs, chytridiomycosis. The springs located McMoRan Copper and Gold and flooding likely flushes tadpoles out on Bureau of Land Management land are Subsidiaries as part of the Chino Copper of the unit periodically (Christman the source of downstream irrigation Mine, which is based in nearby Santa 2006b, pp. 5–6). water, and the Cuchillo Acequia Rita and Hurley. In December 2008, The endangered Alamosa springsnail Association has maintained two Freeport-McMoRan announced plans to (Tryonia alamosae) occurs at Alamosa trenches through the springs reportedly suspend mining and milling activities at Warm Springs; its presence may provide to improve flow. Channel work in 2001 Chino. The majority of the work force some additional level of protection to resulted in extensive damage to the was laid off in 2009. To our knowledge, Chiricahua leopard frog. The future land springs, stream, and riparian vegetation no current plans exist to expand the management plans of the landowners (67 FR 40802; June 13, 2002). mine into the area proposed for critical are unknown. The private landowner downstream of habitat, and Freeport-McMoRan and its the springs is the Ladder Ranch, and as predecessor, Phelps-Dodge, have been Unit 38: Cuchillo Negro Warm Springs described in the Unit 36 description cooperative in conservation of the and Creek above, the ranch is an active participant Chiricahua leopard frog. This unit consists of 3 ac (1 ha) of in Chiricahua leopard frog recovery. Chytridiomycosis is probably the key Bureau of Land Management, 3 ac (1 ha) Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, the threat in this unit; this region has of New Mexico State, and 23 ac (9 ha) private lands in Unit 38 are being experienced die-offs and extirpations of private lands in Sierra County, New considered for exclusion from the final associated with chytridiomycosis. Large

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:55 Mar 14, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 14153

numbers of dead frogs were found at wash some tadpoles out of the system implementation of the proposed Federal Ash Spring in 2007; however, the frogs and fill in pools used for breeding. No action, the affected critical habitat at Bolton Springs have shown no signs bullfrogs or crayfish have ever been would remain functional (or retain those of disease. Both populations exist in found in this unit; although if PCEs that relate to the ability of the area small aquatic sites that cannot sustain introduced, they could pose a to periodically support the species) to large populations; hence they are also significant threat. serve its intended conservation role for vulnerable to variations in The threatened Chihuahua chub (Gila the species. environmental conditions and nigrescens) occurs in the upper reach, If a species is listed or critical habitat population demographics. and introduced rainbow trout occur is designated, section 7(a)(2) of the Act throughout the areas where there is requires Federal agencies to ensure that Unit 40: Mimbres River water. Both trout and chub likely prey activities they authorize, fund, or carry This unit consists of 1,097 ac (444 ha) upon Chiricahua leopard frog tadpoles. out are not likely to jeopardize the of private lands in Grant County, New Bear Canyon Reservoir in Bear Canyon continued existence of the species or to Mexico. The unit is proposed as critical near the town of Mimbres reportedly destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat because it was occupied at the supports populations of channel catfish habitat. If a Federal action may affect a time of listing and currently contains (Ictalurus punctatus), black crappie listed species or its critical habitat, the sufficient PCEs to support life-history (Pomoxis nigromaculatus), largemouth responsible Federal agency (action functions essential for the conservation bass, and bluegill (Lepomis agency) must enter into consultation of the species. macrochirus), plus winter stocked with us. As a result of this consultation, The unit is divided into two disjunct rainbow trout (Johnson and Smorynski we document compliance with the reaches of the Mimbres River that are 1998, p. 132). These species may spill requirements of section 7(a)(2) through separated by a 6.6-mi (10.6-km), periodically into the Mimbres River our issuance of: intermittent reach. PCE 1 is present; from the reservoir, adding additional (1) A letter of concurrence with however, the two reaches may be too far nonnative predators to the river. determination by a Federal agency that apart to reasonably expect frogs to move Presence of the Chihuahua chub and their actions may affect, but are not between the two sites, and the next protections afforded by the Act may likely to adversely affect, listed species nearest Chiricahua leopard frog provide some level of protection to the or critical habitat; or population is at Ash Spring in Unit 39, upper reach. In addition, The Nature (2) A biological opinion for Federal over 10 mi (16 km) away from the lower Conservancy owns the majority of the actions that may affect, and are likely to Mimbres River reach across rugged river in the upper reach (not including adversely affect, listed species or critical terrain. Moreno Spring or Emory Oak Ranch) habitat. Proposed critical habitat in the upper and significant parcels in the lower When we issue a biological opinion Mimbres River includes an approximate reach. These lands, known as The concluding that a project is likely to 2.42-mi (3.89-km) reach that begins Mimbres River Preseve, are managed for jeopardize the continued existence of a where the river flows into The Nature the benefit of the Chihuahua chub, listed species or destroy or adversely Conservancy’s property and continues Chiricahua leopard frog, and other modify critical habitat, we also provide downstream to the confluence with Bear riparian and aquatic resources. Under reasonable and prudent alternatives to Canyon. The approximate 5.82-mi (9.36- section 4(b)(2) of the Act, private lands the project, if any are identifiable. km) proposed lower critical habitat owned by The Nature Conservancy in ‘‘Reasonable and prudent alternatives’’ reach begins at the bridge over the this unit are being considered for are defined at 50 CFR 402.02 as Mimbres River just west of San Lorenzo exclusion from the final rule for critical alternative actions identified during and continues downstream to where it habitat (see Application of Section consultation that: exits the The Nature Conservancy’s • 4(b)(2) of the Act section below). Can be implemented in a manner Disert parcel near Faywood. The two consistent with the intended purpose of proposed critical habitat reaches are Effects of Critical Habitat Designation the action, largely perennial, although portions of • Section 7 Consultation Can be implemented consistent the river dry out during drought. Frogs with the scope of the Federal agency’s are currently present in both reaches of Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires legal authority and jurisdiction, the Mimbres River. Federal agencies, including the Service, • Are economically and The best breeding site in the upper to ensure that actions they authorize, technologically feasible, and reach is at Moreno Spring, which fund, or carry out are not likely to • Would, in the Director’s opinion, harbors a robust population of destroy or adversely modify critical avoid jeopardizing the continued Chiricahua leopard frogs. In the upper habitat. Decisions by the Fifth and existence of the listed species or reach, frogs are also observed and breed Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeal have destroying or adversely modifying in the river itself and at ponds at Emory invalidated our definition of critical habitat. Oak Ranch. Breeding occurs in the ‘‘destruction or adverse modification’’ Reasonable and prudent alternatives lower river reach as well, where a robust (50 CFR 402.02) (see Gifford Pinchot can vary from slight project population is present near San Juan. Task Force v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife modifications to extensive redesign or Chytridiomycosis is present in this Service, 378 F. 3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2004) relocation of the project. Costs unit; however, frogs are persisting with and Sierra Club v. U.S. Fish and associated with implementing a the disease. Moreno Spring is a warm Wildlife Service et al., 245 F.3d 434, 442 reasonable and prudent alternative are spring that likely provides some buffer (5th Cir. 2001), and as a result, we do similarly variable. against the effects of the not rely on this regulatory definition Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require chytridiomycosis. Other threats include when analyzing whether an action is Federal agencies to reinitiate agricultural and rural development, likely to destroy or adversely modify consultation on previously reviewed water diversions, groundwater critical habitat. Under the statutory actions in instances where we have pumping, and leveeing and bankline provisions of the Act, we determine listed a new species or subsequently work to protect properties from destruction or adverse modification on designated critical habitat that may be flooding. Periodic high flows probably the basis of whether, with affected and the Federal agency has

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:55 Mar 14, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 14154 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules

retained discretionary involvement or agency, may affect critical habitat and their ability to facilitate frog control over the action (or the agency’s therefore should result in consultation movements. However, in some cases, discretionary involvement or control is for the Chiricahua leopard frog include, increasing permanence can be authorized by law). Consequently, but are not limited to: detrimental as well, in that it could Federal agencies may sometimes need to (1) Actions that would significantly create favorable habitat for predatory request reinitiation of consultation with increase sediment deposition or fishes, bullfrogs, or crayfish that us on actions for which formal scouring within the stream channel or otherwise could not exist in the system. consultation has been completed, if pond that acts as a breeding site or a Such activities that could cause these those actions with discretionary movement corridor among breeding effects include, but are not limited to, involvement or control may affect sites in a metapopulation. Such water diversions, groundwater subsequently listed species or activities could include, but are not pumping, watershed degredation, designated critical habitat. limited to: Excessive sedimentation construction or destruction of dams or Federal activities that may affect the from livestock overgrazing; road impoundments, developments or Chiricahua leopard frog or its critical construction; commercial or urban ‘improvements’ at a spring, habitat require section 7 consultation development; channel alteration; timber channelization, dredging, road and under the Act. Activities on State, harvest; prescribed fires; off-road bridge construction, and destruction of Tribal, local, or private lands requiring vehicle or recreational use; and other riparian or wetland vegetation. a Federal permit (such as a permit from alterations of watersheds and (4) Actions that would directly or the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under floodplains. These activities could indirectly result in introduction of section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 adversely affect the potential for frogs to nonnative predators, increase the U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or a permit from us survive or breed at a breeding site, and abundance of extant predators, or under section 10 of the Act) or involving reduce the likelihood that frogs could introduce disease, particularly some other Federal action (such as move among subpopulations in a chytridiomycosis. Possible actions funding from the Natural Resource metapopulation, which in turn would could include, but are not limited to: Conservation Service, Federal Highway decrease the viability of the Introduction or stocking of fishes, Administration, Federal Aviation metapopulation and its component local bullfrogs, crayfish, tiger salamanders or Administration, or the Federal populations. other predators on the Chiricahua Emergency Management Agency) are (2) Actions that would alter water leopard frog; creating or sustaining a subject to the section 7 consultation chemistry beyond the tolerance limits of sport fishery that encourages use of live process. Federal actions not affecting the Chiricahua leopard frog (see fish, crayfish, tiger salamanders, or frogs listed species or critical habitat, and discussion above, ‘‘Aquatic Breeding as bait; water diversions, canals, or actions on State, Tribal, local or private Habitat and Immediately Adjacent other water conveyance that moves lands that are not federally authorized, Uplands’’). Such activities could water from one place to another and funded, or permitted do not require include, but are not limited to: Release through which inadvertent transport of section 7 consultations. of chemicals, biological pollutants, or predators into Chiricahua leopard frog effluents into the surface water or into habitat may occur; and movement of Application of the ‘‘Adverse connected groundwater at a point water, mud, wet equipment, or vehicles Modification’’ Standard source or by dispersed release (non- from one aquatic site to another, The key factor related to the adverse point source); livestock grazing that through which inadvertent transport of modification determination is whether, results in waters heavily polluted by may occur. with implementation of the proposed feces; runoff from agricultural fields; (5) Actions and structures that would Federal action, the affected critical roadside use of salts; aerial persticide physically block movement among habitat would continue to serve its overspray; runoff from mine tailings or breeding sites in a metapopulation. intended conservation role for the other mining activities; and ash flow Such actions and structures include, but species, or retain those PCEs that relate and fire retardants from fires and fire are not limited to: Urban, industrial, or to the ability of the area to periodically suppression. These actions could agricultural development; reservoirs or regularly support the species. adversely affect the ability of the habitat stocked with predatory fishes, bullfrogs, Activities that may destroy or adversely to support survival and reproduction of or crayfish that are 50 ac (20 ha) or more modify critical habitat are those that Chiricahua leopard frogs at breeding in size; highways that do not include alter the PCEs to an extent that sites. Variances in water chemistry or frog fencing and culverts; and walls, appreciably reduces the conservation temperature could also affect the frog’s dams, fences, canals, or other structures value of critical habitat for the ability to survive with chytridiomycosis. that physically block movement. These Chiricahua leopard frog. As discussed (3) Actions that would alter the water actions and structures could reduce or above, the role of critical habitat is to quantity or permanence of a breeding eliminate immigration and emigration support the life-history needs of the site or dispersal corridor. If the among breeding sites in a species and provide for the conservation permanence of an aquatic system metapopulation, reducing the viability of the species as breeding habitat or as declines so that it regularly dries up for of the metapopulation and its movement corridors among breeding more than a month each year, it will subpopulations. sites in a metapopulation. lose its ability to support breeding (6) Actions that would remove or Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us Chiricahua leopard frogs. If the quantity block access to riparian vegetation and to briefly evaluate and describe, in any of water declines, it may reduce the banklines within 20 ft (6.1 m) of the proposed or final regulation that likelihood that the site will support a high water line of breeding ponds or to designates critical habitat, activities population of frogs that is robust enough the upland edge of the wetland and involving a Federal action that may to be viable over time. Similarly, riparian vegetation community lining destroy or adversely modify such ephemeral, intermittent, or perennial breeding sites, whichever is greatest, or habitat, or that may be affected by such ponds can be important stop-over points that would reduce vegetation in designation. for frogs moving among breeding sites in movement corridors among breeding Activities that, when carried out, a metapopulation. Reducing the sites in a metapopulation. Such funded, or authorized by a Federal permanence of these sites may reduce activities could include, but are not

