14126 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2010–0085; MO 

92210–0–0009–B4] 

RIN 1018–AX12 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Listing and Designation of 

Critical Habitat for the Chiricahua 

Leopard Frog 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), propose to 

designate critical habitat for the 

Chiricahua leopard frog (Lithobates 

chiricahuensis) under the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973, as amended. In 

total, we are proposing to designate 

approximately 11,136 acres (4,510 

hectares) as critical habitat for the 

Chiricahua leopard frog. The proposed 

critical habitat is located in Apache, 

Cochise, Gila, Graham, Greenlee, Pima, 

Santa Cruz, and Yavapai Counties, 

Arizona; and Catron, Hidalgo, Grant, 

Sierra, and Socorro Counties, New 

Mexico. In addition, because of a 

taxonomic revision of the Chiricahua 

leopard frog, we are reassessing the 

status of and threats to the currently 

described species Lithobates 

chiricahuensis and proposing the listing 

as threatened of the currently described 

species. 

DATES: We will consider comments 

received or postmarked on or before 

May 16, 2011. We must receive requests 

for public hearings, in writing, at the 

address shown in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section by April 

29, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by one of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments 

on Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2010–0085. 

• U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public 

Comments Processing, Attn: Docket No. 

FWS–R2–ES–2010–0085; Division of 

Policy and Directives Management; U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. 

Fairfax Drive, Suite 222; Arlington, VA 

22203. 

We will not accept e-mail or faxes. We 

will post all comments on the Internet 

at http://www.regulations.gov. This 

generally means that we will post any 

personal information you provide us 

(see the Public Comments section below 

for more information). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Steve Spangle, Field Supervisor, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona 

Ecological Services Field Office, 2321 

West Royal Palm Road, Suite 103, 

Phoenix, AZ 85021; telephone: 602/ 

242–0210; facsimile: 602/242–2513. If 

you use a telecommunications device 

for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal 

Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 

800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Due to a 

taxonomic revision of the Chiricahua 

leopard frog, we must reassess the status 

of and threats to the currently described 

Lithobates chiricahuensis. Therefore, 

this document consists of: (1) A 

proposed rule to list the Chiricahua 

leopard frog (Lithobates chiricahuensis) 

as threatened; and (2) a proposed rule to 

designate critical habitat for the 

Chiricahua leopard frog. 

Previous Federal Actions 

We published a proposed rule to list 

the Chiricahua leopard frog as 

threatened in the Federal Register on 

June 14, 2000 (65 FR 37343). We 

published a final rule listing the species 

as threatened on June 13, 2002 (67 FR 

40790). Included in the final rule was a 

special rule (see 50 CFR 17.43(b)) to 

exempt operation and maintenance of 

livestock tanks on non-Federal lands 

from the section 9 take prohibitions of 

the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). For 

further information on actions 

associated with listing the species, 

please see the final listing rule (67 FR 

40790; June 13, 2002). 

In a May 6, 2009, order from the 

Arizona District Court, the Secretary of 

the Interior was required to publish a 

critical habitat prudency determination 

for the Chiricahua leopard frog and, if 

found prudent, a proposed rule to 

designate critical habitat by December 8, 

2010. Because of unforeseen delays 

related to species taxonomic issues, 

which required an inclusion of a threats 

analysis, we requested a 3-month 

extension to the court-ordered deadlines 

for both the proposed and final rules. 

On November 24, 2010, the extension 

was granted and new deadlines of 

March 8, 2011, for the proposed rule 

and March 8, 2012, for the final rule 

were established for completing and 

submitting the critical habitat rules to 

the Federal Register. This proposed rule 

is published in accordance with the 

Arizona District Court’s ruling. 

Public Comments 

We intend that any final action 

resulting from this proposed rule will be 

based on the best scientific and 

commercial data available and be as 

accurate and as effective as possible. 

Therefore, we request comments or 

information from other concerned 

governmental agencies, tribes, the 

scientific community, industry, or other 

interested parties concerning this 

proposed rule. We particularly seek 

comments concerning: 

(1) Information about the status of the 

species, especially the Ramsey Canyon 

portion of the range, including: 

(a) Genetics and taxonomy; 

(b) Historical and current range, 

including distribution patterns; 

(c) Historical and current population 

levels, and current and projected trends; 

and 

(d) Past and ongoing conservation 

measures for the species, its habitat, or 

both. 

(2) The factors that are the basis for 

making a listing determination for a 

species under section 4(a) of the Act, 

which are: 

(a) The present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; 

(b) Overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; 

(c) Disease or predation; 

(d) The inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms; or 

(e) Other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence. 

(3) Biological, commercial trade, or 

other relevant data concerning any 

threats (or lack thereof) to Chiricahua 

leopard frog and regulations that may be 

addressing those threats. 

(4) Additional information concerning 

the range, distribution, and population 

size of Chiricahua leopard frog, 

including the locations of any 

additional populations. 

(5) Any information on the biological 

or ecological requirements of Chiricahua 

leopard frog. 

(6) The reasons why we should or 

should not designate habitat as ‘‘critical 

habitat’’ under section 4 of the Act, 

including whether there are threats to 

the species from human activities, how 

the designation may ameliorate or 

worsen those threats, and if any 

potential increase in threats outweighs 

the benefits of designation such that the 

designation of critical habitat may not 

be prudent. 

(7) Specific information on: 

• The amount and distribution of the 

Chiricahua leopard frog’s habitat; 

• What areas occupied at the time of 

listing and that contain features 

essential to the conservation of the 

species should be included in the 

designation, and why; 

• Special management considerations 

or protections that the physical and 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 14127 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of the Chiricahua leopard 

frog that have been identified in this 

proposal may require, including 

managing for the potential effects of 

climate change; and 

• What areas not occupied at the time 

of listing are essential for the 

conservation of the species, and why. 

(8) Land-use designations and current 

or planned activities in the subject areas 

and their possible impacts on proposed 

critical habitat. 

(9) Any probable economic, national 

security, or other relevant impacts of 

designating as critical habitat any area 

that may be included in the final 

designation. We are particularly 

interested in any impacts on small 

entities or families, and the benefits of 

including or excluding areas that exhibit 

these impacts. 

(10) Whether we could improve or 

modify our approach to designating 

critical habitat in any way to provide for 

greater public participation and 

understanding, or to better 

accommodate public concerns and 

comments. 

(11) Information on whether the 

benefits of an exclusion of any 

particular area outweigh the benefits of 

inclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act. 

(12) Information on the projected and 

reasonably likely impacts of climate 

change on the Chiricahua leopard frog 

and the critical habitat areas we are 

proposing. 

You may submit your comments and 

materials concerning this proposed rule 

by one of the methods listed in the 

ADDRESSES section. We will not accept 

comments sent by e-mail or fax or to an 

address not listed in the ADDRESSES

section. We will not consider handdelivered comments that we do not 

receive, or mailed comments that are 

not postmarked, by the date specified in 

the DATES section. 

We will post your entire comment— 

including any personal identifying 

information you provide—on http:// 

www.regulations.gov. If you provide 

personal identifying information, such 

as your street address, phone number, or 

e-mail address, in your written 

comments, you may request at the top 

of your document that we withhold this 

information from public review. 

However, we cannot guarantee that we 

will be able to do so. 

A draft economic analysis and draft 

environmental assessment for this 

action will be prepared and made 

available to the public for review. At 

that time, we will reopen the comment 

period on this proposed rule and 

concurrently solicit comments on the 

draft economic analysis and draft 

environmental assessment. 

Comments and materials we receive, 

as well as supporting documentation we 

used in preparing this proposed rule, 

will be available for public inspection 

on the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, at Docket No. 

FWS–R2–ES–2010–0085, or by 

appointment, during normal business 

hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Arizona Ecological Services 

Field Office, 2321 West Royal Palm 

Road, Suite 103, Phoenix, AZ 85021. 

Proposed Threatened Status for the 

Chiricahua Leopard Frog 

Background 

Due to a taxonomic revision of the 

Chiricahua leopard frog, we must 

reassess the status of and threats to the 

currently described species. It is our 

intent to discuss below only those 

topics directly relevant to the listing of 

the Chiricahua leopard frog as 

threatened in this section of the 

proposed rule. For more information on 

the Chiricahua leopard frog, refer to the 

final listing rule published in the 

Federal Register on June 13, 2002 (67 

FR 40790) and the species’ recovery 

plan (Service 2007). 

Species Information 

Description 

When we listed the Chiricahua 

leopard frog as a threatened species on 

June 13, 2002 (67 FR 40790), we 

recognized the scientific name as Rana 

chiricahuensis. Since that time, the 

genus name Lithobates was proposed by 

Frost et al. (2006, p. 249) and adopted 

by the Society for the Study of 

Amphibians and Reptiles in their most 

recent listing of scientific and standard 

English names of North American 

amphibians and reptiles north of 

Mexico (Crother 2008, p. 7). With the 

publication of this proposed rule, we 

officially accept the new scientific name 

of the Chiricahua leopard frog as 

Lithobates chiricahuensis. 

In addition, the Ramsey Canyon 

leopard frog (Lithobates 

subaquavocalis), found on the eastern 

slopes of the Huachuca Mountains, 

Cochise County, Arizona, has recently 

been subsumed into L. chiricahuensis 

(Crother 2008, p. 7) and was noted by 

the Service as part of the listed entity in 

a 90-day finding on 192 species from a 

petition to list 475 species (74 FR 66866; 

December 16, 2009). Goldberg et al. 

(2004, pp. 313–319) examined the 

relationships between the Ramsey 

Canyon leopard frog (L. subaquavocalis) 

and the Chiricahua leopard frog (L. 

chiricahuensis). Genetic analysis 

showed no evidence that Ramsey 

Canyon leopard frog was a separate 

species from the Chiricahua leopard frog 

(Goldberg et al. 2004, p. 315). The 

Society for the Study of Amphibians 

and Reptiles later adopted these leopard 

frogs as the same species, L. 

chiricahuensis (Crother 2008, p. 7). 

Therefore, we no longer recognize the 

Ramsey Canyon leopard frog (L. 

subaquavocalis) as a distinct species 

and consider it to be synonymous with 

the Chiricahua leopard frog (L. 

chiricahuensis). In this proposed rule, 

we present our analysis of the threats to 

the species given this taxonomic 

revision to determine if it is appropriate 

to list the Chiricahua leopard frog as 

threatened throughout its range (see 

Summary of Factors Affecting the 

Species below). 

Northern populations of the 

Chiricahua leopard frog in the Mogollon 

Rim region of east-central Arizona east 

to the eastern bajada of the Black Range 

in New Mexico are physically separated 

from populations to the south. Previous 

work had suggested these two separate 

divisions might be distinct species 

(Platz and Grudzien 1999, p. 51). 

Goldberg et al. (2004, p. 315) 

demonstrated that frogs from these two 

regions showed a 2.4 percent average 

divergence in mitochondrial DNA 

sequences. However, more recent work 

using both mitochondrial DNA and 

nuclear microsatellites from frog tissues 

throughout the range of the species 

provides no evidence of multiple taxa 

within what we now consider to be the 

Chiricahua leopard frog (Herrman et al. 

2009, p. 18). 

The Chiricahua leopard frog is 

distinguished from other members of 

the leopard frog complex by a 

combination of characters, including a 

distinctive pattern on the rear of the 

thigh consisting of small, raised, creamcolored spots or tubercles (wart-like 

projections) on a dark background; folds 

on the back and sides that, towards the 

rear, are interrupted and deflected 

towards the middle of the body; stocky 

body proportions; relatively rough skin 

on the back and sides; eyes that are 

positioned relatively high on the head; 

and often green coloration on the head 

and back (Platz and Mecham 1979, p. 

347.1; Degenhardt et al. 1996, pp. 85– 

87). The species also has a distinctive 

call consisting of a relatively long snore 

of 1 to 2 seconds in duration (Platz and 

Mecham 1979, p. 347.1; Davidson 1996, 

tracks 58, 59). Overall body lengths of 

adults range from approximately 2.1 

inches (in) (5.3 centimeters (cm)) to 5.4 

in (13.7 cm) (Platz and Mecham 1979, 

p. 347.1; Stebbins 2003, pp. 236–237). 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

14128 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

Life History 

The life history of the Chiricahua 

leopard frog can be characterized as a 

complex life cycle, consisting of eggs 

and larvae that are entirely aquatic and 

adults who are primarily aquatic but 

may be terrestrial at times. Egg masses 

of Chiricahua leopard frogs have been 

reported in all months, but reports of 

egg laying (oviposition) in June and 

November through January are 

uncommon (Zweifel 1968, pp. 45–46; 

Frost and Bagnara 1977, p. 449; Frost 

and Platz 1983, p. 67; Scott and 

Jennings 1985, p. 16; Sredl and Jennings 

2005, p. 547). Frost and Platz (1983, p. 

67) divided egg-laying activity into two 

distinct periods with respect to 

elevation. Populations at elevations 

below 5,900 feet (ft) (1,798 meters (m)) 

tended to lay eggs from spring through 

late summer, with most activity taking 

place before June. Populations above 

5,900 ft (1,798 m) bred in June, July, and 

August. Scott and Jennings (1985, p. 16) 

found a similar seasonal pattern of 

reproductive activity in New Mexico 

(February through September), as did 

Frost and Platz (1983, p. 67), although 

they did not note elevational 

differences. Additionally, Scott and 

Jennings (1985, p. 16) noted reduced egg 

laying in May and June. Zweifel (1968, 

p. 45) noted that breeding in the early 

part of the year appeared to be limited 

to sites where water temperatures do not 

get too low, such as spring-fed sites. 

Frogs at warm springs may lay eggs 

year-round (Scott and Jennings 1985, p. 

16). Also, females attach spherical 

masses of fertilized eggs, ranging in 

number from 300 to 1,485 eggs, to 

submerged vegetation (Sredl and 

Jennings 2005, p. 547). 

Eggs hatch in approximately 8 to 14 

days depending on temperature (Sredl 

and Jennings 2005, p. 547). After 

hatching, tadpoles remain in the water, 

where they feed and grow. Tadpoles 

turn into juvenile frogs in 3 to 9 months 

(Sredl and Jennings 2005, p. 547). 

Juvenile frogs are typically 1.4 to 1.6 in 

(35 to 40 millimeters (mm)) in overall 

body length. Males reach sexual 

maturity at 2.1 to 2.2 in (5.3 to 5.6 cm), 

a size they can attain in less than a year 

(Sredl and Jennings 2005, p. 548). 

The diet of the Chiricahua leopard 

frog includes primarily invertebrates 

such as beetles, true bugs, and flies, but 

fish and snails are also taken (Christman 

and Cummer 2006, pp. 9–18). An adult 

was documented eating a hummingbird 

in southeastern Arizona (Field et al. 

2003, p. 235). Chiricahua leopard frogs 

can be found active both day and night, 

but adults tend to be active more at 

night than juveniles (Sredl and Jennings 

2005, p. 547). Chiricahua leopard frogs 

presumably experience very high 

mortality (greater than 90 percent) in the 

egg and early tadpole stages, high 

mortality when the tadpole turns into a 

juvenile frog, and then relatively low 

mortality when the frogs are adults (Zug 

et al. 2001, p. 303; Service 2007, pp. 

C10–C12). Under ideal conditions, 

Chiricahua leopard frogs may live as 

long as 10 years in the wild (Platz et al. 

1997, p. 553). 

Geographical Range and Distribution 

The range of the Chiricahua leopard 

frog includes central and southeastern 

Arizona; west-central and southwestern 

New Mexico; and in Mexico, 

northeastern Sonora, the Sierra Madre 

Occidental of northwestern and westcentral Chihuahua, and possibly as far 

south as northern Durango (Platz and 

Mecham 1984, p. 347.1; Degenhardt et 

al. 1996, p. 87; Sredl and Jennings 2005, 

p. 546; Brennan and Holycross 2006, p. 

44; Lemos-Espinal and Smith 2007, pp. 

287, 579; Rorabaugh 2008, p. 32). The 

distribution of the species in Mexico is 

unclear due to limited survey work and 

the presence of closely related taxa 

(especially Lithobates lemosespinali (no 

common name)) in the southern part of 

the range of the Chiricahua leopard frog. 

Based on 2009 data, the species still 

occurs in most major drainages in 

Arizona and New Mexico where it 

occurred historically; the exception to 

this is the Little Colorado River drainage 

in Arizona. The species is apparently 

extirpated from the Chiricahua 

Mountains of Arizona, which harbored 

the type locality. In Arizona and New 

Mexico, the species likely occurs at 

about 14 and 16 to 19 percent of its 

historical localities, respectively 

(Service 2007, p. 6). 

Habitat 

Within its geographical range, 

breeding populations of this species 

historically inhabited a variety of 

aquatic habitats (Service 2007, p. 3); 

however, the species is now limited 

primarily to headwater streams and 

springs, and livestock tanks into which 

nonnative predators (e.g., sportfishes, 

American bullfrogs (Lithobates 

catesbeianus), crayfish (Orconectes 

virilis), barred tiger salamanders 

(Ambystoma mavortium mavortium)) 

have not yet invaded or been 

introduced, or where the numbers of 

nonnative predators are low and 

habitats are complex, allowing 

Chiricahua leopard frogs to coexist with 

these species (Service 2007, p. 15). The 

large valley-bottom cienegas (midelevation wetland communities 

typically surrounded by relatively arid 

environments), rivers, and lakes where 

the species occurred historically are 

populated with nonnative predators at 

densities with which the Chiricahua 

leopard frog cannot coexist. 

Dispersal 

Although one of the most aquatic of 

southwestern leopard frogs (Degenhardt 

et al. 1996, p. 86), Chiricahua leopard 

frogs are known to move among aquatic 

sites, and such movements are crucial 

for conserving metapopulations. A 

metapopulation is a set of local 

populations that interact via individuals 

moving between local populations 

(Hanski and Gilpin 1991, p. 7). If local 

populations are extirpated through 

drought, disease, or other factors, the 

populations can be recolonized via 

dispersal from adjacent populations. 

Hence, the long-term viability of 

metapopulations may be enhanced over 

that of isolated populations, even 

though local populations experience 

periodic extirpations. To determine 

whether metapopulation structure exists 

in a specific group of local populations, 

the dispersal capabilities of the frog 

must be understood. Based on a review 

of available information, the recovery 

plan (Service 2007, pp. D–2, D–3, K–3) 

provides a rule of thumb on dispersal 

capabilities. Chiricahua leopard frogs 

are reasonably likely to disperse 1.0 

mile (mi) (1.6 kilometers (km)) overland, 

3.0 mi (4.8 km) along ephemeral or 

intermittent drainages (water existing 

only briefly), and 5.0 mi (8.0 km) along 

perennial water courses (water present 

at all times of the year), or some 

combination thereof not to exceed 5.0 

mi (8.0 km). This is often referred to as 

the ‘‘1–3–5 rule’’ of dispersal. 

Summary of Factors Affecting the 

Species 

Section 4 of the Act and its 

implementing regulations (50 CFR part 

424) set forth the procedures for adding 

species to the Federal Lists of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants (Lists). A species may be 

determined to be endangered or 

threatened due to one or more of the 

five factors described in section 4(a)(1) 

of the Act: (A) The present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) 

overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) 

the inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms; and (E) other natural or 

manmade factors affecting its continued 

existence. The final listing rule for the 

Chiricahua leopard frog (67 FR 40790; 

June 13, 2002) contained a discussion of 

these five factors, as did the proposed 

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). 

Threats discussed in the previous listing 

rules are still affecting the Chiricahua 

leopard frog today. Please refer to these 

rules or the Chiricahua leopard frog 

recovery plan (Service 2007; pp. 18–45) 

for a more detailed analysis of the 

threats affecting the species. Because we 

no longer recognize the Ramsey Canyon 

leopard frog as a distinct species and 

consider it to be synonymous with the 

Chiricahua leopard frog, we reanalyzed 

factors relevant to the entire listed entity 

below. However, because all the threats 

from the previous rules still apply, we 

provide a summary of those below. 

A. The Present or Threatened 

Destruction, Modification, or 

Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range 

The recovery plan lists the following 

threats to habitat or range of the 

Chiricahua leopard frog: Mining, 

including mining-related contaminants; 

other contaminants; dams; diversions; 

stream channelization; groundwater 

pumping; woodcutting; urban and 

agricultural development; road 

construction; grazing by livestock and 

elk; climate change; and altered fire 

regimes (Service 2007, pp. 31–37). 

Although these threats are widespread 

and varied, a threats assessment that 

was accomplished as part of the 

recovery plan showed chytridiomycosis 

and predation by nonnative species as 

consistently more important threats 

than these habitat-based factors (Service 

2007, pp. 20–27). 