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:55 Mar 14, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 14155

limited to: Clearing of riparian or Among other things, each INRMP designation, and determine whether the wetland vegetation; saltcedar (Tamarix must, to the extent appropriate and benefits of exclusion outweigh the sp.) control; road, bridge, or canal applicable, provide for fish and wildlife benefits of inclusion. If based on this construction; urban development; management; fish and wildlife habitat analysis, we make this determination, conversion of river bottomlands to enhancement or modification; wetland then we can exclude the area only if agriculture; stream or drainage protection, enhancement, and such exclusion would not result in the channelization; and levee or dike restoration where necessary to support extinction of the species. construction. In some cases, thinning of fish and wildlife; and enforcement of When considering the benefits of very dense vegetation, such as cattails, applicable natural resource laws. inclusion for an area, we consider the which can completely take over an The National Defense Authorization additional regulatory benefits that area aquatic site, can be beneficial to the frog Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Pub. L. 108– would receive from the protection from and its habitat. However, in most cases, 136) amended the Act to limit areas adverse modification or destruction as a vegetation clearing or removal, or eligible for designation as critical result of actions with a Federal nexus; blocking access to uplands adjacent to habitat. Specifically, section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) the educational benefits of mapping breeding sites, will reduce the quality of of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) essential habitat for recovery of the foraging and basking habitat, and may now provides: ‘‘The Secretary shall not listed species; and any benefits that may increase the likelihood of successful designate as critical habitat any lands or result from a designation due to State or predation because cover has been other geographical areas owned or Federal laws that may apply to critical removed. controlled by the Department of habitat. We note that the above activities may Defense, or designated for its use, that When considering the benefits of adversely affect critical habitat. As are subject to an integrated natural exclusion, we consider, among other stated previously, an activity adversely resources management plan prepared things, whether exclusion of a specific affecting critical habitat must be of a under section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 area is likely to result in conservation; severity or intensity that the PCEs are U.S.C. 670a), if the Secretary determines the continuation, strengthening, or compromised to the extent that the in writing that such plan provides a encouragement of partnerships; critical habitat can no longer meet its benefit to the species for which critical implementation of a management plan intended conservation function before a habitat is proposed for designation.’’ that provides equal to or more destruction or adverse modification There are no Department of Defense conservation than a critical habitat determination is reached. Within the lands within the proposed critical designation would provide; or a context of the goals and purposes of the habitat designation; thus we are not combination of these. In the case of the Chiricahua leopard recovery strategy in the species’ exempting any lands from critical frog, the benefits of critical habitat recovery plan, an activity that habitat under section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the include public awareness of Chiricahua compromises the PCEs to the point that Act. leopard frog presence and the one or more of the recovery criteria Exclusions importance of habitat protection, and in could not be achieved or would be very cases where a Federal nexus exists, difficult to achieve in one or more Application of Section 4(b)(2) of the Act increased habitat protection for recovery units would deteriorate the Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that Chiricahua leopard frogs due to the value of critical habitat to the point that the Secretary must designate and revise protection from adverse modification or its conservation function could not be critical habitat on the basis of the best destruction of critical habitat. met. available scientific data after taking into The consultation provisions under Exemptions consideration the economic impact, section 7(a) of the Act constitute the national security impact, and any other regulatory benefits of critical habitat. Application of Section 4(a)(3) of the Act relevant impact of specifying any Federal agencies must consult with us The Sikes Act Improvement Act of particular area as critical habitat. The on discretionary actions that may affect 1997 (Sikes Act) (16 U.S.C. 670a) Secretary may exclude an area from critical habitat and must avoid required each military installation that critical habitat if he determines that the destroying or adversely modifying includes land and water suitable for the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the critical habitat. Federal agencies must conservation and management of benefits of specifying such area as part also consult with the Service on natural resources to complete an of the critical habitat, unless he discretionary actions that may affect a integrated natural resources determines, based on the best scientific listed species and refrain from management plan (INRMP) by data available, that the failure to undertaking actions that are likely to November 17, 2001. An INRMP designate such area as critical habitat jeopardize the continued existence of integrates implementation of the will result in the extinction of the such species. The analysis of effects to military mission of the installation with species. In making that determination, critical habitat is a separate and stewardship of the natural resources the legislative history is clear that the different analysis from that of the effects found on the base. Each INRMP Secretary has broad discretion regarding to the species. Therefore, the difference includes: which factor(s) to use and how much in outcomes of these two analyses • An assessment of the ecological weight to give to any factor. represents the regulatory benefit of needs on the installation, including the Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we critical habitat. For some species, and in need to provide for the conservation of may exclude an area from designated some locations, the outcome of these listed species; critical habitat based on economic analyses will be similar, because effects • A statement of goals and priorities; impacts, impacts on national security, on habitat will often result in effects on • A detailed description of or any other relevant impacts. In the species. However, the regulatory management actions to be implemented considering whether to exclude a standard is different. The jeopardy to provide for these ecological needs; particular area from the designation, we analysis looks at the action’s impact on and must identify the benefits of including survival and recovery of the species, • A monitoring and adaptive the area in the designation, identify the while the adverse modification analysis management plan. benefits of excluding the area from the examines the action’s effects on the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:55 Mar 14, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 14156 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules

designated habitat’s contribution to the 2), and at least 80 percent of endangered Canyon (=Chiricahua) leopard frog that species’ conservation. This will, in or threatened species occur either protects frogs and their habitats on many instances, lead to different results partially or solely on private lands private and public lands in the and different regulatory requirements. (Crouse et al. 2002, p. 720). Stein et al. Huachuca Mountains of Arizona, and Thus, critical habitat designations may (1995, p. 400) found that only about 12 HCPs in southeastern Arizona and provide greater regulatory benefits to the percent of listed species were found southwestern New Mexico. recovery of a species. almost exclusively on Federal lands (90 Many private landowners, however, There are two limitations to the to 100 percent of their known are wary of the possible consequences of regulatory effect of critical habitat. First, occurrences restricted to Federal lands) attracting or maintaining endangered a section 7(a)(2) consultation is required and that 50 percent of federally listed species to their property. Mounting only where there is a Federal nexus (an species are not known to occur on evidence suggests that some regulatory action authorized, funded, or carried out Federal lands at all. actions by the Federal government, by any Federal agency). If there is no The majority of Chiricahua leopard while well-intentioned and required by Federal nexus, the critical habitat frog habitat and localities are on Federal law, can (under certain circumstances) designation of non-Federal lands itself lands, mostly lands managed by the U.S. have unintended negative consequences does not restrict any actions that destroy Forest Service; however, key aquatic for the conservation of species on or adversely modify critical habitat. sites are sometimes on non-Federal private lands (Wilcove et al. 1996, pp. However, this does not apply in lands. This is particularly true for New 5–6; Bean 2002, pp. 2–3; Conner and situations where non-Federal lands have Mexico, where of the 11 proposed Mathews 2002, pp. 1–2; James 2002, pp. a Federal nexus (e.g., a private project critical habitat units in that State, 4 are 270–271; Koch 2002, pp. 2–3; Brooke et on non-Federal lands that requires the entirely non-Federal lands and the other al. 2003, pp. 1639–1643). Many issuance of a permit from a Federal 7 contain lands owned by non-Federal landowners fear a decline in their agency). Second, the designation only entities. property value due to real or perceived limits destruction or adverse Building partnerships and promoting restrictions on land-use options where modification. Critical habitat voluntary cooperation of landowners are threatened or endangered species are designation alone does not require essential to understanding the status of found. Consequently, harboring property owners to undertake species on non-Federal lands, and endangered species is viewed by many affirmative actions to promote the necessary for implementing recovery landowners as a liability. This recovery of the species. actions, such as reestablishing listed perception results in anti-conservation The designation of critical habitat species and restoring and protecting incentives, because maintaining habitats does not require that any management habitat. Many non-Federal landowners that harbor endangered species or recovery actions take place on the derive satisfaction from contributing to represents a risk to future economic lands included in the designation. Even endangered species recovery. We strive opportunities (Main et al. 1999, pp. in cases where consultation has been to promote these private-sector efforts 1264–1265; Brook et al. 2003, pp. 1644– initiated under section 7(a)(2) of the through the Department of the Interior’s 1648). Act, the end result of consultation is to Cooperative Conservation philosophy. According to some researchers, the avoid jeopardy to the species or adverse Conservation agreements with non- designation of critical habitat on private modification of its critical habitat or Federal landowners (HCPs, Safe Harbor lands significantly reduces the both, but not necessarily to manage Agreements, other conservation likelihood that landowners will support critical habitat or institute recovery agreements, easements, and State and and carry out conservation actions actions on critical habitat. Conversely, local regulations) enhance species (Main et al. 1999, p. 1263; Bean 2002, voluntary conservation efforts conservation by extending species p. 2; Brook et al. 2003, pp. 1644–1648). implemented through management protections beyond those available The magnitude of this outcome is plans may institute proactive actions through section 7(a)(2) consultations. In greatly amplified in situations where over the lands they encompass and are the past decade and a half, we have active management measures (such as often put in place to remove or reduce encouraged non-Federal landowners to reestablishment, fire management, known threats to a species or its habitat, enter into conservation agreements, control of invasive species) are therefore implementing recovery based on our philosophy that voluntary necessary for species conservation (Bean actions. conservation can benefit both 2002, pp. 3–4). Such is the case for the Another benefit of including lands in landowners and wildlife, and that we Chiricahua leopard frog. We believe that critical habitat is that serves to educate can achieve greater species conservation the judicious exclusion of specific areas landowners, State and local on non-Federal land through such of non-federally owned lands from governments, and the public regarding partnerships than we can through critical habitat designations can the potential conservation value of an regulatory methods (61 FR 63854; contribute to the species’ recovery and area. This helps focus and promote December 2, 1996). For the Chiricahua provide a superior level of conservation. conservation efforts by other parties by leopard frog, we have often used the The purpose of designating critical clearly delineating areas of high Service’s Partners for Fish and Wildlife habitat is to contribute to the conservation value for the affected grant program to work with non-Federal conservation of endangered and species. For example, critical habitat partners on recovery projects for this threatened species and the ecosystems designation can help inform State species. This grant program requires a upon which they depend. The outcome agencies and local governments about commitment from the participating of the designation, triggering regulatory areas that could be conserved under landowner to maintain the requirements for actions authorized, State laws or local ordinances. improvements funded by the program funded, or carried out by Federal Most federally listed species in the for 10 years. We have also worked with agencies under section 7(a)(2) of the United States will not recover without private landowners on Chiricahua Act, can sometimes be the cooperation of non-Federal leopard frog conservation via Safe counterproductive to its intended landowners. More than 60 percent of the Harbor Agreements in Arizona and purpose on non-Federal lands. Thus, the United States is privately owned southwestern New Mexico, a benefits of excluding areas that are (National Wilderness Institute 1995, p. conservation agreement for the Ramsey covered by effective partnerships or