Chiricahua leopard frogs are fairly 

tolerant of variations in water quality, 

but likely do not persist in waters 

severely polluted with cattle feces 

(Service 2007, p. 34), or runoff from 

mine tailings or leach ponds (Rathbun 

1969, pp. 1–3; U.S. Bureau of Land 

Management 1998, p. 26; Service 2007, 

p. 36). Furthermore, variation in pH, 

ultraviolet radiation, and temperature, 

as well as predation stress, can alter the 

potency of chemical effects (Akins and 

Wofford 1999, p. 107; Monson et al. 

1999, pp. 309–311; Reylea 2004, pp. 

1081–1084). Chemicals may also serve 

as a stressor that makes frogs more 

susceptible to disease, such as 

chytridiomycosis (see discussion under 

Factor C below) (Parris and Baud 2004, 

p. 344). The effects of pesticides and 

other chemicals on amphibians can be 

complex because of indirect effects on 

the amphibian environment, direct 

lethal and sublethal effects on 

individuals, and interactions between 

contaminants and other factors 

associated with amphibian decline 

(Sparling 2003, pp. 1101–1120; Reylea 

2008, pp. 367–374). 

A copper mine (the Rosemont Mine) 

has been proposed in the northeastern 

portion of the Santa Rita Mountains, 

Pima County, Arizona (recovery unit 2), 

the footprint of which includes several 

sites recently occupied by Chiricahua 

leopard frogs. Recent research indicates 

that Chiricahua leopard frog tadpoles 

are sensitive to cadmium and copper 

above certain levels (Little and Calfee 

2008, pp. 6–10), making the 

introduction of copper into Chiricahua 

leopard frog habitat a possible 

significant threat. No analyses have 

been conducted yet to quantify how the 

frogs and their habitats may be affected 

in that region, which potentially 

includes the Bureau of Land 

Management’s Las Cienegas National 

Riparian Conservation Area; however, a 

draft environmental impact statement 

will likely be published in 2011. 

The Southwest Endangered Species 

Act Team (2008, pp. iii-IV–5) published 

‘‘Chiricahua leopard frog (Lithobates 

[Rana] chiricahuensis) considerations 

for making effects determinations and 

recommendations for reducing and 

avoiding adverse effects,’’ which 

included detailed descriptions of how 

many different types of projects, 

including fire management, 

construction, native fish recovery, and 

livestock management projects, may 

affect the frog and its habitat. This 

document, in addition to the recovery 

plan (Service 2007, pp. 31–37), can be 

referenced for more information about 

habitat-related threats to. Habitat-related 

threats to the Chiricahua leopard frog, 

while not the most important factors 

threatening the species, nevertheless 

affect the Chiricahua leopard frog such 

that the species is likely to become 

endangered within the foreseeable 

future. 

B. Overutilization for Commercial, 

Recreational, Scientific, or Educational 

Purposes 

Even though the final listing rule (67 

FR 40790; June 13, 2002) discussed 

over-collection for the pet trade as a 

possible threat, we have no information 

that leads us to believe that 

overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes is currently a threat to the 

Chiricahua leopard frog. 

C. Disease and Predation 

The threats assessment conducted 

during the preparation of the recovery 

plan (Service 2007, pp. 18–45) found 

that disease (chytridiomycosis) and 

predation by nonnative species 

(bullfrogs, crayfish, fish, and tiger 

salamanders) are the most important 

threats to the Chiricahua leopard frog. 

Disease 

In some areas, Chiricahua leopard frog 

populations are known to be seriously 

affected by chytridiomycosis. 

Chytridiomycosis is an introduced 

fungal skin disease caused by the 

organism Batrachochytrium 

dendrobatidis or ‘‘Bd.’’ Voyles et al. 

(2009) hypothesized that Bd disrupts 

normal regulatory functioning of frog 

skin, and evidence suggests that 

electrolyte depletion and osmotic 

imbalance that occur in amphibians 

with severe chytridiomycosis are 

sufficient to cause mortality. This 

disease has been associated with 

numerous population extirpations, 

particularly in New Mexico, and with 

major die-offs in other populations of 

Chiricahua leopard frogs (Service 2007). 

Predation 

Prior to the invasion of perennial 

waters by predatory, nonnative species 

(American bullfrog, crayfish, fish 

species), the frog was historically found 

in a variety of aquatic habitat types. 

Today, leopard frogs in the 

southwestern United States are so 

strongly impacted by harmful nonnative 

species, which are most prevalent in 

perennial waters, that the leopard frogs’ 

occupied niche is increasingly restricted 

to the uncommon environments that do 

not contain these nonnative predators, 

and these environments now tend to be 

ephemeral and unpredictable. Witte et 

al. (2008, p. 378) found that sites with 

disappearances of Chiricahua leopard 

frogs were 2.6 times more likely to have 

introduced crayfish than were control 

sites. Unfortunately, few sites with 

bullfrogs were included in the Witte et 

al. (2008, pp. 375–383) study, and at 

many sites, there was no identification 

of the species of fish present. 

Summary of Factor C 

Overall, the Chiricahua leopard frog 

has made modest population gains in 

Arizona in spite of disease and 

predation, but is apparently declining in 

New Mexico because of these threats. 

We consider disease, specifically 

chytridiomycosis, and predation by 

nonnative species to be threats affecting 

the species such that the species is 

likely to become endangered within the 

foreseeable future. 

D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory 

Mechanisms 

The Chiricahua leopard frog is 

currently listed as a threatened species 

(67 FR 40790; June 13, 2002) with a 

special rule (see 50 CFR 17.43(b)) to 

exempt operation and maintenance of 

livestock tanks on non-Federal lands 

from the section 9 take prohibitions of 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

14130 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

the Act. Even with regulatory 

protections of the Act currently in place, 

nonnative species used for fishing baits 

in Chiricahua leopard frog habitats pose 

a significant threat to the Chiricahua 

leopard frog; use of these nonnative 

species as fishing baits presents a 

vehicle for the distribution of these 

often predatory or competitive bait 

species into frog habitat and for the 

dissemination of deadly diseases to the 

frog. Picco and Collins (2008, pp. 1585– 

1587) found waterdogs (tiger 

salamanders; Ambystoma tigrinum) 

infected with chytridiomycosis in 

Arizona bait shops, and waterdogs 

infected with ranavirus in Arizona, New 

Mexico, and Colorado bait shops. 

Furthermore, they found that 26 to 67 

percent of anglers released tiger 

salamanders bought as bait into the 

waters where they fish, and 4 percent of 

bait shops released tiger salamanders 

back into the wild after they were 

housed in shops with infected animals, 

despite the fact that release of live 

salamanders is prohibited by Arizona 

Game and Fish Commission Orders. 

This study showed the inadequacy of 

current State regulations in regard to 

preventing the spread of amphibian 

diseases via the waterdog bait trade. 

Even though the Chiricahua leopard frog 

is currently listed under the Endangered 

Species Act as a threatened species, 

additional regulation or increased 

enforcement of existing regulations or 

both are needed to stem the spread of 

amphibian diseases via use of waterdogs 

for bait. Therefore, we consider the 

inadequacy of current regulatory 

mechanisms to prevent the spread of 

amphibian diseases via the bait trade to 

be a threat such that the species is likely 

to become endangered within the 

foreseeable future. 

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors 

Affecting Its Continued Existence 

Small Populations 

Among the potential threats in this 

category discussed in the Chiricahua 

leopard frog recovery plan (Service 

2007, pp. i-M–17) and the final listing 

rule (67 FR 40790; June 13, 2002), are 

genetic and stochastic effects that 

manifest in small populations. 

Specifically, small populations are 

vulnerable to extirpation due to random 

variations in age structure and sex 

ratios, as well as from disease or other 

natural events that a larger population is 

more likely to survive. Inbreeding 

depression and loss of genetic diversity 

in small populations can also reduce the 

fitness of individuals and the ability of 

a population to adapt to change. The 

recent genetic study revealed no 

systemic lack of genetic diversity within 

the Chiricahua leopard frog as a species 

(Herrmann et al. 2009, pp. 12–17). In 

fact, populations were quite variable; up 

to 16 different genetic groupings were 

found. This does not preclude the 

possibility that individual populations 

may suffer from genetic or demographic 

problems, but the study shows the 

species retains good genetic variability. 

Climate Change 

The Chiricahua leopard frog recovery 

plan (Service 2007, pp. 40–43) describes 

anticipated effects of climate change on 

the Chiricahua leopard frog. The plan 

cited literature indicating that 

temperatures rose in the 20th century 

and warming is predicted to continue 

over the 21st century (Service 2007, pp. 

40–43). Climate models are less certain 

about predicted trends in precipitation, 

but the southwestern United States is 

expected to become drier. Since the 

recovery plan was prepared, the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change (IPCC) (2007, pp. 1–8) published 

a report stating that global warming is 

occurring and that precipitation patterns 

are being affected. 

According to the IPCC report, global 

mean precipitation is anticipated to 

increase, but not uniformly (IPCC 2007, 

p. 8). In the American Southwest and 

elsewhere in the middle latitudes, 

precipitation is expected to decrease. 

There is also high confidence that many 

semi-arid areas like the western United 

States will suffer a decrease in water 

resources due to climate change, as a 

result of less annual mean precipitation 

and reduced length of snow season and 

snow depth (IPCC 2007, p. 8). Although 

most climate models predict a drying 

trend in the 21st century in the 

southwestern United States, these 

predictions are less certain than 

predicted warming trends. The models 

do not predict summer precipitation 

well, and typically at least half of 

precipitation within the range of the 

Chiricahua leopard frog occurs in the 

summer months (Brown 1982, pp. 58– 

62; Guido 2008, p. 5). Furthermore, 

there have been no trends either in 

summer rainfall over the last 100 years 

in Arizona (Guido 2008, pp. 3–5), or 

since 1955 in annual precipitation in 

the western United States (van Mantgem 

et al. 2009, p. 523). On the other hand, 

all severe, multi-year droughts in the 

southwestern United States and 

northwestern Mexico have been 

associated with La Nin ̃ a events (Seager 

et al. 2007, p. 3), during which sea 

surface temperatures in the tropical 

Pacific decline. Climate models predict 

that drought driven by La Nin ̃ a events 

will be deeper and more profound than 

any during the last several hundred 

years (Seager et al. 2007, p. 3). 

Drought has likely contributed to loss 

of Chiricahua leopard frog populations 

since the species was originally listed in 

2002. Stock tank populations are 

particularly vulnerable to loss, because 

they tend to dry out during periods of 

below normal precipitation. These 

trends are likely to continue, but the 

situation is complicated by interactions 

with other factors. For example, the 

effects of drought cannot be separated 

from the effects of introduced aquatic 

predators, because drought will affect 

those predators as well as populations 

of Chiricahua leopard frogs. The 

interaction between predators and 

drought resistance of frog habitats is 

often a delicate balance. Stock tanks are 

likely an important habitat for 

Chiricahua leopard frogs in part because 

these sites dry out periodically, which 

rids them of most aquatic predators. 

Leopard frogs can often withstand 

drying of stock tanks for 30 days or 

more, whereas fish and bullfrogs may 

not. However, if stock tanks dry for 

longer periods of time, neither leopard 

frogs nor introduced predators may be 

capable of persisting. Drought will 

reduce habitats of both leopard frogs 

and introduced predators, but exactly 

how that will affect the Chiricahua 

leopard frog will probably be sitespecific. At this time, it is difficult to 

predict how drought will impact the 

overall species’ status, but Chiricahua 

leopard frog sites could be buffered from 

the effects of drought by wells or other 

anthropogenic water supplies. Even 

though drought may contribute to loss 

of site-specific populations, we do not 

consider it to be a threat to the species 

at this time or in the foreseeable future. 

Additionally, the effects of 

chytridiomycosis on frogs are related to 

water temperature. Sites where 

Chiricahua leopard frogs coexist with 

the disease are typically at lower 

elevations and are warmer sites (Service 

2007, p. 26). As a result, if temperatures 

increase as predicted, perhaps more 

populations will be able to persist with 

the disease. Thus climate change, 

particularly in the form of increased 

water temperatures, does not seem to 

pose a significant threat to the 

Chiricahua leopard frog into the 

foreseeable future. 

Summary of Factor E 

The Chiricahua leopard frog recovery 

plan (Service 2007) describes genetic 

and stochastic effects that manifest in 

small populations and the anticipated 

effects of climate change on the 

Chiricahua leopard frog as potential 

threats to the species. Herrmann et al.’s 

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), 

however, revealed no systemic lack of 

genetic diversity within Chiricahua 

leopard frog populations. Moreover, 

climate change, particularly in the form 

of increased water temperatures, does 

not seem to pose a significant threat to 

the Chiricahua leopard frog into the 

foreseeable future. As such, other 

natural or manmade factors affecting the 

species’ continued existence do not 

appear to be a threat affecting the 

Chiricahua leopard frog such that the 

species is likely to become endangered 

within the foreseeable future. 

Proposed Determination 

We have carefully assessed the best 

scientific and commercial information 

available regarding the past, present, 

and future threats to the Chiricahua 

leopard frog. In summary, the most 

significant threats to the Chiricahua 

leopard frog include the effects of the 

disease chytridiomycosis, which has 

been associated with major die-offs in 

some populations of Chiricahua leopard 

frogs (Service 2007, pp. B8–B88), and 

predation by nonnative species (Factor 

C). Additional factors affecting the 

species include degradation and loss of 

habitat as a result of water diversions 

and groundwater pumping, poor 

livestock management, altered fire 

regimes due to fire suppression and 

livestock grazing, mining, contaminants, 

development, and other human 

activities; and inadequate regulatory 

mechanisms regarding introduction of 

nonnative bait species (Factors A and D) 

(67 FR 40800–40806, June 13, 2002; 

Sredl and Jennings 2005, pp. 546–549; 

Service 2007, pp. B1–B88). 

Evidence indicates that, since the 

time of listing, the species has probably 

made modest population gains in 

Arizona, but is apparently declining in 

New Mexico. Overall in the United 

States, the status of the Chiricahua 

leopard frog is either static or 

improving. The status and trends for the 

species are unknown in Mexico. An 

aggressive recovery program is 

underway in the United States, and 

reestablishment of populations, creation 

of refugial populations, and habitat 

enhancement and creation have helped 

stabilize or improve the status of the 

species in some areas. Although 

progress has been made to secure some 

existing populations and establish new 

populations, the status of the species 

continues to be affected by threats such 

that the species is likely to become 

endangered within the foreseeable 

future throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range. Due primarily to 

ongoing conservation measures and the 

existence of relatively robust 

populations and metapopulations, we 

have determined that the species is not 

in immediate danger of extinction (i.e., 

on the brink of extinction). However, 

because we believe that the present 

threats are likely to continue in the 

future (such as chytrid fungus and 

nonnative predators spreading and 

increasing in prevalence and range, 

affecting more populations of the 

leopard frog, thus increasing the threats 

in the foreseeable future), we have 

determined that the Chiricahua leopard 

frog is likely to become in danger of 

extinction throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range in the foreseeable 

future. Therefore, we determine that the 

Chiricahua leopard frog meets the 

definition of a threatened species under 

the Act. 

Available Conservation Measures 

Conservation measures provided to 

species listed as endangered or 

threatened under the Act include 

recognition, recovery actions, 

requirements for Federal protection, and 

prohibitions against certain practices. 

Recognition through listing results in 

public awareness and conservation by 

Federal, State, and local agencies; 

private organizations; and individuals. 

The Act provides for possible 

cooperation with the States and requires 

that recovery actions be carried out for 

all listed species. The protection 

required of Federal agencies and the 

prohibitions against certain activities 

involving listed wildlife are discussed 

in Effects of Critical Habitat Designation 

and are further discussed, in part, 

below. 

Section 7(a) of the Act requires 

Federal agencies to evaluate their 

actions with respect to any species that 

is proposed or listed as endangered or 

threatened and with respect to its 

critical habitat, if any is being 

designated. Regulations implementing 

this interagency cooperation provision 

of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part 

402. Section 7(a)(4) requires Federal 

agencies to confer with the Service on 

any action that is likely to jeopardize 

the continued existence of a species 

proposed for listing or result in 

destruction or adverse modification of 

proposed critical habitat. If a species is 

listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) 

requires Federal agencies to ensure that 

activities they authorize, fund, or carry 

out are not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of the species or 

destroy or adversely modify its critical 

habitat. If a Federal action may affect a 

listed species or its critical habitat, the 

responsible Federal agency must enter 

into formal consultation with the 

Service. 

Federal agency actions within the 

species’ habitat that may require 

conference or consultation or both as 

described in the preceding paragraph 

include management and any other 

landscape-altering activities on Federal 

lands administered by the Department 

of Defense, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, U.S. Forest Service, and Bureau 

of Land Management; issuance of 

section 404 Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 

1251 et seq.) permits by the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers; and construction 

and maintenance of roads or highways 

by the Federal Highway Administration. 

The Act and its implementing 

regulations set forth a series of general 

prohibitions and exceptions that apply 

to all endangered wildlife. The 

prohibitions, codified at 50 CFR 17.21 

for endangered wildlife and 50 CFR 

17.31 for threatened wildlife, in part, 

make it illegal for any person subject to 

the jurisdiction of the United States to 

take (includes harass, harm, pursue, 

hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, 

or collect; or to attempt any of these), 

import, export, ship in interstate 

commerce in the course of commercial 

activity, or sell or offer for sale in 

interstate or foreign commerce any 

listed species. It is also illegal to 

possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or 

ship any such wildlife that has been 

taken illegally. Certain exceptions apply 

to agents of the Service and State 

conservation agencies. 

We may issue permits to carry out 

otherwise prohibited activities 

involving endangered or threatened 

wildlife species under certain 

circumstances. Regulations governing 

permits are codified at 50 CFR 17.22 for 

endangered species and 50 CFR 17.32 

for threatened wildlife. You may obtain 

permits for scientific purposes, to 

enhance the propagation or survival of 

the species, and for incidental take in 

connection with otherwise lawful 

activities. 

It is our policy, as published in the 

Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 

34272), to identify to the maximum 

extent practicable at the time a species 

is listed, those activities that would or 

would not constitute a violation of 

section 9 of the Act. The intent of this 

policy is to increase public awareness of 

the effect of a proposed listing on 

proposed and ongoing activities within 

the range of species proposed for listing. 

The following activities could 

potentially result in a violation of 

section 9 of the Act; this list is not 

comprehensive: 

(1) Unauthorized collecting, handling, 

possessing, selling, delivering, carrying, 

or transporting of the species, including 

import or export across State lines and 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

14132 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

international boundaries, except for 

properly documented antique 

specimens of these taxa at least 100 

years old, as defined by section 10(h)(1) 

of the Act. 

(2) Introduction of nonnative species 

that compete with or prey upon the 

Chiricahua leopard frog, such as the 

introduction of competing, nonnative 

crayfish to the States of Arizona or New 

Mexico. 

(3) The unauthorized release of 

biological control agents that attack any 

life stage of this species. 

(4) Unauthorized modification of the 

channel or water flow of any stream or 

water body in which the Chiricahua 

leopard frog is known to occur. 

Questions regarding whether specific 

activities would constitute a violation of 

section 9 of the Act should be directed 

to the Arizona Ecological Services Field 

Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT). Requests for copies of the 

regulations concerning listed animals 

and general inquiries regarding 

prohibitions and permits may be 

addressed to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Endangered Species Permits, 

P.O. Box 1306, Albuquerque, NM 87103; 

telephone: 505–248–6633; facsimile: 

505–248–6788. 

Critical Habitat 

Background 

Critical habitat is defined in section 3 

of the Act as: 

(i) The specific areas within the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species, at the time it is listed in 

accordance with the Act, on which are 

found those physical or biological 

features (PBFs): 

(I) Essential to the conservation of the 

species and 

(II) Which may require special 

management considerations or 

protection; and 

(ii) specific areas outside the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species at the time it is listed, upon a 

determination that such areas are 

essential for the conservation of the 

species. 

Conservation, as defined under 

section 3 of the Act, means to use and 

the use of all methods and procedures 

that are necessary to bring an 

endangered or threatened species to the 

point at which the measures provided 

under the Act are no longer necessary. 

Such methods and procedures include, 

but are not limited to, all activities 

associated with scientific resources 

management such as research, census, 

and law enforcement; habitat 

acquisition, enhancement, protection, 

and maintenance; propagation and 

population reestablishment or 

augmentation; and, in the extraordinary 

case where population pressures within 

a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise 

relieved, may include regulated taking. 