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:55 Mar 14, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 14157

other conservation commitments can proposal, we have determined that the Malpai Borderlands Group for a project often be high. lands within the proposed designation covered by the HCP, then the When we evaluate the existence of a of critical habitat for the Chiricahua conservation measures from the HCP conservation plan when considering the leopard frog are not owned or managed become stipulations for that project. To benefits of exclusion, we consider a by DOD, and we therefore anticipate no date, the private landowners in Units 16 variety of factors, including, but not impact to national security. We are not and 19 have not conducted Malpai- limited to, whether the plan is finalized; considering any areas for exclusion assisted projects; thus the conservation how it provides for the conservation of based on impacts to national security. measures from the HCP have not yet the essential physical and biological been implemented or realized on those features; whether there is a reasonable Exclusions Based on Other Relevant lands. expectation that the conservation Impacts management strategies and actions Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we Malpai Borderlands Safe Harbor contained in a management plan will be consider any other relevant impacts, in Agreement and the AGFD Safe Harbor Agreement implemented into the future; whether addition to economic impacts and the conservation strategies in the plan impacts to national security. We Two umbrella Safe Harbor are likely to be effective; and whether consider a number of factors including Agreements under which individual the plan contains a monitoring program whether the landowners have developed landowners can enroll their lands by or adaptive management to ensure that any HCPs or other management plans signing a Certificate of Inclusion have the conservation measures are effective for the area, or whether there are been completed for Arizona and and can be adapted in the future in conservation partnerships that would be southwestern New Mexico. Under the response to new information. encouraged by designation of, or Certificates of Inclusion, landowners After evaluating the benefits of exclusion from, critical habitat. In commit to certain conservation actions. inclusion and the benefits of exclusion, addition, we look at any Tribal issues, These agreements have, in some cases, we carefully weigh the two sides to and consider the government-to- facilitated habitat improvements and determine whether the benefits of government relationship of the United translocations of Chiricahua leopard exclusion outweigh those of inclusion. States with Tribal entities. We also frogs to private lands to establish new If we determine that they do, we then consider any social impacts that might populations. Under section 4(b)(2) of the determine whether exclusion would occur because of the designation. Act, we will assess the appropriateness result in extinction. If exclusion of an of exclusions from critical habitat for area from critical habitat will result in Habitat Conservation Plans non-Federal lands in proposed critical extinction, we will not exclude it from We consider a current plan (HCPs as habitat units that are enrolled under the designation. well as other types) to provide adequate either the AGFD Safe Harbor Agreement management or protection if it meets the or the Malpai Borderlands Safe Harbor Exclusions Based on Economic Impacts following criteria: Agreement. We will also consider Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we (1) The plan is complete and provides exclusions for non-Federal lands that consider the economic impacts of the same or better level of protection are protected by conservation specifying any particular area as critical from adverse modification or easements, conservation agreements, or habitat. In order to consider economic destruction than that provided through other forms of protective management impacts, we are preparing an analysis of a consultation under section 7 of the that benefit the Chiricahua leopard frog the economic impacts of the proposed Act; and its habitats. Specific units for which critical habitat designation and related (2) There is a reasonable expectation we are considering exclusions from factors. that the conservation management critical habitat designation are We will announce the availability of strategies and actions will be discussed and described below. the draft economic analysis as soon as implemented for the foreseeable future, Unit 10 (Pasture 9 Tank). The it is completed, at which time we will based on past practices, written landowner signed a Certificate of seek public review and comment. At guidance, or regulations; and Inclusion under the AGFD’s Safe Harbor that time, copies of the draft economic (3) The plan provides conservation Agreement and allowed us to establish analysis will be available for strategies and measures consistent with a population of Chiricahua leopard frogs downloading from the Internet at currently accepted principles of at this site. With financial assistance http://www.regulations.gov, or by conservation biology. from the Service’s Partners for Wildlife contacting the Arizona Ecological We are requesting comments on the Program, Pasture 9 Tank has been Services Field Office directly (see FOR benefit to the Chiricahua leopard frog equipped with a solar-powered well that FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section). from the Malpai Borderlands HCP, provides a dependable water source for During the development of a final Malpai Borderlands Safe Harbor the frogs, and the site is enclosed with designation, we will consider economic Agreement, and the AGFD Safe Harbor bullfrog exclusion fencing. The impacts, public comments, and other Agreement. landowner also has a conservation new information, and areas may be easement on the ranch and is nearing Malpai Borderlands HCP excluded from the final critical habitat completion of an HCP, and although designation under section 4(b)(2) of the The proposed critical habitat units that HCP does not specifically address Act and our implementing regulations at covered by this completed HCP that the Chiricahua leopard frog, 50 CFR 424.19. addresses the Chiricahua leopard frog commitments in the HCP would benefit are Unit 16 (Peloncillo Mountains Chiricahua leopard frog conservation. Exclusions Based on National Security Tanks) and Unit 19 (Rosewood and The conservation easement limits Impacts North Tanks). Both critical habitat units development and guarantees that the Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we are in recovery unit 3. The Malpai ranch will remain in perpetuity as open consider whether there are lands owned Borderlands HCP is an umbrella space. All lands in Unit 10 (0.5 ac (0.2 or managed by the Department of document under which individual ha)) will be considered for exclusion. Defense (DOD) where a national security landowners may participate. If a Unit 12 (Beatty’s Guest Ranch). This impact might exist. In preparing this landowner seeks assistance from the unit is entirely privately owned. The

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:55 Mar 14, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 14158 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules

landowner signed onto the AGFD Safe also enrolled lands in the unit in the by the Arizona State Land Department Harbor Agreement with a Certificate of Malpai Borderlands Safe Harbor (78 ac (31 ha) versus 19 ac (8 ha) of Inclusion, and is also a signatory to the Agreement with a Certificate of private lands), all the lands in the unit Ramsey Canyon Leopard Frog Inclusion and is further working with are enrolled in the Safe Harbor Conservation Agreement, which was Sky Island Alliance on a restoration Agreement and the Magoffin Ranch developed prior to that species being project of the Cloverdale Cienega, which leases the State land for grazing and recognized as the Chiricahua leopard will improve habitats for the Chiricahua manages and maintains Rosewood and frog. That conservation agreement is leopard frog. North Tanks. If the landowner seeks still in place and implements the Unit 17 (Cave Creek). Private lands in assistance from Malpai Borderlands Chiricahua leopard frog recovery plan this unit are owned by the American Group for projects covered by the on the eastern slopes of the Huachuca Museum of Natural History in New York Malpai Borderlands HCP, certain Mountains. The landowner allowed and managed as the Southwest Research conservation measures will be required; Chiricahua leopard frogs to be Station. The property is a year-round however, to date the landowner has not introduced to the property, and the field station for biologists, geologists, elected to participate in the HCP. All Beatty family actively manages for the and anthropologists interested in lands in Unit 19 (97 ac (39 ha)) will be frogs and is an enthusiastic participant studying the diverse environments and considered for exclusion. in the recovery program. All lands in biotas of the Chiricahua Mountains and Unit 36 (Seco Creek). This unit lies Unit 12 (10 ac (4.0 ha)) will be surrounding areas in southeastern almost entirely within the privately considered for exclusion. Arizona. The property serves as an owned Ladder Ranch. The very upper Unit 14 (Ramsey and Brown outdoor classroom for students and end of Seco Creek is on the Gila Canyons). All lands owned by The researchers. The Southwest Research National Forest; only the private lands Nature Conservancy in Ramsey Canyon Station has signed onto the AGFD’s Safe (610 ac (247 ha)) will be considered for (16 ac (6 ha)) of Unit 14 will be Harbor Agreement with a Certificate of exclusion. The 156,439-acre Ladder considered for exclusion. The Nature Inclusion and, with assistance from the Ranch is owned by Turner Enterprises Conservancy is a signatory to the Service’s Partners for Fish and Wildlife and is managed for its biodiversity. The Ramsey Canyon Leopard Frog Program, has developed indoor and Ladder Ranch has been an active Conservation Agreement and has outdoor captive propagation and participant in the conservation of a submitted a Certificate of Inclusion for headstarting facilities for the Chiricahua number of rare and listed species, the AGFD’s Safe Harbor Agreement. The leopard frog. Under a section 10(a)(1)(A) Nature Conservancy has been an active enhancement of survival permit from including the Mexican wolf (Canis participant in leopard frog conservation the Service, the facilities house lupus baileyi), Bolson tortoise since conservation work began on the Chiricahua leopard frogs from proposed (Gopherus flavomarginatus), Chiricahua Chiricahua leopard frog in 1993. With Unit 18 (Leslie Creek) with the objective leopard frog, black-tailed prairie dog assistance from the Service’s Partners of producing frogs for release at a pond (Cynomys ludovicianus), American for Fish and Wildlife Program, The on the station’s grounds, to augment the bison (Bison bison), and Rio Grande Nature Conservancy has removed population in proposed Unit 18, and to cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki anthropogenic structures that interfered provide stock for additional population virginalis). The strongest with channel morphology and restored establishments in recovery unit 3. The metapopulation of Chiricahua leopard the ‘Trout Pond’ for Chiricahua leopard Southwest Research Station is an frogs in New Mexico exists in Unit 36 frogs. They also monitor the frogs, enthusiastic partner in recovery of the in part due to the diligent management developed the Meadow Ponds where the Chiricahua leopard frog. All lands in of the Ladder Ranch, which has frogs breed, and have allowed numerous Unit 17 owned by the Southwest included fencing some of the ranch’s augmentations and introductions of Research Station (92 ac (37 ha)) will be waters from the bison that graze the leopard frogs to their Ramsey Canyon considered for exclusion. area, reestablishment of populations property. The property is managed as Unit 19 (Rosewood and North Tanks). using wild-to-wild translocations, the Ramsey Canyon Preserve. The This unit consists of private and State- maintenance of wells and tanks, and Conservancy is dedicated to the leased lands on the Magoffin Ranch. controlling bullfrogs. The Ladder Ranch preservation of the canyon’s The owners of the Magoffin Ranch have also monitors the frogs and habitats, and biodiversity, including the Chiricahua enrolled these lands with a Certificate of has recently initiated a captive breeding leopard frog. Inclusion into the Malpai Borderlands facility and program to rear frogs for Unit 16 (Peloncillo Mountains Tanks). Safe Harbor Agreement and have been population augmentation and The private lands in this unit (289 ac an active participant in Chiricahua reestablishment. The Service has (117 ha)) are located on the Canoncito leopard frog conservation for more than provided funding for the captive Ranch, a part of the Diamond A Ranch. 15 years. They expended much time and breeding program under the Partners for All of those private lands will be labor to haul water to and maintain Fish and Wildlife Program and other considered for exclusion from critical aquatic habitat at Rosewood Tank granting authorities. The Ladder Ranch habitat designation. The ranch is during a severe drought in the 1990s. maintains captive propagation facilities covered by a conservation easement that They then constructed two concrete for the Chiricahua leopard frog under a limits development and ensures that the refugia adjacent to the tank that are fed section 10(a)(1)(A) enhancement of ranch will be maintained in open space by a well. The refugia maintain survival permit from the Service. in perpetuity and with the capability to Chiricahua leopard frogs at the site even Research on movements of Chiricahua support a diverse array of wildlife and when the tank dries out completely. leopard frogs using radiotelemetry has plants. If the landowner seeks assistance Chiricahua leopard frogs would have been funded by the Ladder Ranch and from Malpai Borderlands Group for been extirpated from the site without carried out in the Seco Creek area, and projects covered by the Malpai these actions. They also allowed and during the development of the recovery Borderlands HCP, certain conservation participated in the establishment of a plan, Turner Endangered Species Fund measures will be required; however, to new population of Chiricahua leopard paid for part of the Population and date the landowner has not elected to frogs at North Tank in 2008. Although Habitat Viability Analysis (Service 2007, participate in the HCP. The owner has most of the lands in this unit are owned Appendix C, pp. C–1 to C–40).