Critical habitat receives protection 

under section 7 of the Act through the 

prohibition against Federal agencies 

carrying out, funding, or authorizing 

activities likely to result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat. Section 7(a)(2) requires 

consultation on Federal actions that 

may affect critical habitat. The 

designation of critical habitat does not 

affect land ownership or establish a 

refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or 

other conservation area. Such 

designation does not allow the 

government or public to access private 

or other non-Federal lands. Such 

designation does not require 

implementation of restoration, recovery, 

or enhancement measures by nonFederal landowners. Where a landowner 

seeks or requests Federal agency 

funding or authorization for an action 

that may affect a listed species or 

critical habitat, the consultation 

requirements of section 7(a)(2) would 

apply, but even in the event of a 

destruction or adverse modification 

finding, the Federal action agency’s and 

the applicant’s obligation is not to 

restore or recover the species, but to 

avoid destruction or adverse 

modification of critical habitat. 

For inclusion in a critical habitat 

designation, the habitat within the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species at the time it was listed must 

contain the PBFs essential to the 

conservation of the species, and be 

included only if those features may 

require special management 

considerations or protection. Critical 

habitat designations identify, to the 

extent known using the best scientific 

and commercial data available, habitat 

areas that provide essential life cycle 

needs of the species (areas on which are 

found the PBFs laid out in the 

appropriate quantity and spatial 

arrangement for the conservation of the 

species). Under the Act and regulations 

at 50 CFR 424.12, we can designate 

critical habitat in areas outside the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species at the time it was listed only 

when we determine that those areas are 

essential for the conservation of the 

species and that designation limited to 

those areas occupied at the time of 

listing would be inadequate to ensure 

the conservation of the species. 

Section 4 of the Act requires that we 

designate critical habitat on the basis of 

the best scientific and commercial data 

available. Further, our Policy on 

Information Standards under the 

Endangered Species Act (published in 

the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 

FR 34271)), the Information Quality Act 

(section 515 of the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act for 

Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106–554; H.R. 

5658)), and our associated Information 

Quality Guidelines, provide criteria, 

establish procedures, and provide 

guidance to ensure that our decisions 

are based on the best scientific data 

available. They require our biologists, to 

the extent consistent with the Act and 

with the use of the best scientific data 

available, to use primary and original 

sources of information as the basis for 

recommendations to designate critical 

habitat. 

When we are determining which areas 

should be designated as critical habitat, 

our primary source of information is 

generally the information developed 

during the listing process for the 

species. Additional information sources 

may include the recovery plan for the 

species; articles in peer-reviewed 

journals; conservation plans developed 

by Federal agencies, States, or local 

governments; scientific status surveys 

and studies; biological assessments; or 

other unpublished materials and expert 

opinion or personal knowledge. 

Habitat is often dynamic, and species 

may move from one area to another over 

time. This is particularly true of the 

Chiricahua leopard frog. Furthermore, 

we recognize that critical habitat 

designated at a particular point in time 

may not include all of the habitat areas 

that we may later determine are 

necessary for the recovery of the 

species. For these reasons, a critical 

habitat designation does not signal that 

habitat outside the designated area is 

unimportant or may not be required for 

recovery of the species. 

Areas that are important to the 

conservation of the species, but are 

outside the critical habitat designation, 

will continue to be subject to 

conservation actions we implement 

under section 7(a)(1) of the Act. Areas 

that support populations are also subject 

to the regulatory protections afforded by 

the section 7(a)(2) jeopardy standard, as 

determined on the basis of the best 

available scientific information at the 

time of the agency action. Federally 

funded or permitted projects affecting 

listed species outside their designated 

critical habitat areas may still result in 

jeopardy findings in some cases. 

Similarly, critical habitat designations 

made on the basis of the best available 

information at the time of designation 

will not control the direction and 

substance of future recovery plans, 

habitat conservation plans (HCPs), or 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 14133 

other species conservation planning 

efforts if new information available at 

the time of these planning efforts calls 

for a different outcome. 

Prudency Determination 

Section 4 of the Act, as amended, and 

implementing regulations (50 CFR 

424.12), require that, to the maximum 

extent prudent and determinable, the 

Secretary designate critical habitat at the 

time the species is determined to be 

endangered or threatened. Our 

regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(a)(1) state 

that the designation of critical habitat is 

not prudent when one or both of the 

following situations exist: (1) The 

species is threatened by taking or other 

activity and the identification of critical 

habitat can be expected to increase the 

degree of threat to the species; or (2) the 

designation of critical habitat would not 

be beneficial to the species. 

There is no documentation that the 

Chiricahua leopard frog is significantly 

threatened by collection. Although 

human visitation to Chiricahua leopard 

frog habitat carries with it the 

possibility of introducing infectious 

disease and potentially increasing other 

threats where the frogs occur, the 

locations of important recovery areas are 

already accessible to the public through 

Web sites, reports, online databases, and 

other easily accessible venues. 

Therefore, identifying and mapping 

critical habitat is unlikely to increase 

threats to the species or its habitat. In 

the absence of finding that the 

designation of critical habitat would 

increase threats to a species, if there are 

any benefits to a critical habitat 

designation, then a prudent finding is 

warranted. The potential benefits of 

critical habitat to the Chiricahua leopard 

frog include: (1) Triggering consultation 

under section 7 of the Act, in new areas 

for actions in which there may be a 

Federal nexus where it would not 

otherwise occur because, for example, it 

is or has become unoccupied or the 

occupancy is in question; (2) focusing 

conservation activities on the most 

essential features and areas; (3) 

providing educational benefits to State 

or county governments or private 

entities; and (4) preventing people from 

causing inadvertent harm to the species. 

Therefore, because we have determined 

that the designation of critical habitat 

will not likely increase the degree of 

threat to the species and may provide 

some measure of benefit, we find that 

designation of critical habitat is prudent 

for the Chiricahua leopard frog. 

Proposed Critical Habitat Designation 

for Chiricahua Leopard Frog 

Background 

It is our intent to discuss only those 

topics directly relevant to the 

designation of critical habitat for the 

Chiricahua leopard frog in this section 

of the proposed rule. 

Physical and Biological Features 

In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) 

and 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act and the 

regulations at 50 CFR 424.12, in 

determining which areas to propose as 

critical habitat within the geographical 

area occupied at the time of listing, we 

consider the physical and biological 

features (PBFs) essential to the 

conservation of the species that may 

require special management 

considerations or protection. These 

include, but are not limited to: 

(1) Space for individual and 

population growth and for normal 

behavior; 

(2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or 

other nutritional or physiological 

requirements; 

(3) Cover or shelter; 

(4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, or 

rearing (or development) of offspring; 

and 

(5) Habitats that are protected from 

disturbance or are representative of the 

historical, geographical, and ecological 

distributions of a species. 

We derived the specific PBFs required 

for the Chiricahua leopard frog from the 

studies of this species’ habitat, ecology, 

and life history as described below. 

These needs are identified in the 

species’ recovery plan (Service 2007), 

particularly in the Habitat 

Characteristics and Ecosystems section 

of Part 1: Background (pp. 15–18); in the 

Recovery Strategy in Part 11: Recovery 

(pp. 49–51); in Appendix C—Population 

and Habitat Viability Analysis (pp. C8– 

C35); and in Appendix D—Guidelines 

for Establishing and Augmenting 

Chiricahua Leopard Frog Populations, 

and for Refugia and Holding Facilities 

(pp. D2–D5). Additional insight is 

provided by Degenhardt et al. (1996, pp. 

85–87), Sredl and Jennings (2005, pp. 

546–549), and Witte et al. (2008, pp. 5– 

8). 

Space for Individual and Population 

Growth and for Normal Behavior 

Generally, Chiricahua leopard frogs 

need aquatic breeding and 

overwintering sites, both in the context 

of metapopulations and as isolated 

populations. For this species, a 

metapopulation should consist of at 

least four local populations that exhibit 

regular recruitment, three of which are 

continually in existence. Local 

populations should be arranged in 

geographical space in such a way that 

no local population will be greater than 

5.0 mi (8.0 km) from at least one other 

local population during some part of the 

year unless facilitated dispersal is 

planned (Service 2007, p. K–3). 

Movement of frogs among local 

populations is reasonably certain to 

occur if those populations are separated 

by no more than 1.0 mi (1.6 km) 

overland, 3.0 mi (4.8 km) along 

ephemeral or intermittent drainages, 5.0 

mi (8.0 km) along perennial water 

courses, or some combination thereof 

not to exceed 5.0 mi (8.0 km) (the ‘‘1– 

3–5 rule’’ of dispersal, see ‘‘Dispersal’’ in 

the Background section above). 

Metapopulations should include at least 

one large, healthy subpopulation (e.g., at 

least 100 adults) in order to achieve an 

acceptable level of viability as a larger 

unit. If aquatic habitats can be managed 

for persistence through drought periods 

(e.g., supplying water via a pipeline or 

a well, lining a pond), overall 

metapopulation viability may be 

achievable with a smaller number of 

individuals per subpopulation (e.g., 40 

to 50 adults) (Service 2007, p. K–3). 

Isolated breeding populations are also 

essential for the conservation of the frog 

because they buffer against disease and 

disease organisms that can spread 

rapidly through a metapopulation as 

infected individuals move among 

aquatic sites. An isolated, but robust, 

breeding population should be beyond 

the reasonable dispersal distance (see 

‘‘Dispersal’’ in the Background section) 

from other Chiricahua leopard frog 

populations, contain at least 60 adults, 

and exhibit a diverse age class 

distribution that is relatively stable over 

time. A population of 40 to 50 adults 

can also be robust or strong if it resides 

in a drought-resistant habitat (Service 

2007, p. K–5). At least two 

metapopulations and one isolated 

robust population are needed in each 

recovery unit to meet the recovery 

criteria in the recovery plan (Service 

2007, p. 53). 

Food, Water, Air, Light, Minerals, or 

Other Nutritional or Physiological 

Requirements 

Chiricahua leopard frogs are fairly 

tolerant of variations in water quality, 

but likely do not persist in waters 

severely polluted with cattle feces 

(Service 2007, p. 34) or runoff from 

mine tailings or leach ponds (Rathbun 

1969, pp. 1–3; U.S. Bureau of Land 

Management 1998, p. 26; Service 2007, 

p. 36). Furthermore, variation in pH, 

ultraviolet radiation, and temperature, 

as well as predation stress, can alter the 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

14134 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

potency of chemical effects (Akins and 

Wofford 1999, p. 107; Monson et al. 

1999, pp. 309–311; Reylea 2004a, pp. 

1081–1084). Chemicals may also serve 

as a stressor that makes frogs more 

susceptible to disease, such as 

chytridiomycosis (Parris and Baud 2004, 

p. 344). The effects of pesticides and 

other chemicals on amphibians can be 

complex because of indirect effects on 

the amphibian environment, direct 

lethal and sublethal effects on 

individuals, and interactions between 

contaminants and other factors 

associated with amphibian decline 

(Sparling 2003, pp. 1101–1120; Reylea 

2008, pp. 367–374). 

Cover or Shelter 

Chiricahua leopard frogs are most 

often encountered in or very near water, 

generally at breeding locations. Only 

rarely are they found very far from 

water. That said, they can be found 

basking or foraging in riparian 

vegetation and on open banklines out to 

the edge of riparian vegetation. These 

upland areas provide essential foraging 

and basking sites. A combination of 

open ground and vegetation cover is 

desirable for basking and foraging, 

respectively. Vegetation in these areas 

provide habitat for prey species and 

protection from terrestrial predators 

(those living on dry land). In particular, 

Chiricahua leopard frogs use these 

upland areas during the summer rainy 

season. 

Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, or 

Rearing (or Development) of Offspring 

Aquatic breeding habitat is essential 

for providing space, food, and cover 

necessary to sustain all life stages of 

Chiricahua leopard frogs. Suitable 

breeding habitat consists of permanent 

or nearly permanent aquatic habitats 

from about 3,200 to 8,900 ft (975 to 

2,715 m) elevation with deep (greater 

than 20 in (0.5 m)) pools in which 

nonnative predators are absent or occur 

at such low densities and in complex 

habitats to allow persistence of 

Chiricahua leopard frogs (Service 2007, 

pp. 15–18, D–3). Included are cienegas 

or springs, pools, livestock tanks, lakes, 

reservoirs, streams, and rivers. Sites as 

small as 6.0-ft (1.8-m) diameter steel 

troughs can serve as important breeding 

sites, particularly if that population is 

part of a metapopulation that can be 

recolonized from adjacent sites if 

extirpation occurs. Some of the most 

robust extant breeding populations are 

in earthen livestock watering tanks. 

Absence of the disease chytridiomycosis 

is crucial for population persistence in 

some regions, particularly in westcentral New Mexico and at some other 

locales, as well. However, some 

populations persist with the disease 

(e.g., sites between Interstate 19 and the 

Baboquivari Mountains, Arizona) with 

few noticeable effects on demographics 

or survivorship. Persistence with 

disease is enhanced in warm springs 

and at lower elevations with warmer 

water (Service 2007, pp. 22–27, B67). 

To be considered essential breeding 

habitat, water must be permanent 

enough to support breeding, tadpole 

development to metamorphosis (change 

into a frog), and survival of frogs. 

Tadpole development lasts 3 to 9 

months, and some tadpoles overwinter 

(Sredl and Jennings 2005, p. 547). 

Juvenile and adult frogs need moisture 

for survival, including sites for 

hibernation. Overwintering sites of 

Chiricahua leopard frogs have not been 

investigated; however, hibernacula 

(shelter occupied during winter by 

inactive animals) of related species 

include sites at the bottom of welloxygenated ponds, burial in mud, or 

moist caves (Service 2007, p. 17). Given 

these requirements, sites that dry out for 

1 month or more will not provide 

essential breeding or overwintering 

habitat. However, occasional drying for 

short periods (less than 1 month) may 

be beneficial in that the frogs can 

survive, but nonnative predators, 

particularly fish, and in some cases, 

American bullfrogs and populations of 

aquatic forms of tiger salamanders, will 

be eliminated during the dry period 

(Service 2007, p. D3). Water quality 

requirements at breeding sites included 

having a pH equal to or greater than 5.6 

(Watkins-Colwell and Watkins-Colwell 

1998, p. 64), salinities less than 5 parts 

per thousand (Ruibal 1959, pp. 318– 

319), and very little chemical pollutants, 

including but not limited to heavy 

metals, pesticides, mine runoff, and fire 

retardants, where the pollutants do not 

exceed the tolerance of Chiricahua 

leopard frogs (Rathbun 1969, pp. 1–3; 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management 1998, 

p. 26; Boone and Bridges 2003, pp. 152– 

167; Calfee and Little 2003, pp. 1527– 

1531; Sparling 2003, pp. 1109–1111; 

Relyea 2004b, pp. 1741–1746; Service 

2007, p. 36; Little and Calfee 2008, pp. 

6–10). White (2004, pp. 53–54, 73–79, 

136–140) provides specific pesticide use 

guidelines for minimizing impacts to 

the Chiricahua leopard frog. 

Essential aquatic breeding sites 

require some open water. Chiricahua 

leopard frogs can be eliminated from 

sites that become entirely overgrown 

with cattails (Typha sp.) or other 

emergent plants. At the same time, frogs 

need some emergent or submerged 

vegetation, root masses, undercut banks, 

fractured rock substrates, or some 

combination thereof as refugia from 

predators and extreme climatic 

conditions (Sredl and Jennings 2005, p. 

547). In essential breeding habitat, if 

nonnative crayfish, predatory fishes, 

bullfrogs, or barred tiger salamanders 

are present, they occur only as rare 

dispersing individuals that do not 

breed, or are at low enough densities in 

habitats that are complex and with 

abundant escape cover (e.g., aquatic and 

emergent vegetation cover, diversity of 

moving and stationary water) that 

persistence of both Chiricahua leopard 

frogs and nonnative species can occur 

(Sredl and Howland 1995, pp. 383–384; 

Service 2007, pp. 20–22, D3; Witte et al. 

2008, pp. 7–8). 

Habitats that are protected from 

disturbance or are representative of the 

historical, geographical, and ecological 

distributions of a species. 

In some areas, Chiricahua leopard frog 

populations are known to be seriously 

affected by the fungal skin disease 

chytridiomycosis. This disease has been 

associated with numerous population 

extirpations, particularly in recovery 

unit 6 in New Mexico (Service 2007, pp. 

5–6, 24–27). The frog appears to be less 

susceptible to mortality from the disease 

in warmer waters and at lower 

elevations. The precise temperature at 

which frogs can coexist with the disease 

is unknown and may depend on a 

variety of factors; however, at Cuchillo 

Negro Warm Springs, Sierra County, 

New Mexico, Chiricahua and plains 

leopard frogs (Lithobates blairi) become 

uncommon to nonexistent where winter 

water temperatures drop below about 20 

degrees Celsius (°C) (68 degrees 

Fahrenheit (°F)) (Christman 2006a, p. 8). 

A pH of greater than 8 during at least 

part of the year may also limit the 

ability of the disease to be an effective 

pathogen (Service 2007, pp. 26–27). 

Furthermore, based on experience in 

Arizona, particularly the Huachuca 

Mountains, if Chiricahua leopard frogs 

are absent for a period of months or 

years, the disease organism may drop 

out of the system or become scarce 

enough that frogs can persist again if 

reestablished. Essential breeding 

habitats either lack chytridiomycosis or 

include conditions that allow for 

persistence of Chiricahua leopard frogs 

with the disease, as in warmer waters or 

at lower elevations. 

Dispersal Habitat 

Dispersal habitat provides routes for 

connectivity and gene flow among local 

populations within a metapopulation, 

which enhances the likelihood of 

metapopulation persistence and allows 

for recolonization of sites that are lost 

due to drought, disease, or other factors 

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; 

Service 2007, p. 50). Detailed studies of 

dispersal and metapopulation dynamics 

of Chiricahua leopard frogs have not 

been conducted; however, Jennings and 

Scott (1991, pp. 1–43) noted that 

maintenance of corridors used by 

dispersing juveniles and adults that 

connect separate populations may be 

critical to conserving populations of 

frogs. As a group, leopard frogs are 

surprisingly good at dispersal. In 

Michigan, young northern leopard frogs 

(Lithobates pipiens) commonly move up 

to 0.5 mi (0.8 km) from their birthplace, 

and three young males established 

residency up to 3.2 mi (5.2 km) away 

from where they were born (Dole 1971, 

p. 221). Movement may occur via 

dispersal of frogs or passive transport of 

tadpoles along stream courses. The 

maximum distance moved by a radiotelemetered Chiricahua leopard frog in 

New Mexico was 2.2 mi (3.5 km) in one 

direction along a drainage (Service 

2007, p. 18). In 1974, Frost and Bagnara 

(1977, p. 449) noted passive or active 

movement of Chiricahua and plains 

leopard frogs for 5 mi (8 km) or more 

along East Turkey Creek in the 

Chiricahua Mountains, Arizona. In 

August 1996, Rosen and Schwalbe 

(1998, p. 188) found up to 25 young 

adult and subadult Chiricahua leopard 

frogs at a roadside puddle in the San 

Bernardino Valley, Arizona. They 

believed that the only possible origin of 

these frogs was a stock tank located 3.5 

mi (5.5 km) away. In September 2009, 

15 to 20 Chiricahua leopard frogs were 

found at Pen ̃ a Blanca Lake west of 

Nogales. The nearest likely source 

population was Summit Reservoir, a 

straight line distance of 3.1 mi (4.9 km) 

overland or approximately 4.4 mi (7.0 

km) along intermittent drainages 

(Service 2010b, pp. 7–8). 

Movements away from water do not 

appear to be random. Streams are 

important dispersal corridors for young 

northern leopard frogs (Seburn et al. 

1997, pp. 68–70). Displaced northern 

leopard frogs will return to their place 

of origin, and may use olfactory, visual, 

or auditory cues, and possibly celestial 

orientation, as guides (Dole 1968, pp. 

395–398; 1972, pp. 275–276; Sinsch 

1991, pp. 542–544). Based on this and 

other information (Service 2007, pp. 12– 

14) and as noted in the Background 

section above, Chiricahua leopard frogs 

are reasonably likely to disperse 1.0 mi 

(1.6 km) overland, 3.0 mi (4.8 km) along 

ephemeral or intermittent drainages, 5.0 

mi (8.0 km) along perennial 

(continuous) water courses, or some 

combination thereof not to exceed 5.0 

mi (8.0 km). Dispersal habitat must 

provide corridors through which 

leopard frogs can move among aquatic 

breeding sites in metapopulations. 

These dispersal habitats will often be 

drainages connecting aquatic breeding 

sites, and may include ephemeral, 

intermittent, and perennial waters that 

are not suitable for breeding. The most 

likely dispersal routes may include 

combinations of ephemeral, 

intermittent, and perennial drainages, as 

well as uplands. Some vegetation cover 

for protection from predators, and 

aquatic sites that can serve as buffers 

against desiccation (drying) and stopovers for foraging (feeding) are desirable 

along dispersal routes. A lack of barriers 

that would block dispersal is critical. 