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:55 Mar 14, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 14159

Unit 38 (Cuchillo Negro Warm These lands are managed for the benefit meet the definition of critical habitat but Springs and Creek). The private lands in of the Chihuahua chub, Chiricahua for which the Service is considering Unit 38, which are part of the Ladder leopard frog, and other riparian and possible exclusions under section Ranch (23 ac (9 ha)), will be considered aquatic resources. All of The Nature 4(b)(2) of the Act from the final critical for exclusion based on the same Conservancy’s lands in Unit 40 (510 ac habitat rule. Table 3 also provides our rationale presented for Unit 36. (206 ha)) will be considered for reasons for the exemptions and Unit 40 (Mimbres River). Private lands exclusion. proposed exclusions. owned by The Nature Conservancy are Table 3 below provides approximate managed as the Mimbres River Preserve. areas (1,647 ac (667 ha)) of lands that

TABLE 3—EXEMPTIONS AND AREAS CONSIDERED FOR EXCLUSION BY CRITICAL HABITAT UNIT

Section of the act Area meeting the that is the basis definition of critical Possible exclusion Unit Specific area to be considered for exclusion for possible exclu- habitat in the unit in acres (hectares) sion or exemption (acres (hectares))

10 ...... Pasture 9 Tank ...... 4(b)(2) 0.5 (0.2) 0.5 (0.2) 12 ...... Beatty’s Guest Ranch ...... 4(b)(2) 10 (4) 10 (4) 14 ...... Ramsey Canyon Preserve ...... 4(b)(2) 123 (50) 16 (6) 16 ...... Canoncito Ranch ...... 4(b)(2) 655 (265) 289 (117) 17 ...... Southwest Research Station ...... 4(b)(2) 326 (132) 92 (37) 19 ...... Magoffin Ranch ...... 4(b)(2) 97 (39) 97 (39) 36 ...... Ladder Ranch ...... 4(b)(2) 676 (273) 610 (247) 38 ...... Ladder Ranch ...... 4(b)(2) 28 (12) 23 (9) 40 ...... Mimbres River Preserve ...... 4(b)(2) 1,097 (444) 510 (206)

Totals ...... 3,013 (1,219) 1,648 (665)

Peer Review above). Such requests must be sent to protections for threatened species in the In accordance with our joint policy the address shown in the FOR FURTHER Service’s regulations at 50 CFR 17.31, published in the Federal Register on INFORMATION CONTACT section. We will which implement section 9 of the Act, July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we will seek schedule public hearings on this with special measures that are the expert opinions of at least three proposal, if any are requested, and determined to be necessary and appropriate and independent specialists announce the dates, times, and places of advisable to provide for the regarding this proposed rule. The those hearings, as well as how to obtain conservation of the species. Based on purpose of peer review is to ensure that reasonable accommodations, in the changes made to the listed entity, we our critical habitat designation is based Federal Register and local newspapers reevaluated the existing 4(d) rule to see on scientifically sound data, at least 15 days before the hearing. A if its measures are still necessary and assumptions, and analyses. We will draft economic analysis and draft advisable to the conservation of the send copies of this proposed rule to environmental assessment for this species and appropriate to apply in the these peer reviewers immediately action will be prepared and made expanded range of the species. We following publication in the Federal available to the public for review. At determined that the measures of the 4(d) Register. We will invite these peer that time, we will reopen the comment rule are appropriate and should be reviewers to comment during the public period on this proposed rule and applied to the whole range. Therefore, comment period on our specific concurrently solicit comments on the we are not changing any conditions of assumptions and conclusions draft economic analysis and draft the June 13, 2002, special rule, and it concerning the taxonomic revision of environmental assessment. If shall remain in effect as identified in the Chiricahua leopard frog, our determined necessary, in the Federal our regulations at 50 CFR 17.43(b). assessment of threats to the currently Register notice reopening the comment The special rule replaces the Act’s described species Lithobates period, we will announce public general prohibitions against take of the chiricahuensis, our proposal of listing as hearing(s) during that comment period Chiricahua leopard frog with special threatened the currently described for the public to present oral and measures tailored to the conservation of species, and our proposed designation written comment on all three the species on all non-Federal lands. of critical habitat. documents. Through the maintenance and operation We will consider all comments and Special Rule Under Section 4(d) of the of the stock tanks for cattle, habitat is information we receive during the Act provided for the leopard frogs, hence comment period on this proposed rule there is a conservation benefit to the during our preparation of a final The June 13, 2002, final rule (67 FR species. Under the special rule, take of determination. Accordingly, the final 40790) listing the Chiricahua leopard Chiricahua leopard frog caused by decision may differ from this proposal. frog as threatened included a special livestock use of or maintenance rule as defined under section 4(d) of the activities at livestock tanks located on Public Hearings Act to ease the general take prohibitions private, State, or Tribal lands would be The Act provides for one or more for livestock use at or maintenance exempt from section 9 of the Act. A public hearings on this proposal, if activities of livestock tanks located on livestock tank is defined as an existing requested. Requests must be received private, State, or Tribal lands (see 50 or future impoundment in an ephemeral within 45 days after the date of CFR 17.43(b)). Under section 4(d) of the drainage or upland site constructed publication of this proposed rule in the Act, the Secretary may publish a special primarily as a watering site for Federal Register (see the DATES section rule that modifies the standard livestock. The rule targets tanks on

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:55 Mar 14, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 14160 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules

private, State, and Tribal lands to determines that the Federal regulatory 12866. This draft economic analysis will encourage landowners and ranchers to action is appropriate, the agency must provide the required factual basis for the continue to maintain these tanks as they consider alternative regulatory RFA finding. Upon completion of the provide habitat for the frogs. Livestock approaches. Because the determination draft economic analysis, we will use and maintenance of tanks on of critical habitat is a statutory announce availability of that analysis of Federal lands will be addressed through requirement under the Act, we must the proposed designation in the Federal the section 7 process. When a Federal evaluate alternative regulatory Register and reopen the public action, such as permitting livestock approaches, where feasible, when comment period for the proposed grazing on Federal lands, may affect a promulgating a designation of critical designation. We will include with this listed species, consultation between us habitat. announcement, as appropriate, an initial and the action agency is required In developing our designations of regulatory flexibility analysis or a pursuant to section 7 of the Act. The critical habitat, we consider economic certification that the rule will not have conclusion of consultation may include impacts, impacts to national security, a significant economic impact on a mandatory changes in livestock and other relevant impacts under substantial number of small entities programs in the form of measures to section 4(b)(2) of the Act. Based on the accompanied by the factual basis for minimize take of a listed animal or to discretion allowable under this that determination. avoid jeopardizing the continued provision, we may exclude any As discussed above, designation of existence of a listed species. Changes in particular area from the designation of critical habitat will require Federal a proposed action resulting from critical habitat providing that the agencies to consult with the Service on benefits of such exclusion outweigh the consultations are almost always minor. activities that may affect critical habitat. benefits of specifying the area as critical If the site is occupied by Chiricahua Required Determinations habitat and that such exclusion would leopard frogs, consultation would likely not result in the extinction of the Regulatory Planning and Review— be triggered by the presence of the frog, species. As such, we believe that the Executive Order 12866 regardless of critical habitat. From Table evaluation of the inclusion or exclusion 1, only 2 of the 40 sites proposed are The Office of Management and Budget of particular areas, or a combination of currently unoccupied; however, this (OMB) has determined that this rule is both, constitutes our regulatory number is somewhat misleading in that, not significant under Executive Order alternative analysis for designations. 12866 (E.O. 12866). OMB bases its We will announce the availability of within individual units, there are often determination upon the following four the draft economic analysis and draft ponds or stream segments of critical criteria: environmental assessment in the habitat units that are occupied while (a) Whether the rule will have an Federal Register and in local others are not (see descriptions in annual effect of $100 million or more on newspapers to ensure that they are Proposed Critical Habitat Designation). the economy or adversely affect an available for public review and Within occupied units, there are economic sector, productivity, jobs, the comments. These documents will also sometimes aquatic sites that are environment, or other units of the be available on the Internet at http:// unoccupied (while other aquatic sites government. www.regulations.gov. have frogs). As a result, we expect more (b) Whether the rule will create consultations on Federal actions than inconsistencies with other Federal Regulatory Flexibility Act occur with just the listing of the frog agencies’ actions. Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act without critical habitat. These (c) Whether the rule will materially (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), as amended consultations could incur project delays affect entitlements, grants, user fees, by the Small Business Regulatory (consultations run 135 days from the loan programs, or the rights and Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of date of initiation of consultation to the obligations of their recipients. 1996, whenever an agency must publish issuance of a biological opinion (50 CFR (d) Whether the rule raises novel legal a notice of rulemaking for any proposed 402.14(e)), and can be extended), and or policy issues. or final rule, it must prepare and make conservation measures developed At this time, we lack the available available for public comment a during consultation, as well as economic information necessary to regulatory flexibility analysis that mandatory reasonable and prudent determine whether the revised rule describes the effects of the rule on small alternatives, could cause additional would have an annual effect on the entities (small businesses, small project costs or alter the scope, timing, economy of $100 million or more or organizations, and small government location, or duration of a project. affect the economy in a material way. To jurisdictions). However, no regulatory Federal actions likely to incur these determine the economic consequences flexibility analysis is required if the delays, additional costs, or limitations of designating the specific area as head of the agency certifies the rule will include issuance of livestock grazing critical habitat, we are preparing a draft not have a significant economic impact permits, road construction, fuel economic analysis of this proposed on a substantial number of small reduction projects, prescribed fire, action, which will be available for entities. The SBREFA amended RFA to transmission lines, fiber optic lines, public comment. This economic require Federal agencies to provide a recreational developments or use, and analysis also will be used to determine certification statement of the factual other Federal actions common to compliance with E.O. 12866, the basis for certifying that the rule will not Federal land management. Projects on Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Small have a significant economic impact on non-Federal lands would be similarly Business Regulatory Enforcement a substantial number of small entities. affected if they are funded, authorized, Fairness Act, E.O. 12630, and E.O. At this time, we lack the available or carried out by a Federal agency. We 13211. economic information necessary to have concluded that deferring the RFA Further, E.O. 12866 directs Federal provide an adequate factual basis for the finding until completion of the draft agencies promulgating regulations to required RFA finding. Therefore, we economic analysis is necessary to meet evaluate regulatory alternatives (OMB defer the RFA finding until completion the purposes and requirements of the Circular A–4, September 17, 2003). of the draft economic analysis prepared RFA. Deferring the RFA finding in this Under Circular A–4, once an agency under section 4(b)(2) of the Act and E.O. manner will ensure that we make a

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:55 Mar 14, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 14161

sufficiently informed determination by the designation of critical habitat, the under section 7(a)(2) would be required. based on adequate economic legally binding duty to avoid While non-Federal entities that receive information and provide the necessary destruction or adverse modification of Federal funding, assistance, or permits, opportunity for public comment. critical habitat rests squarely on the or that otherwise require approval or Federal agency. Furthermore, to the authorization from a Federal agency for Unfunded Mandates Reform Act extent that non-Federal entities are an action may be indirectly impacted by In accordance with the Unfunded indirectly impacted because they the designation of critical habitat, the Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et receive Federal assistance or participate legally binding duty to avoid seq.), we make the following findings: in a voluntary Federal aid program, the destruction or adverse modification of (a) This rule would not produce a Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would critical habitat rests squarely on the Federal mandate. In general, a Federal not apply, nor would critical habitat Federal agency. mandate is a provision in legislation, shift the costs of the large entitlement Civil Justice Reform statute, or regulation that would impose programs listed above onto State an enforceable duty upon State, local, or governments. In accordance with E.O. 12988 (Civil Tribal governments, or the private (b) We lack the available economic Justice Reform), the Office of the sector, and includes both ‘‘Federal information to determine if a Small Solicitor has determined that the rule intergovernmental mandates’’ and Government Agency Plan is required. does not unduly burden the judicial ‘‘Federal private sector mandates.’’ Therefore, we defer this finding until system and that it meets the These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. completion of the draft economic requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) 658(5)-(7). ‘‘Federal intergovernmental analysis prepared under section 4(b)(2) of the Order. We have proposed mandate’’ includes a regulation that of the Act. designating critical habitat in ‘‘would impose an enforceable duty accordance with the provisions of the upon State, local, or [T]ribal Takings Act. This proposed rule uses standard governments’’ with two exceptions. It In accordance with E.O. 12630 property descriptions and identifies the excludes ‘‘a condition of Federal (Government Actions and Interference PCEs within the designated areas to assistance.’’ It also excludes ‘‘a duty with Constitutionally Protected Private assist the public in understanding the arising from participation in a voluntary Property Rights), we will analyze the habitat needs of the Chiricahua leopard Federal program,’’ unless the regulation potential takings implications of frog. ‘‘relates to a then-existing Federal designating critical habitat for the program under which $500,000,000 or Chiricahua leopard frog in a takings Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 more is provided annually to State, implications assessment. Following This rule does not contain any new local, and [T]ribal governments under completion of the proposed rule, a draft collections of information that require entitlement authority,’’ if the provision economic analysis will be completed for approval by OMB under the Paperwork would ‘‘increase the stringency of the proposed designation. The draft Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 conditions of assistance’’ or ‘‘place caps economic analysis will provide the et seq.). This rule would not impose upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal foundation for us to use in preparing a recordkeeping or reporting requirements Government’s responsibility to provide takings implications assessment. on State or local governments, funding,’’ and the State, local, or Tribal individuals, businesses, or governments ‘‘lack authority’’ to adjust Federalism organizations. An agency may not accordingly. At the time of enactment, In accordance with E.O. 13132 conduct or sponsor, and a person is not these entitlement programs were: (Federalism), this proposed rule does required to respond to, a collection of Medicaid; Aid to Families with not have significant Federalism effects. information unless it displays a Dependent Children work programs; A Federalism assessment is not currently valid OMB control number. Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social required. In keeping with Department of Services Block Grants; Vocational the Interior and Department of National Environmental Policy Act Rehabilitation State Grants; Foster Care, Commerce policy, we requested (NEPA) Adoption Assistance, and Independent information from, and coordinated It is our position that, outside the Living; Family Support Welfare development of, this proposed critical jurisdiction of the U.S. Court of Appeals Services; and Child Support habitat designation with appropriate for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to Enforcement. ‘‘Federal private sector State resource agencies in Arizona and prepare environmental analyses as mandate’’ includes a regulation that New Mexico. The designation may have defined by NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et ‘‘would impose an enforceable duty some benefit to these governments seq.) in connection with designating upon the private sector, except (i) a because the areas that contain the critical habitat under the Act. We condition of Federal assistance or (ii) a features essential to the conservation of published a notice outlining our reasons duty arising from participation in a the species are more clearly defined, for this determination in the Federal voluntary Federal program.’’ and the PCEs of the habitat necessary to Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR The designation of critical habitat the conservation of the species are 49244). This position was upheld by the does not impose a legally binding duty specifically identified. This information U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth on non-Federal Government entities or does not alter where and what federally- Circuit (Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 private parties. Under the Act, the only sponsored activities may occur. F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied regulatory effect is that Federal agencies However, it may assist local 516 U.S. 1042 (1996)).] However, when must ensure that their actions do not governments in long-range planning the range of the species includes States destroy or adversely modify critical (rather than having them wait for case- within the Tenth Circuit, such as that of habitat under section 7. While non- by-case section 7 consultations to the Chiricahua leopard frog, under the Federal entities that receive Federal occur). Tenth Circuit ruling in Catron County funding, assistance, or permits, or that Where State and local governments Board of Commissioners v. U.S. Fish otherwise require approval or require approval or authorization from a and Wildlife Service, 75 F.3d 1429 (10th authorization from a Federal agency for Federal agency for actions that may Cir. 1996), we will undertake a NEPA an action, may be indirectly impacted affect critical habitat, consultation analysis for critical habitat designation