Features on the landscape likely to serve 

as partial or complete barriers to 

dispersal, include cliff faces and urban 

areas (Service 2007, p. D–3), reservoirs 

20 acres (ac) (50 hectares (ha)) or more 

in size that are stocked with sportfishes 

or other nonnative predators, highways, 

major dams, walls, or other structures 

that physically block movement 

(Andrews et al. 2008, pp. 124–132; 

Eigenbrod et al. 2009, pp. 32–40; 75 FR 

12818, March 17, 2010). The effects of 

highways on frog dispersal can be 

mitigated with frog fencing and culverts 

(Service 2007, pp. I7–I8). Unlike some 

other species of leopard frogs, 

Chiricahua leopard frogs have only 

rarely been found in association with 

agricultural fields; hence, agriculture 

may also serve as a barrier to movement. 

Primary Constituent Elements for the 

Chiricahua Leopard Frog 

Under the Act and its implementing 

regulations, we are required to identify 

the physical and biological features 

essential to the conservation of the 

Chiricahua leopard frog in areas 

occupied at the time of listing, focusing 

on the features’ primary constituent 

elements (PCEs). We consider primary 

constituent elements to be the elements 

of physical and biological features that, 

when laid out in the appropriate 

quantity and spatial arrangement to 

provide for a species’ life-history 

processes, are essential to the 

conservation of the species. 

Based on the above needs and our 

current knowledge of the life history, 

biology, and ecology of the species, and 

the habitat requirements for sustaining 

the essential life-history functions of the 

species, we have determined that the 

PCEs essential to the conservation of the 

Chiricahua leopard frog are: 

(1) Aquatic breeding habitat and 

immediately adjacent uplands 

exhibiting the following characteristics: 

(a) Perennial (water present during all 

seasons of the year) or nearly perennial 

pools or ponds at least 6.0 ft (1.8 m) in 

diameter and 20 in (0.5 m) in depth; 

(b) Wet in most years, and do not or 

only very rarely dry for more than a 

month; 

(c) pH greater than or equal to 5.6; 

(d) Salinity less than 5 parts per 

thousand; 

(e) Pollutants absent or minimally 

present at low enough levels that they 

are barely detectable; 

(f) Emergent and or submerged 

vegetation, root masses, undercut banks, 

fractured rock substrates, or some 

combination thereof; but emergent 

vegetation does not completely cover 

the surface of water bodies; 

(g) Nonnative crayfish, predatory 

fishes, bullfrogs, barred tiger 

salamanders, and other introduced 

predators absent or occurring at levels 

that do not preclude presence of the 

Chiricahua leopard frog; 

(h) Absence of chytridiomycosis, or if 

chytridiomycosis is present, then 

conditions that allow persistence of 

Chiricahua leopard frogs with the 

disease (e.g., water temperatures that do 

not drop below 20 °C (68 °F), pH of 

greater than 8 during at least part of the 

year); and 

(i) Uplands immediately adjacent to 

breeding sites that Chiricahua leopard 

frogs use for foraging and basking. 

(2) Dispersal habitat, consisting of 

ephemeral (water present for only a 

short time), intermittent, or perennial 

drainages that are generally not suitable 

for breeding, and associated uplands 

that provide overland movement 

corridors for frogs among breeding sites 

in a metapopulation with the following 

characteristics: 

(a) Are not more than 1.0 mi (1.6 km) 

overland, 3.0 mi (4.8 km) along 

ephemeral or intermittent drainages, 5.0 

mi (8.0 km) along perennial drainages, 

or some combination thereof not to 

exceed 5.0 mi (8.0 km); 

(b) Provide some vegetation cover for 

protection from predators, and in 

drainages, some ephemeral, 

intermittent, or perennial aquatic sites; 

and 

(c) Are free of barriers that block 

movement by Chiricahua leopard frogs, 

including urban, industrial, or 

agricultural development; reservoirs 

that are 50 ac (20 ha) or more in size and 

stocked with predatory fishes, bullfrogs, 

or crayfish; highways that do not 

include frog fencing and culverts; and 

walls, major dams, or other structures 

that physically block movement. 

With this proposed designation of 

critical habitat, we intend to conserve 

the PCEs essential to the conservation of 

the species through the identification of 

the appropriate quantity and spatial 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

14136 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

arrangement of the PCEs sufficient to 

support the life-history functions of the 

species. Because not all life-history 

functions require both PCEs 1 and 2, not 

all areas proposed as critical habitat will 

contain both PCEs. Each of the areas 

proposed in this rule has been 

determined to contain sufficient PCEs, 

or, with reasonable effort, PCEs can be 

restored, to provide for one or more of 

the life-history functions of the 

Chiricahua leopard frog. 

Under our regulations, we are 

required to identify the PCEs within the 

geographical area occupied by the 

Chiricahua leopard frog at the time of 

listing that are essential to the 

conservation of the species and which 

may require special management 

considerations or protections. The PCEs 

are laid out in a specific spatial 

arrangement and quantity determined to 

be essential to the conservation of the 

species. All proposed critical habitat 

units are within the species’ historical 

geographical range in the United States 

and contain sufficient PCEs to support 

at least one life-history function. In 

addition, all but two proposed critical 

habitat units, units 13 and 17, are 

currently occupied by Chiricahua 

leopard frogs. Units 13 and 17 were 

occupied at the time of listing and 

currently contain sufficient PCEs to 

support life-history functions essential 

for the conservation of the species. 

These units are needed as future sites 

for frog colonization or reestablishment 

and could be restored (e.g., control of 

nonnative predators) to allow 

Chiricahua leopard frog persistence 

with a reasonable level of effort. 

Special Management Considerations or 

Protection 

When designating critical habitat, we 

assess whether the specific areas within 

the geographical area occupied by the 

species at the time of listing contain 

features that are essential to the 

conservation of the species and that may 

require special management 

considerations or protection. 

All areas proposed for designation as 

critical habitat will require some level of 

management to address the current and 

future threats to the Chiricahua leopard 

frog and to maintain or restore the PCEs. 

Special management in aquatic breeding 

sites will be needed to ensure that these 

sites provide water quantity, quality, 

and permanence or near permanence; 

cover; and absence of extraordinary 

predation and disease that can affect 

population persistence. In dispersal 

habitat, special management will be 

needed to ensure frogs can move 

through those sites with reasonable 

success. The designation of critical 

habitat does not imply that lands 

outside of critical habitat do not play an 

important role in the conservation of the 

Chiricahua leopard frog. Federal 

activities that may affect areas outside of 

critical habitat, such as construction of 

water diversions, permitting livestock 

grazing, sportfish stocking, 

channelization, levee construction, 

energy development, fire and fuels 

management, and road construction, are 

still subject to review under section 7 of 

the Act if they may affect the Chiricahua 

leopard frog because Federal agencies 

must consider both effects to the frog 

and effects to critical habitat 

independently. The prohibitions of 

section 9 of the Act also continue to 

apply both inside and outside of 

designated critical habitat. 

A detailed discussion of activities 

influencing the Chiricahua leopard frog 

and its habitat can be found in the final 

listing rule (67 FR 40790; June 13, 2002) 

and the recovery plan (Service 2007, pp. 

18–45). The recovery plan also contains 

recovery-unit-specific threat 

assessments (Service 2007, pp. B1–B88). 

Activities that may warrant special 

management of the physical and 

biological features that define essential 

habitat (appropriate quantity and 

distribution of PCEs) for the Chiricahua 

leopard frog include, but are not limited 

to, introduction of predators, such as 

bullfrogs, crayfish, sportfishes, and 

barred tiger salamanders; introduction 

or spread of chytridiomycosis; 

recreational activities; livestock grazing; 

water diversions and development; 

construction and maintenance of roads 

and utility corridors; fire suppression, 

fuels management, and prescribed fire; 

and various types of development. 

These activities have the potential to 

affect critical habitat and PCEs if they 

are conducted within designated units 

or upstream and in some cases 

downstream in the floodplains of those 

units; however, some of these activities, 

when conducted appropriately, may be 

compatible with maintenance of 

adequate PCEs. 

Criteria Used To Identify Critical 

Habitat 

As required by section 4(b) of the Act, 

we used the best scientific and 

commercial data available in 

determining areas within the 

geographical area occupied at the time 

of listing that contain the features 

essential to the conservation of the 

Chiricahua leopard frog, and areas 

outside of the geographical area 

occupied at the time of listing that are 

essential for the conservation of the 

species. Areas occupied at the time of 

listing are identified and described in 

Rorabaugh (2010, pp. 7–17) and 

information cited therein for Arizona, 

and for New Mexico in Jennings (1995, 

pp. 10–21), Painter (2000, pp. 10–21), 

and 67 FR 40793 (June 13, 2002). We 

have also reviewed available 

information that pertains to the habitat 

requirements of this species. The 

following were particularly useful: 

Degenhardt et al. (1996, pp. 85–87), 

Sredl and Jennings (2005, pp. 546–549), 

Service (2007, pp. 15–18, 47–48), and 

Witte et al. (2008, pp. 5–8). 

Units occupied at the time of listing 

include the specific sites occupied by 

Chiricahua leopard frogs in June 2002 

that contain sufficient PCEs to support 

life-history functions essential for the 

conservation of the species. Included 

are sites where the species was breeding 

as well as localities where dispersing 

individuals were present, and other 

sites for which the breeding status was 

unknown. If metapopulation structure 

was known or suspected, dispersal 

habitats connecting breeding 

populations within metapopulations are 

also proposed. 

Sites not known to be occupied at the 

time of listing in June 2002 are also 

proposed as critical habitat if they are 

essential to the conservation of the 

species. Specifically, we assessed 

whether they are needed to meet the 

following recovery criterion from the 

recovery plan: At least two 

metapopulations located in different 

drainages (defined here as USGS 10- 

digit Hydrologic Units) plus at least one 

isolated and robust population occur in 

each recovery unit and exhibit longterm persistence and stability (even 

though local populations may go extinct 

in metapopulations, Service 2007, p. 

53). If sites are needed to meet that 

criterion, they are proposed for critical 

habitat herein. At the time of listing, 3 

of the units being proposed for critical 

habitat were unoccupied, and for 10 

additional units, their occupancy status 

was unknown (see Table 1). However, 

all 13 of these units are currently 

occupied and possess one or both PCEs, 

or have the ability to develop the PCEs 

with a reasonable level of restoration 

work. These units, which were 

unoccupied or not known to be 

occupied at the time of listing, are being 

proposed as critical habitat because they 

currently contain known breeding 

populations of Chiricahua leopard frogs, 

which are relatively scarce (33 

populations in Arizona and 20 to 23 in 

New Mexico), are all considered 

essential to the conservation of the 

species, and help meet the population 

goals in the recovery criterion discussed 

above. 