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:55 Mar 14, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 14162 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules

and notify the public of the availability controls as Federal public lands, to do not affect the project purpose or of the draft environmental assessment remain sensitive to Indian culture, and objectives (Tobin 2010, p. 55). for this proposal when it is finished. to make information available to Tribes. Therefore, this action is not a significant We have determined that there are no energy action, and no Statement of Clarity of the Rule Tribal lands occupied at the time of Energy Effects is required. However, we We are required by Executive Orders listing that contain the features essential will further evaluate this issue as we 12866 and 12988 and by the for the conservation of, and no Tribal conduct our economic analysis, and Presidential Memorandum of June 1, lands that are essential for the review and revise this assessment as 1998, to write all rules in plain conservation of, the Chiricahua leopard warranted. language. This means that each rule we frog. Therefore, we have not proposed References Cited publish must: designation of critical habitat for the (a) Be logically organized; Chiricahua leopard frog on Tribal lands. A complete list of references cited is (b) Use the active voice to address available on the Internet at http:// Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use readers directly; www.regulations.gov and upon request (c) Use clear language rather than On May 18, 2001, the President issued from the Arizona Ecological Services jargon; an Executive Order (E.O. 13211; Actions (d) Be divided into short sections and Field Office (see FOR FURTHER Concerning Regulations That INFORMATION CONTACT). sentences; and Significantly Affect Energy Supply, (e) Use lists and tables wherever Distribution, or Use) on regulations that Authors possible. If you feel that we have not met these significantly affect energy supply, The primary authors of this package requirements, send us comments by one distribution, and use. E.O. 13211 are the staff members of the Arizona of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES requires agencies to prepare Statements Ecological Services Field Office. of Energy Effects when undertaking section. To better help us revise the List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 rule, your comments should be as certain actions. We do not expect specific as possible. For example, you Chiricahua leopard frog critical habitat Endangered and threatened species, should tell us the numbers of the to significantly affect energy supplies, Exports, Imports, Reporting and sections or paragraphs that are unclearly distribution, or use. As discussed above recordkeeping requirements, written, which sections or sentences are under Regulatory Flexibility Act, Transportation. designation of critical habitat will too long, the sections where you feel Proposed Regulation Promulgation lists or tables would be useful, etc. require Federal agencies to consult with the Service on actions that may affect Accordingly, we propose to amend Government-to-Government critical habitat. Those Federal actions part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title Relationship With Tribes could include construction of 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, In accordance with the President’s powerlines, energy pipelines, or other as set forth below: memorandum of April 29, 1994, actions associated with energy supply, Government-to-Government Relations distribution, or use. The number of PART 17—ENDANGERED AND with Native American Tribal consultations may increase somewhat THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS Governments (59 FR 22951), E.O. 13175, due to the two units that are not and the Department of the Interior’s occupied; however, once in 1. The authority citation for part 17 manual at 512 DM 2, we readily consultation, the outcome would not be continues to read as follows: acknowledge our responsibility to substantially different unless there is an Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 16 U.S.C. communicate meaningfully with adverse modification biological opinion. 1531–1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201–4245; Pub. L. 99– recognized Federal Tribes on a Regardless of critical habitat, a Federal 625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted. government-to-government basis. In agency’s proposed action would result 2. In § 17.11(h), revise the entry for accordance with Secretarial Order 3206 in a consultation anyway because the ‘‘Frog, Chiricahua leopard’’ under of June 5, 1997 ‘‘American Indian Tribal consultation would be triggered by the ‘‘Amphibians’’ in the List of Endangered Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust presence of the species. Hence, critical and Threatened Wildlife to read as Responsibilities, and the Endangered habitat would very often make little follows: Species Act’’, we readily acknowledge difference in the consultation outcome, our responsibilities to work directly unless there is an adverse modification § 17.11 Endangered and threatened with Tribes in developing programs for biological opinion. We expect the vast wildlife. healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that majority of consultations projects to * * * * * Tribal lands are not subject to the same proceed with only minor changes that (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.

*******

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:55 Mar 14, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 14163

3. In § 17.95, amend paragraph (d) by that do not preclude presence of the roads, and other paved areas) and the adding an entry for ‘‘Chiricahua leopard Chiricahua leopard frog; land on which they are located existing frog (Lithobates chiricahuensis),’’ in the (H) Absence of chytridiomycosis, or if within the legal boundaries on the same alphabetical order that the species chytridiomycosis is present, then effective date of this rule. appears in the table at § 17.11(h), to read conditions that allow persistence of (4) Critical habitat map units. Data as follows: Chiricahua leopard frogs with the layers defining map units were created disease (e.g., water temperatures that do § 17.95 Critical habitat—fish and wildlife. ° ° on a base of USGS 7.5’ quadrangles, the not drop below 20 C (68 F), pH of Service’s online Lands Mapper, the U.S. * * * * * greater than 8 during at least part of the (d) Amphibians. Geological Survey National year); and Hydrography Dataset, and imagery from * * * * * (I) Uplands immediately adjacent to Google Earth. Lentic water bodies were Chiricahua leopard frog (Lithobates breeding sites that Chiricahua leopard digitized from Google Earth imagery. chiricahuensis) frogs use for foraging and basking. Point locations for lentic water bodies (ii) Dispersal habitat, consisting of (still or non-flowing water bodies) were (1) Critical habitat units are depicted ephemeral (water present for only a calculated as the geographic centroids of for Apache, Cochise, Gila, Graham, short time), intermittent, or perennial the digitized polygons defining the Greenlee, Pima, Santa Cruz, and drainages that are generally not suitable critical habitat boundaries. Line Yavapai Counties, Arizona; and Catron, for breeding, and associated uplands locations for lotic streams (flowing Grant, Hidalgo, Socorro, and Sierra that provide overland movement water) and drainages are depicted as the Counties, New Mexico, on the maps corridors for frogs among breeding sites ‘‘Flowline’’ feature class from the below. in a metapopulation with the following National Hydrography Dataset (2) The primary constituent elements characteristics: of critical habitat for the Chiricahua (A) Are not more than 1.0 mile (1.6 geodatabase. Overland connections were leopard frog are: kilometers) overland, 3.0 miles (4.8 digitized from Google Earth imagery. (i) Aquatic breeding habitat and kilometers) along ephemeral or Administrative boundaries for Arizona immediately adjacent uplands intermittent drainages, 5.0 miles (8.0 and New Mexico were obtained from exhibiting the following characteristics: kilometers) along perennial drainages, the Arizona Land Resource Information (A) Perennial (water present during or some combination thereof not to Service and New Mexico Resource all seasons of the year) or nearly exceed 5.0 miles (8.0 kilometers); Geographic Information System, perennial pools or ponds at least 6.0 feet (B) Provide some vegetation cover for respectively. This includes the most (1.8 meters) in diameter and 20 inches protection from predators, and in current (as of the effective date of this (0.5 meters) in depth; drainages, some ephemeral, rule) geospatial data available for land (B) Wet in most years, and do not or ownership, counties, States, and streets. only very rarely dry for more than a intermittent, or perennial aquatic sites; and Locations depicting critical habitat are month; expressed as decimal degree latitude (C) pH greater than or equal to 5.6; (C) Are free of barriers that block movement by Chiricahua leopard frogs, and longitude in the World Geographic (D) Salinity less than 5 parts per Coordinate System projection using the thousand; including urban, industrial, or agricultural development; reservoirs 1984 datum (WGS84). Information on (E) Pollutants absent or minimally Chiricahua leopard frog localities was present at low enough levels that they that are 50 acres (20 hectares) or more in size and stocked with predatory derived from survey forms, reports, are barely detectable; publications, field notes, and other (F) Emergent and or submerged fishes, bullfrogs, or crayfish; highways sources, all of which reside in our files vegetation, root masses, undercut banks, that do not include frog fencing and at the Arizona Ecological Services Field fractured rock substrates, or some culverts; and walls, major dams, or Office, 2321 West Royal Palm Road, combination thereof; but emergent other structures that physically block Suite 103, Phoenix, AZ 85021. vegetation does not completely cover movement. Coordinates given for tanks are the the surface of water bodies; (3) With the exception of (G) Nonnative crayfish, predatory impoundments, livestock tanks, and approximate center points of those fishes, bullfrogs, barred tiger other constructed waters, critical habitat tanks. salamanders, and other introduced does not include manmade structures (5) Note: Index Map (Map 1) follows. predators absent or occurring at levels (such as buildings, aqueducts, runways, BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:55 Mar 14, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 14164 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules

(6) Unit 1: Twin Tanks and Ox Frame south tank (31.836031 N 111.149102 W), (ii) Ox Frame Tank (31.881882 N, Tank, 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 Unit 1, Twin Tanks tank (31.838230 N, 111.149875 W) and meters). and Ox Frame Tank (Map 2), follows:

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:55 Mar 14, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP15MR11.000 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 14165

(7) Unit 2: Garcia Tank, Pima County, (i) Garcia Tank (31.477060 N, (ii) Note: Map of Unit 2, Garcia Tank Arizona. 111.454114 W). (Map 3), follows:

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:55 Mar 14, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP15MR11.001 14166 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules

(8) Unit 3: Buenos Aires NWR Central (viii) Barrel Cactus Tank (31.545284 (31.594035 N, 111.504265 W); then Tanks, Pima County, Arizona. N, 111.490310 W). downstream in that unnamed drainage (i) Carpenter Tank (31.528748 N, (ix) Sufrido Tank (31.566364 N, to its confluence with Bailey Wash 111.454642 W). 111.445892 W). (31.596674 N, 111.501912 W); then (ii) Rock Tank (31.583905 N, (x) Hito Tank (31.579462 N, downstream in Bailey Wash to its 111.462366 W). 111.446984 W.) confluence with Puertocito Wash (iii) State Tank (31.569254 N, (xi) Morley Tank (31.599057 N, (31.604618 N, 111.494127 W); then 111.477114 W). 111.489088 W). downstream in Puertocito Wash to its (iv) Triangle Tank (31.576105 N, (xii) McKay Tank (31.605788 N, confluence with Las Moras Wash 111.510909 W). 111.474188 W). (31.636031 N, 111.471749 W), including (v) New Round Hill Tank (31.613784 (xiii) Chongo Tank (31.64002 N, New Round Hill Tank (31.613784 N, N, 111.489390 W). 111.50435 W). 111.489390 W); and upstream in Las (vi) Banado Tank (31.532759 N, (xiv) Arroyo del Compartidero from Moras Wash to Chongo Tank (31.64002 111.474729 W). Triangle Tank (31.576105 N, 111.510909 N, 111.50435 W), a distance of (vii) Choffo Tank (31.544627 N, W) downstream through and including approximately 8.52 drainage miles 111.463126 W). Aguire Lake to an unnamed drainage (13.70 kilometers).

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:55 Mar 14, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP15MR11.002 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 14167

(xv) An unnamed drainage from its (31.579462 N, 111.446984 W) and (xxi) An unnamed drainage from confluence with Puertocito Wash downstream to McKay Tank (31.605788 Banado Tank (31.532759 N, 111.474729 (31.619650 N, 111.483551 W) upstream N, 111.474188 W), a distance of W) downstream to the confluence with to McKay Tank (31.605788 N, approximately 3.80 drainage miles (6.11 an unnamed drainage (31.545399 N, 111.474188 W, which is a cluster of kilometers) and 580 feet (177 meters) 111.496152 W), and then upstream in three tanks), a distance of approximately overland. that drainage to Barrel Cactus Tank 1.55 drainage miles (2.50 kilometers). (xviii) Lopez Wash from Carpenter (31.545284 N, 111.490310 W), a (xvi) Puertocito Wash from its Tank (31.528748 N, 111.454642 W) distance of approximately 2.21 drainage confluence with Bailey Wash downstream to its confluence with miles (3.56 kilometers). (31.604618 N, 111.494127 W) upstream Aguire Lake (31.590582 N, 111.499589 to Sufrido Tank (31.566364 N, W), a distance of approximately 6.75 (xxii) An unnamed drainage from 111.445892 W), including Morley Tank drainage miles (10.87 kilometers). Banado Tank (31.532759 N, 111.474729 (31.599057 N, 111.489088 W), a (xix) An unnamed drainage from its W) upstream to a saddle (31.530907 N, distance of approximately 4.60 drainage confluence with Lopez Wash (31.542605 111.463162 W), then directly downslope miles (7.40 kilometers). N, 111.466699 W) upstream to Choffo to Lopez Wash (31.532093 N, (xvii) An unnamed drainage from its Tank (31.544627 N, 111.463126 W), a 111.462159 W), a distance of confluence with Puertocito Wash distance of approximately 1,549 approximately 3,831 drainage feet upstream to Rock Tank (31.583905 N, drainage feet (472 meters). (1,168 meters) and 808 feet (246 meters) 111.462366 W), then upstream in an (xx) An unnamed drainage from its overland. unnamed drainage to the top of that confluence with Lopez Wash (31.569735 drainage (31.582637 N, 111.456882 W) N, 111.482058 W) upstream to State (xxiii) Note: Map of Unit 3, Buenos and directly overland to an unnamed Tank (31.569254 N, 111.477114 W), a Aires NWR Central Tanks (Map 4), drainage (31.583818 N, 111.455223 W), distance of approximately 1,613 follows: and then upstream to Hito Tank drainage feet (492 meters). BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:55 Mar 14, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 14168 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules

(9) Unit 4: Bonita, Upper Turner, and (31.431015 N, 111.314770), and directly an unnamed drainage to its confluence Mojonera Tanks, Santa Cruz County, downslope through an unnamed with another unnamed drainage Arizona. drainage to Bonita Canyon (31.429806 (31.438637 N, 111.341044 W); then (i) Bonita Tank (31.43525 N, N, 111.310325 W), and upstream in upstream in that unnamed drainage to a 111.305505 W). Bonita Canyon to Bonita Tank, a saddle (31.438497 N, 111.337639 W); (ii) Upper Turner Tank (31.429690 N, distance of approximately 1.29 drainage then downstream in an unnamed 111.318332 W). miles (2.08 kilometers) and 150 feet (46 drainage to Sierra Well (31.433012 N, (iii) Mojonera Tank (31.464250 N, meters) overland. 111.334709 W), to include Sierra Tank 111.320203 W). (v) From Mojonera Tank (31.464250 East (31.435488 N, 111.334736 W) and (iv) From Upper Turner Tank N, 111.320203 W) downstream in Sierra Tank West (31.435361 N, (31.429690 N, 111.318332 W) upstream Mojonera Canyon to a sharp bend where 111.336103 W); then directly overland in an unnamed drainage to its the drainage turns west-northwest to Upper Turner Tank (31.429690 N, confluence with a minor drainage (31.445989 N, 111.343181 W); then 111.318332 W), a distance of coming in from the east (31.431029 N, southeast and upstream in an unnamed approximately 3.45 drainage miles (5.56 111.315846 W), then directly upslope in drainage to a saddle (31.443358 N, kilometers) and 5,270 feet (1,606 meters) that drainage and east to a saddle 111.340675 W) and downslope through overland.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:55 Mar 14, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP15MR11.003 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 14169

(vi) Note: Map of Unit 4, Bonita, Upper Turner, and Mojonera Tanks (Map 5), follows:

(10) Unit 5: Sycamore Canyon, Santa (iii) North Mesa Tank (31.415697 N, (viii) Yanks Canyon from Yank Tank Cruz County, Arizona. 111.167584 W). (31.425426N, 111.183289W) (i) Sycamore Canyon from the Ruby (iv) Horse Pasture Spring (31.406812 downstream to its confluence with Road bridge (31.434030 N, 111.186537 N, 111.184717 W). Sycamore Canyon (31.428987 N, W) south to the International Boundary 111.190679 W), a distance of (v) Bear Valley Ranch Tank approximately 2,822 drainage feet (860 (31.379952 N, 111.222937 W), a (31.413617 N, 111.176818 W). meters). distance of 6.35 stream miles (10.23 (vi) South Mesa Tank (31.406832 N, kilometers). (ix) From North Mesa Tank 111.164505 W). (31.415697 N, 111.167584 W) (ii) Yank Tank (31.425426 N, (vii) Rattlesnake Tank (31.400654 N, downstream in Atascosa Canyon to its 111.183289 W). 111.163470 W). confluence with Pen˜ asco Canyon

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:55 Mar 14, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP15MR11.004 14170 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules

(31.402594 N, 111.186647 W), then from its confluence with Atascosa Canyon (31.402594 N, 111.186647 W), a that confluence downstream in Pen˜ asco (31.402583 N, 111.186593 W), a drainage distance of approximately 2.05 Canyon to its confluence with Sycamore drainage distance of approximately 611 miles (3.30 kilometers). Canyon (31.407395 N, 111.195820 W), a stream feet (186 meters). (xiii) From Rattlesnake Tank distance of approximately 2.91 drainage (xii) From South Mesa Tank (31.400654 N, 111.163470 W) miles (4.69 kilometers). (31.406832 N, 111.164505 W) (x) From Horse Pasture Spring downstream in unnamed drainage to its downstream in an unnamed drainage to (31.406812 N, 111.184717 W) confluence with another unnamed its confluence with another unnamed downstream to Pen˜ asco Canyon, a drainage (31.403615 N, 111.169213 W), drainage (31.403615 N, 111.169213 W), drainage distance of approximately then downstream in that unnamed a drainage distance of approximately 1,759 feet (536 meters). drainage to its confluence with Pen˜ asco 2,274 feet (693 meters). (xi) From Bear Valley Ranch Tank Canyon (31.399519 N, 111.177701 W), (xiv) Note: Map of Unit 5, Sycamore (31.413617 N, 111.176818 W) then downstream in Pen˜ asco Canyon to Canyon (Map 6), follows: downstream in an unnamed drainage to its confluence with Atascosa Canyon

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:55 Mar 14, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP15MR11.005 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 14171

(11) Unit 6: Pen˜ a Blanca Lake and Canyon (31.384521 N, 111.121496 W), with Alamo Canyon (31.379693 N, Spring and Associated Tanks, Santa then downstream in Alamo Canyon to 111.126053 W), then downstream in Cruz 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 Unit 6, Pen˜ a Blanca 111.139450 W) and downstream in that 111.136359 W) downstream in an Lake and Spring and Associated Tanks drainage to its confluence with Alamo unnamed drainage to its confluence (Map 7), follows:

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:55 Mar 14, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 14172 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules

(12) Unit 7: Florida Canyon, 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 Unit 7, Florida dam (31.759444 N, 110.844095 W) Canyon (Map 8), follows:

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:55 Mar 14, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP15MR11.006 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 14173

(13) Unit 8: Eastern Slope of the Santa unnamed drainage (31.772830 N, (vi) From Greaterville Tank Rita Mountains, Pima County, Arizona. 110.752727 W); then upstream and (31.767186 N, 110.759818 W) (i) Two galvanized metal tanks in south in that drainage to a saddle downstream in an unnamed drainage to Louisiana Gulch (31.74865 N, 110.72839 (31.768245 N, 110.752891 W); then its confluence with Ophir Gulch W). downslope in an unnamed drainage to (31.763978 N, 110.751312 W), a (ii) Greaterville Tank (31.767186 N, its confluence with Ophir Gulch distance of approximately 3,446 110.759818 W). (31.763978 N, 110.751312 W); then drainage feet (1,050 meters). (iii) Los Posos Gulch Tank (31.768587 upstream in Ophir Gulch to Upper (vii) Louisiana Gulch from the metal N, 110.731583 W). Granite Mountain Tank (31.760914 N, tanks (31.74865 N, 110.72839 W) (iv) Upper Granite Mountain Tank 110.760186 W), to include an ephemeral upstream to the confluence with an (31.760914 N, 110.760186 W). tank (31.761388 N, 110.759184 W) and unnamed drainage (31.756493 N, (v) From Los Posos Gulch Tank a well (31.761584 N, 110.758169 W), a 110.744175 W), then upstream in that (31.768587 N, 110.731583 W) upstream drainage to its headwaters and across a distance of approximately 2.59 drainage to a saddle (31.771463 N, 110.748676 saddle (31.759879 N, 110.748733 W) miles (4.17 kilometers) and 984 feet (300 W); then downslope in an unnamed and downslope through an unnamed drainage to the confluence with another meters) overland. drainage to its confluence with Ophir

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:55 Mar 14, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP15MR11.007 14174 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules

Gulch (31.762953 N, 110.749329 W), this entry (31.763978 N, 110.751312 W), (viii) Note: Map of Unit 8, Eastern then upstream in Ophir Gulch to the a distance of approximately 1.98 Slope of the Santa Rita Mountains (Map confluence with the unnamed drainage drainage miles (3.19 kilometers) and 327 9), follows: mentioned in subparagraph (13)(v) of feet (100 meters) overland.

(14) Unit 9: Las Cienegas National distance of approximately 4.33 stream 110.584422 W upstream to 31.788559 N, Conservation Area, Pima County, miles (6.98 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 (31.808804 N, kilometers). beginning at a pipeline access road 110.589758 W) upstream to the (iii) Note: Map of Unit 9, 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 (Map 10), confluence with Cienega Creek east (31.776478 N, 110.590382 W), to follows: (31.808804 N, 110.589758 W), a include Cinco Ponds (31.793066 N,

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:55 Mar 14, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP15MR11.008 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 14175

(15) Unit 10: Pasture 9 Tank, Santa (i) Pasture 9 Tank (31.375991 N, (ii) Note: Map of Unit 10, Pasture 9 Cruz County, Arizona. 110.548386 E). Tank (Map 11), follows:

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:55 Mar 14, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP15MR11.009 14176 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules

(16) Unit 11: Scotia Canyon, 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 (iii) Creek in Scotia Canyon from just the upper end of the Scotia Creek 110.398117 W), an overland distance of 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 Unit 11, Scotia confluence of an unnamed drainage and (31.456929 N, 110.397120 W), an Canyon (Map 12), follows:

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:55 Mar 14, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP15MR11.010 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 14177

(17) Unit 12: Beatty’s Guest Ranch, corner (31.416425 N, 110.277493 W), southwest corner (31.413455 N, Cochise County, Arizona. northeast corner (31.416425 N, 110.277493 W). (i) Private inholding defined 110.276432 W), southeast corner (ii) Note: Map of Unit 12, Beatty’s approximately as follows: Northwest (31.413455 N, 110.276432 W), and Guest Ranch (Map 13), follows:

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:55 Mar 14, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP15MR11.011 14178 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules

(18) Unit 13: Carr Barn Pond, Cochise (i) Carr Barn Pond (31.452461 N, (ii) Note: Map of Unit 13, Carr Barn County, Arizona. 110.250355 W). Pond (Map 14), follows:

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:55 Mar 14, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP15MR11.012 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 14179

(19) Unit 14: Ramsey and Brown (ii) Brown Canyon from The Box (iii) From the dirt road crossing at the Canyons, Cochise County, Arizona. (31.456016 N, 110.323853 W) mouth of Ramsey Canyon (31.462315 N, (i) Ramsey Canyon from the upper downstream to the Wild Duck Pond 110.291248 W) directly overland to end of The Box (31.440958 N, (31.475355 N, 110.297592 W) and House Pond (31.474068 N, 110.297565 110.317879 W) downstream to a dirt House Pond (31.474068 N, 110.297565 W) on the former Barchas Ranch, a road crossing at the mouth of Ramsey W) on the former Barchas Ranch, an distance of approximately 4,594 feet Canyon (31.462315 N, 110.291248 W), approximate drainage distance of 2.26 (1,400 meters). an approximate stream distance of 2.35 miles (3.64 kilometers). (iv) Note: Map of Unit 14, Ramsey and miles (3.79 kilometers). Brown Canyons (Map 15), follows:

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:55 Mar 14, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP15MR11.013 14180 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules

(20) Unit 15: High Lonesome Well, (i) High Lonesome Well (31.417206 N, (ii) Note: Map of Unit 15, High Hidalgo County, New Mexico. 108.557791 W). Lonesome Well (Map 16), follows:

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:55 Mar 14, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP15MR11.014 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 14181

(21) Unit 16: Peloncillo Mountains 108.966535 W) about 630 feet 109.033839 W), then downslope Tanks, Hidalgo County, New Mexico. downstream of the Cloverdale road through that drainage to State Line Tank (i) Geronimo Tank (31.520685 N, crossing of Cloverdale Creek, an (31.498451 N, 109.044940 W), an 109.016775 W). approximate stream distance of 1.91 approximate drainage distance of 3.07 (ii) State Line Tank (31.498451 N, miles (3.07 kilometers) . miles (4.94 kilometers) and 775 feet (236 109.044940 W). (vii) From Geronimo Tank (31.520685 meters) overland. (iii) Javelina Tank (31.484995 N, N, 109.016775 W) downstream in an (viii) From State Line Tank upstream 109.024970 W). unnamed drainage to its confluence in an unnamed drainage to a mesa (iv) Canoncito Ranch Tank (31.449553 with Clanton Draw (31.520590 N, (31.488563 N, 109.036527 W), then N, 109.986836 W). 109.012263 W), then upstream to the directly overland to the headwaters of (v) Maverick Spring (31.469376 N, confluence with an unnamed drainage 109.011142 W). (31.515818 N, 109.018117 W), and Cloverdale Creek (31.487477 N, (vi) Cloverdale Creek from the upstream in that drainage to its 109.028002 W), and then downstream in Canoncito Ranch Tank (31.449553 N, headwaters (31.501854 N, 109.031898 Cloverdale Creek to Javelina Tank 109.986836 W) downstream, including W), across a mesa to the headwaters of (31.484995 N, 109.024970 W), an the cienega, to rock pools (31.432972 N, an unnamed drainage (31.502220 N, approximate drainage distance of 1.40

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:55 Mar 14, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP15MR11.015 14182 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules

miles (2.26 kilometers) and 2,245 feet Cloverdale Creek to the Canoncito approximate stream distance of 3.88 (684 meters) overland. Ranch Tank (31.449553 N, 109.986836 miles (6.24 kilometers). (ix) From Javelina Tank (31.484995 N, W), to include Maverick Spring (x) Note: Map of Unit 16, Peloncillo 109.024970 W) downstream in (31.469376 N, 109.011142 W), an Mountains Tanks (Map 17), follows:

(22) Unit 17: Cave Creek, Cochise (iii) Pond at the Southwest Research N, 109.20470 W) and the Pond at the County, Arizona. Station (31.883235 N, 109.208670 W). Southwest Research Station (31.883235 (i) Herb Martyr Pond (31.87243 N, (iv) Cave Creek from Herb Martyr N, 109.208670 W), an approximate 109.23418 W). Pond (31.87243 N, 109.23418 W) stream distance of 5.84 miles (9.41 downstream to the U.S. Forest Service kilometers). (ii) John Hands Pond below the dam boundary (31.899659 N, 109.159987 W), (v) Note: Map of Unit 17, Cave Creek (31.87868 N, 109.20470 W). to include John Hands Pond (31.87868 (Map 18), follows:

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:55 Mar 14, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP15MR11.016 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 14183

(23) Unit 18: Leslie Creek, 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 Unit 18, Leslie Creek National Wildlife Refuge boundary (Map 19), follows:

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:55 Mar 14, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP15MR11.017 14184 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules

(24) Unit 19: Rosewood and North drainage (31.379088 N, 109.154754 W), then downstream in that drainage to its Tanks, Cochise County, Arizona. then upstream in that drainage, under confluence with the drainage containing (i) Rosewood Tank (31.374888 N, Guadalupe Canyon Road and east to its North Tank (31.388383 N, 109.151692 109.143796 W). confluence with a minor unnamed W), and then downstream in that (ii) North Tank (31.38696 N, drainage (31.384072 N, 109.144919 W), drainage to North Tank, an approximate 109.16115 W). then upstream in that unnamed minor distance of 2.57 drainage miles (4.14 (iii) From Rosewood Tank (31.374888 drainage to its headwaters (31.384820 N, kilometers) and 543 feet (166 miles) N, 109.143796 W) downstream in an 109.145383 W), then overland to the overland. unnamed drainage that is parallel to and just south of Guadalupe Canyon Road to headwaters of another unnamed (iv) Note: Map of Unit 19, Rosewood its confluence with a large unnamed drainage (31.385462 N, 109.145980 W), and North Tanks (Map 20), follows:

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:55 Mar 14, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP15MR11.018 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 14185

(25) Unit 20: Deer Creek, Graham (vi) Deer Creek from a point where it 110.265580 W); then downstream from County, Arizona. exits a canyon and turns abruptly to the that tank in an unnamed drainage to the (i) Home Ranch Tank (32.656879 N, east (32.683937 N, 110.255290 W) aforementioned confluence (32.671318 110.274556 W). upstream to its confluence with an N, 110.262600 W), and upstream in that (ii) Penney Mine Tanks, which unnamed drainage (32.673318 N, unnamed drainage to a saddle includes a series of 10 small 110.262748 W); then upstream in that (32.662529 N, 110.265717 W); then impoundments in a drainage from drainage to a confluence with four other downstream from that saddle in an approximately 32.668795 N, 110.257763 drainages (32.671318 N, 110.262600 W); unnamed drainage to its confluence W downstream to 32.670055 N, then upstream from that confluence in with an unnamed tributary to Gardner 110.257310 W. the western drainage to Clifford Tank Creek (32.660409 N, 110.265303 W); (iii) Clifford Tank (32.67130 N, (32.67130 N, 110.264877 W); then and upstream in that unnamed tributary 110.264877 W). upstream from that confluence in the to Home Ranch Tank (32.656879 N, (iv) Vermont Tank (32.676883 N, west-central drainage to an unnamed 110.274556 W), a distance of 110.262404 W). tank (32.666108 N, 110.269204 W); then approximately 3.28 drainage miles (5.27 (v) Middle Tank (32.679691 N, directly overland southeast to another kilometers) and 1,216 feet (371 meters) 110.252180 W). unnamed tank (32.665124 N, overland.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:55 Mar 14, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP15MR11.019 14186 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules

(vii) From the largest of the Penney a distance of approximately 948 drainage to a saddle (32.677989 N, Mine Tanks (32.669696 N, 110.257652 drainage feet (289 meters) and 1,051 feet 110.256915 W), then directly downslope W) directly overland to an unnamed (320 meters) overland. to Deer Creek (32.678307 N, 110.258257 tank (32.688150 N, 110.260309 W), and (viii) From Vermont Tank (32.676883 W), an approximate drainage distance of downstream in an unnamed drainage to N, 110.262404 W) directly overland for 1,530 feet (466 meters) and 436 feet (133 the aforementioned confluence approximately 468 feet (143 meters) to meters) overland. Deer Creek (32.677037 N, 110.260815 (32.671318 N, 110.262600 W), including (x) Note: Map of Unit 20, Deer Creek another unnamed tank (32.669324 N, W). (ix) From Middle Tank (32.679691 N, (Map 21), follows: 110.261672 W) situated in that drainage, 110.252180 W) upstream in an unnamed

(26) Unit 21: Oak Spring and Oak downstream to where a hiking trail (ii) Note: Map of Unit 21, Oak Spring Creek, Graham County, Arizona. intersects the creek (32.682618 N, and Oak Creek (Map 22), 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 17:55 Mar 14, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP15MR11.020 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 14187

(27) Unit 22: Dragoon Mountains, 109.977963 W) downstream to Cochise Middlemarch Canyon to its confluence Cochise 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: A Map of Unit 22, Dragoon Halfmoon Tank (31.912453 N, 109.956429 W), downstream in Mountains (Map 23), follows:

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:55 Mar 14, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP15MR11.021 14188 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules

(28) Unit 23: Buckskin Hills, Yavapai (viii) Needed Tank (34.461023 N, then downstream in that drainage to the County, Arizona. 111.631271 W). confluence with an unnamed drainage (i) Sycamore Basin Tank (34.481619 (ix) From Middle Tank (34.473076 N, (34.450688 N, 111.638111 W), to N, 111.641676 W). 111.624488 W) downstream in Boulder include Walt’s Tank (34.455959 N, (ii) Middle Tank (34.473076 N, Canyon to its confluence with an 111.638497 W), and upstream in that 111.624488 W). unnamed drainage that comes in from unnamed drainage to Partnership Tank (iii) Walt’s Tank (34.455959 N, the northwest (34.455688 N, 111.625895 (34.452241 N, 111.646271 W); then 111.638497 W). W), to include Black Tank (34.462968 N, upstream from the aforementioned (iv) Partnership Tank (34.452241 N, 111.623554 W); then upstream in that confluence (34.466209 N, 111.636096) 111.646271 W). unnamed drainage to a saddle in the unnamed drainage that includes (v) Black Tank (34.462968 N, (34.464120 N, 111.633633 W), to Walt’s Tank to a point where the 111.623554 W). include Needed Tank (34.461023 N, drainage turns east towards Boulder (vi) Buckskin Tank (34.472660 N, 111.631271 W); then downstream from Canyon (34.469911 N, 111.630080 W), 111.652468 W). the saddle in an unnamed drainage to an approximate distance of 3.65 (vii) Doren’s Defeat Tank (34.446271 its confluence with another unnamed drainage miles (5.87 kilometers) and 425 N, 111.641269 W). drainage (34.466209 N, 111.636096); feet (130 meters) overland.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:55 Mar 14, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP15MR11.022 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 14189

(x) From Doren’s Defeat Tank W), then directly overland to the top of then directly overland to an unnamed (34.446271 N, 111.641269 W) upstream Sycamore Basin (34.473970 N, drainage (34.462851 N, 111.637797 W) in an unnamed drainage to Partnership 111.633584 W), and then downstream in that contains Walt’s Tank, an Tank (34.452241 N, 111.646271 W), an Sycamore Basin to Sycamore Basin approximate distance of 1,109 drainage approximate drainage distance of 3,310 Tank (34.481619 N, 111.641676 W), an feet (338 meters) and 1,429 feet (435 feet (1,009 meters). approximate distance of 4,658 drainage meters) overland. (xi) From the confluence of an feet (1,420 meters) and 1,827 feet (557 unnamed drainage with Boulder Canyon meters) overland. (xiii) Note: Map of Unit 23, Buckskin (34.469515 N, 111.624979 W) west to a (xii) From Buckskin Tank upstream in Hills (Map 24), follows: point where the drainage turns an unnamed drainage to the top of that southwest (34.469911 N, 111.630080 drainage (34.465121 N, 111.641428 W),

(29) Unit 24: Crouch, Gentry, and (i) Trail Tank (34.176747 N, (ii) HY Tank (34.148580 N, Cherry Creeks, and Parallel Canyon, 110.812383 W). 110.831331 W). Gila County, Arizona.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:55 Mar 14, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP15MR11.023 14190 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules

(iii) Carroll Spring (34.133090 N, to its confluence with an unnamed approximate drainage distance of 5.48 110.838673 W). drainage (34.166956 N, 110.815587 W), miles (8.82 kilometers). (iv) West Prong of Gentry Creek from then upstream in that drainage and (ix) From HY Tank (34.176747 N, the confluence with an unnamed across a saddle (34.176129 N, 110.812383 W) downstream in an drainage (34.133243 N, 110.827755 W) 110.808920 W), then downstream in an unnamed drainage to its confluence downstream to a point (34.123475 N, unnamed drainage to Trail Tank with Cherry Creek (34.154309 N, 110.827872 W) where the creek turns (34.176747 N, 110.812383 W), an 110.85077 W), to include Bottle Spring southwest and is directly east of a approximate distance of 3.77 drainage (34.145180 N, 110.837515 W), an saddle, then west overland across that miles (6.07 kilometers) and 975 feet (297 approximate stream distance of 1.66 saddle to Cunningham Spring meters) overland. miles (2.67 kilometers). (34.121883 N, 110.841424 W), an (viii) Crouch Creek from its approximate distance of 3,837 drainage headwaters just south of Highway 288 (x) From Bottle Spring (34.145180 N, feet (1,169 meters) and 1,883 feet (574 (34.143151 N, 110.836876 W) 110.837515 W) south over a low saddle meters) overland. downstream to an unnamed drainage to the headwaters of Crouch Creek (v) Pine Spring (34.148580 N, leading to Pine Spring (34.102235 N, (34.143151 N, 110.836876 W), an 110.831331 W). 110.864341 W), to include Cunningham approximate distance of 762 feet (232 (vi) Bottle Spring (34.145180 N, Spring and Carroll Spring; then meters) overland. 110.837515 W). upstream in that unnamed drainage (xi) Note: Map of Unit 24, Crouch, (vii) Cherry Creek from Rock Spring from Crouch Creek to Pine Spring Gentry, and Cherry Creeks, and Parallel (34.155505 N, 110.852478 W) upstream (34.148580 N, 110.831331 W), an Canyon (Map 25), follows:

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:55 Mar 14, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 14191

(30) Unit 25: Ellison and Lewis 111.169111 W) downstream to Ellison drainage (34.354912 N, 111.192547 W), Creeks, Gila County, Arizona. Creek below Pyle Ranch (34.364667 N, and then upstream in that unnamed (i) Moore Saddle Tank #42 (34.374063 111.179966 W), then directly west drainage to Low Tank (34.36768 N, N, 111.205040 W). across the Ellison Creek floodplain and 111.19347 W), an approximate distance (ii) Low Tank (34.36768 N, 111.19347 over a low saddle to Lewis Creek below of 2.52 drainage miles (4.05 kilometers) W). Pyle Ranch (34.364391 N, 111.186742 and 1,070 feet (326 meters) overland. (iii) Unnamed tributary to Ellison W), then downstream in Lewis Creek to Creek from its confluence with an (iv) Note: Map of Unit 25, Ellison and its confluence with an unnamed unnamed drainage (34.371458 N, Lewis Creeks (Map 26), follows:

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:55 Mar 14, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP15MR11.024 14192 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules

(31) Unit 26: Concho Bill and Deer downstream in Deer Creek to its approximate drainage distance of 2,667 Creek, 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 Unit 26, Concho Bill (33.830088 N, 109.366540 W) and Deer Creek (Map 27), follows:

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:55 Mar 14, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP15MR11.025 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 14193

(32) Unit 27: Campbell Blue and (33.738560 N, 109158679 W), an (33.750139 N, 109.168850 W), an Coleman Creeks, Greenlee County, approximate stream distance of 2.04 approximate stream distance of 1.04 Arizona. miles (3.28 kilometers). miles (1.68 kilometers). (i) Campbell Blue Creek from the (ii) Coleman Creek from its (iii) Note: Map of Unit 27, Campbell upstream boundary of Luce Ranch confluence with Campbell Blue Creek Blue and Coleman Creeks (Map 28), (33.735956 N, 109.127746 W) upstream (33.738560 N, 109158679 W) upstream to its confluence with Coalman Creek to its confluence with Canyon Creek follows:

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:55 Mar 14, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP15MR11.026 14194 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules

(33) Unit 28: Tularosa River, 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 Unit 28, Tularosa of Tularosa Spring (33.903798 N, River (Map 29), follows:

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:55 Mar 14, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP15MR11.027 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 14195

(34) Unit 29: Deep Creek Divide Area, (v) South Fork of Negrito Creek from and South Forks of Negrito Creeks Catron County, New Mexico. its confluence with North Fork of (33.607082 N, 108.631340 W), an (i) Long Mesa Tank (33.551664 N, Negrito Creek (33.607082 N, 108.631340 approximate stream distance of 3.80 108.686841 W). E) upstream to an impoundment miles (6.12 kilometers). (33.599047 N, 108.621300 W), including (vii) From Long Mesa Tank (ii) Cullum Tank (33.554864 N, three other impoundments along the (33.551664 N, 108.686841 W) directly 108.676961 W). channel (33.601890 N, 108.622227 W; overland and east to Shotgun Canyon (iii) Burro Tank (33.571146 N, 33.602845 N, 108.622764 W; and (33.550816 N, 108.681110 W), then 108.638682 W). 33.603810 N, 108.623971 W), an downstream in that canyon to Cullum (iv) North Fork of Negrito Creek from approximate stream distance of 4,821 Tank (33.554864 N, 108.676961 W), an its confluence with South Fork of feet (1,469 meters). approximate distance of 2,003 drainage Negrito Creek (33.607082 N, 108.631340 (vi) From Burro Tank (33.571146 N, feet (610 meters) and 1,801 feet (549 W) upstream to its confluence with an 108.638682 W) downstream in Burro meters) overland. unnamed drainage (33.612529 N, Canyon to Negrito Creek (22.609589 N, (viii) From Cullum Tank (33.554864 108.614731 W), an approximate stream 108.638448 W), then upstream in N, 108.676961 W) downstream in distance of 1.37 miles (2.20 kilometers). Negrito Creek to the confluence of North Shotgun and Bull Basin Canyons to a

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:55 Mar 14, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP15MR11.028 14196 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules

confluence with an unnamed drainage northeast (33.567121 N, 108.646776 W), distance of 3.88 drainage miles (6.24 (33.581626 N, 108.663624 W), then then upstream in that drainage and kilometers) and 1,863 feet (568 meters) upstream in that drainage to the directly east-northeast across Rainy overland. confluence with a minor drainage Mesa to Burro Tank (33.571146 N, (ix) Note: Map of Unit 29, Deep Creek leading off Rainy Mesa from the east- 108.638682 W), an approximate Divide Area (Map 30), follows:

(35) Unit 30: Main Diamond Creek, 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 Unit 30, Main downstream boundary of Links Ranch Diamond Creek enters a canyon Diamond Creek (Map 31), follows: (33.269512 N, 108.105542 W) (33.264514 N, 108.116019 W), an

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:55 Mar 14, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP15MR11.029 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 14197

(36) Unit 31: Beaver Creek, Catron W) downstream to its confluence with (ii) Note: Map of Unit 31, Beaver County, New Mexico. Taylor Creek (33.334694 N, 108.101543 Creek (Map 32), 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 17:55 Mar 14, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP15MR11.030 14198 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules

(37) Unit 32: Left Prong of Dix Creek, 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 Unit 32, Left Prong unnamed warm spring (33.179413 N, of Dix Creek (Map 33), follows:

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:55 Mar 14, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP15MR11.031 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 14199

(38) Unit 33: Rattlesnake Pasture Tank its confluence with Red Tank Canyon (33.090898 N, 109.155386 W), then and Associated Tanks, Greenlee County, (33.109603 N, 109.155549 W), to directly upslope to a saddle (33.091771 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 Unit 33, Rattlesnake (33.093987 N, 109.151714 W) in an unnamed drainage to its Pasture Tank and Associated Tanks downstream in an unnamed drainage to confluence with a minor drainage (Map 34), follows:

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:55 Mar 14, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP15MR11.032 14200 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules

(39) Unit 34: Coal Creek, Greenlee downstream to the confluence with an (ii) Note: Map of Unit 34, Coal Creek County, Arizona. unnamed drainage (33.110025 N, (Map 35), 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 17:55 Mar 14, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP15MR11.033 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 14201

(40) Unit 35: Blue Creek, Grant 108.835761 W) downstream to its stream distance of 2.37 miles (3.81 County, 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 Unit 35, Blue Creek on private lands (32.848702 N, N, 108.824742 W), an approximate (Map 36), follows:

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:55 Mar 14, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP15MR11.034 14202 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules

(41) Unit 36: Seco Creek, Sierra approximate drainage distance of 8.93 include Fish Well (33.095461 N, County, New Mexico. miles (14.39 kilometers). 107.592109 W) and Johnson Well (i) North Seco Creek from Sawmill (ii) South Seco Creek from South Seco (33.090439 N, 107.566035 W), an Well (33.091214 N, 107.655347 W) Well (33.112052 N, 107.760165 W) approximate drainage distance of 7.84 downstream to its confluence with the miles (12.62 kilometers). downstream to its confluence with North Seco Creek (33.097239 N, (iv) Ash Creek from Artesia Well South Seco Creek (33.097239 N, 107.624649 W), an approximate (33.060469 N, 107.539670 W) 107.624649 W), to include Sucker Ledge drainage distance of 1.87 miles (3.01 downstream to its confluence with Seco (33.113545 N, 107.747370 W), Davis kilometers). Well (33.112421 N 107.728650 W), (iii) Seco Creek from the confluence Creek (33.066660 N, 107.519804 W), an North Seco Well (33.114416 N, with North and South Seco creeks approximate drainage distance of 1.48 107.689934 W), Pauge Well (33.109714 (33.097239 N, 107.624649 W) miles (2.38 kilometers). N, 107.657965 W), and LM Bar Well downstream to its confluence with Ash (v) Note: Map of Unit 36, Seco Creek (33.097906 N, 107.629301 W), an Creek (33.066837 N, 107.519939 W), to (Map 37), follows:

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:55 Mar 14, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP15MR11.035 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 14203

(42) Unit 37: Alamosa Warm Springs, 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 Unit 37, Alamosa Canyon and Alamosa Creek (33.570315 107.577137 W), to include Alamosa Warm Springs (Map 38), follows: N, 107.608474 W) downstream in Warm Springs (33.572365 N,

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:55 Mar 14, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP15MR11.036 14204 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules

(43) Unit 38: Cuchillo Negro Warm 107.563619 W) downstream in Cuchillo (ii) Note: Map of Unit 38, Cuchillo Springs and Creek, Sierra County, New Negro Creek to its confluence with Negro Warm Springs (Map 39), follows: Mexico. Sophio Canyon (33.268403 N, (i) From the upper of the two Cuchillo 107.548630 W), an approximate stream Negro Warm Springs (33.268403 N, distance of 1.58 miles (2.54 kilometers).

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:55 Mar 14, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP15MR11.037 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 14205

(44) Unit 39: Ash and Bolton Springs, 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 Spring (32.715625 N, 108.071980 W) then downstream in that unnamed 108.099679 W), an approximate downstream to a dirt road crossing of drainage 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 Unit 39, Ash and (iv) From the the ruins of a house in drainage (32.715476 N, 108.087719 W) Bolton Springs (Map 40), follows: the Ash Spring drainage (32.714562 N, and directly downslope and west to

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:55 Mar 14, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP15MR11.038 14206 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules

(45) Unit 40: Mimbres River, Grant 107.989492 W) and ponds at Emory Oak Disert property near Faywood County, New Mexico. Ranch, an approximate river distance of (32.743884 N, 107.880297 W), an (i) The Mimbres River from the 2.42 miles (3.89 kilometers). approximate river distance of 5.82 miles upstream Nature Conservancy property (ii) The Mimbres River from the (9.36 kilometers). boundary (32.912474 N, 108.004529 W) bridge just west of San Lorenzo downstream to its confluence with Bear (32.808190 N, 107.924589 W) (iii) Note: Map of Unit 40, Mimbres Canyon (32.883751 N, 107.988036 W), downstream to the downstream River (Map 41), follows: to include Moreno Spring (32.887107 N, boundary of The Nature Conservancy’s

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:55 Mar 14, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP15MR11.039 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 14207

* * * * * Dated: February 23, 2011. Will Shafroth Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks. [FR Doc. 2011–4997 Filed 3–14–11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310–55–C

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:55 Mar 14, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\15MRP2.SGM 15MRP2 mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP15MR11.040