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 

existing breeding populations and 

building on them with habitat 

rehabilitation and population 

reestablishments to construct 

metapopulations and isolated robust 

populations needed to meet the 

recovery criterion. Such work is 

underway in all recovery units, but is 

further along in some than others. In 

particular, recovery units 1 

(Tumacacori-Atascosa-Pajarito 

Mountains, Arizona and Sonora), 2 

(Santa Rita-Huachuca-Ajos Bavispe, 

Arizona and Sonora), 3 (Chiricahua 

Mountains-Malpai Borderlands-Sierra 

Madre), 4 (Pinalen ̃ o-Galiuro-Dragoon 

Mountains, Arizona), 5 (Mogollon 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

14138 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

Rim—Verde River, Arizona), and 8 

(Black-Mimbres-Rio Grande, New 

Mexico) are moving towards meeting 

the above-cited recovery criterion, and 

metapopulations and isolated, robust 

populations have been or are being 

identified (Rorabaugh 2010, pp. 17–30; 

Service 2010a, pp. 2–7; 2010b, pp. 2–9). 

In these recovery units, unoccupied 

sites have sometimes been identified by 

the Service, in cooperation with the 

recovery team steering committees and 

local recovery groups, where population 

reestablishment is needed to complete a 

metapopulation or to establish an 

isolated, robust population (Rorabaugh 

2010, pp. 17–30; Service 2010a, pp. 2– 

7; 2010b, pp. 2–9). These unoccupied 

sites are proposed as critical habitat 

herein. 

Identification of such recovery sites in 

recovery units 6 (White MountainsUpper Gila, Arizona and New Mexico) 

and 7 (Upper Gila-Blue River, Arizona 

and New Mexico) is more difficult, 

because less work or progress in 

recovery has been made in these areas. 

The recovery plan identifies 

management areas, which are areas 

within recovery units with the greatest 

potential for successful recovery actions 

and threat alleviation (Service 2007, p. 

49). Within recovery units 6 and 7, 

critical habitat has been proposed at 

specific sites within management areas 

with the greatest potential for building 

metapopulations and isolated robust 

populations. As in other recovery units, 

existing breeding populations were used 

either as subpopulations in 

metapopulations or as isolated, robust 

populations. Metapopulations were 

constructed with these existing breeding 

populations, sites occupied at the time 

of listing that still retain PCEs sufficient 

to support life-history functions 

essential for the conservation of the 

species, and unoccupied sites with one 

or more PCEs or the potential to support 

PCEs with a reasonable level of 

restoration work. In metapopulations, 

all of these sites are within reasonable 

dispersal distance (the ‘‘1–3–5 rule’’ 

described above) of each other. In 

recovery unit 7, enough sites could not 

be found that meet the definition of 

critical habitat to construct two 

metapopulations and one isolated, 

robust population. Similarly, in 

recovery unit 6, one metapopulation 

exists, plus several isolated populations, 

but we have not been able to find 

aquatic sites that meet the definition of 

critical habitat to build a second 

metapopulation. In particular, other 

aquatic sites, some of which were 

occupied at the time of listing, lack the 

PCEs sufficient to support life-history 

functions essential for the conservation 

of the species, primarily due to presence 

of chytridiomycosis, which is a very 

serious threat in recovery unit 6. This 

recovery unit will require further 

investigation, and habitat restoration or 

creation may be needed to provide 

additional habitat for breeding 

Chiricahua leopard frog populations 

that can contribute to meeting the 

population goals in the recovery 

criterion discussed above. 

Also included in this critical habitat 

proposal are dispersal corridors among 

subpopulations within a 

metapopulation. These corridors were 

selected as the most likely routes for 

dispersal of frogs among sites, based on 

reasonable dispersal distances along 

perennial and ephemeral or intermittent 

drainages, or via overland routes where 

PCE 2 is present. Our selection of routes 

assumes perennial drainages are better 

dispersal corridors than ephemeral or 

intermittent drainages, and the 

ephemeral or intermittent drainages are 

better dispersal corridors than overland 

routes. We also assume that, if all else 

is equal, the shorter the route the more 

likely Chiricahua leopard frogs will 

successfully disperse along it. In 

addition, we considered the presence of 

waterfalls, steep slopes, and other 

obstacles that may be difficult for a frog 

to negotiate. 

When determining proposed critical 

habitat boundaries within this proposed 

rule, we made every effort to avoid 

including developed areas such as lands 

covered by buildings, pavement, and 

other structures because such lands lack 

PCEs for the Chiricahua leopard frog. 

The scale of the maps we prepared 

under the parameters for publication 

within the Code of Federal Regulations 

may not reflect the exclusion of such 

developed lands. Any such lands 

inadvertently left inside critical habitat 

boundaries shown on the maps of this 

proposed rule have been excluded by 

text in the proposed rule and are not 

proposed for designation as critical 

habitat. Therefore, if the critical habitat 

is finalized as proposed, a Federal 

action involving these lands would not 

trigger section 7 consultation with 

respect to critical habitat and adverse 

modification would not be prohibited 

under 7(a)(2) unless the specific action 

would affect the PCEs in the adjacent 

critical habitat. 

We are proposing for designation of 

critical habitat lands that we have 

determined are occupied at the time of 

listing and contain sufficient PCEs to 

support life-history functions essential 

for the conservation of the species and 

lands outside of the geographical area 

occupied at the time of listing that we 

have determined are essential for the 

conservation of the species. 

Critical habitat units are proposed for 

designation based on sufficient PCEs 

being present to support the Chiricahua 

leopard frog’s life processes. Some units 

contain both PCEs 1 and 2 and support 

multiple life processes. Some units 

contain one of the PCEs or only the 

potential to develop PCEs necessary to 

support the Chiricahua leopard frog’s 

particular use of that habitat. In most 

cases, aquatic sites within 

metapopulations contain both PCEs 1 

and 2. Isolated aquatic sites contain 

only PCE 1, and dispersal corridors only 

contain PCE 2, or a reasonable potential 

to develop those PCEs. 

Proposed Critical Habitat Designation 

We are proposing 40 units as critical 

habitat for the Chiricahua leopard frog. 

The critical habitat areas we describe 

below constitute our current best 

assessment of areas that meet the 

definition of critical habitat for the 

species. All 40 units we are proposing 

as critical habitat are within the species’ 

geographical range, including areas 

occupied at the time of listing and areas 

not known to be occupied at the time of 

listing but identified as essential for the 

conservation of the species (Platz and 

Mecham 1984, p. 347.1). Table 1 below 

shows the specific occupancy status of 

each unit at the time of listing and 

currently (based on the most recent data 

available) (Rorabaugh 2010, pp. 7–30; 

Service files). The approximate area of 

each proposed critical habitat unit is 

shown in Table 2. The 40 areas we 

propose as critical habitat are grouped 

herein by recovery unit. 

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.] 

Critical habitat unit 

Land ownership by type 

acres (hectares) Size of unit 

in acres 

(hectares) Federal State Private 

(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 

(2,661) 

426 (173) 

....................

4,139 

(1,676) 

11,136 

(4,510) 

Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding. 

We present brief descriptions of all 

units, and reasons why they meet the 

definition of critical habitat for the 

Chiricahua leopard frog, below. Unless 

indicated otherwise below, the physical 

and biological features of critical habitat 

in stream and riverine lotic (actively 

moving water) systems are contained 

within the riverine and riparian 

ecosystems formed by the wetted 

channel and adjacent floodplains within 

328 lateral ft (100 lateral m) on either 

side of bankfull stage. Bankfull stage is 

generally considered to be that level of 

stream discharge reached just before 

flows spill out onto the adjacent 

floodplain. The discharges that occur at 

bankfull stage, in combination with the 

range of flows that occur over a length 

of time, govern the shape and size of the 

river channel (Rosgen 1996, pp. 2–2 to 

2–4; Leopold 1997, pp. 62–63, 66). The 

use of bankfull stage and 328 ft (100 m) 

on either side recognizes the naturally 

dynamic nature of riverine systems, 

recognizes that floodplains are an 

integral part of the stream ecosystem, 

and contains the features essential to the 

conservation of the species. 

Ephemeral drainages (containing 

water for only brief periods) proposed as 

critical habitat for dispersal corridors 

among breeding sites in 

metapopulations will, in some cases, be 

less distinct than the stream or river 

reaches where frogs breed. Nonetheless, 

these ephemeral drainages will still be 

defined by wetland plant species, 

denser or taller specimens of upland 

species, channel characteristics such as 

sandy or gravelly soils that contrast with 

upland soils, the presence of cut banks, 

or some combination of these. Where 

dispersal corridors cross uplands, 

proposed critical habitat is 328 ft (100 

m) wide, the centerline of which is the 

line delineated on our critical habitat 

maps and legal descriptions. 

In ponds proposed as critical habitat, 

most of which are impoundments for 

watering cattle or other livestock, 

proposed critical habitat extends for 20 

ft (6.1 m) beyond the high water line or 

to the boundary of the riparian and 

upland vegetation edge, whichever is 

greatest. The frogs are commonly found 

foraging and basking within 20 feet of 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

14140 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

the shoreline of tanks. In addition, 

proposed critical habitat extends 

upstream from ponds from the extent of 

the boundary for 328 ft (100 m) from the 

high water line. The proposed critical 

habitat extends to 328 ft (100 m) 

upstream because there is often a 

riparian drainage coming into the tank, 

and the frogs are likely moving along 

those drainages. Also, the high water 

line is defined as that water level which, 

if exceeded, results in overflow of the 

pond. In most cases, this is the elevation 

of the spillway in livestock 

impoundments. 

Recovery Unit 1 (Tumacacori-AtascosaPajarito Mountains, Arizona and 

Mexico) 

Unit 1: Twin Tanks and Ox Frame Tank 

Unit 1 consists of 1.3 ac (0.5 ha) of 

lands owned by the Arizona State Land 

Department and 0.4 ac (0.2 ha) of 

private lands in the Sierrita Mountains, 

Pima County, Arizona. Twin Tanks is 

on lands owned and managed by the 

Arizona State Land Department and 

consists of two tanks in proximity to 

each other as well as a drainage running 

between them. Ox Frame Tank is on 

private lands. This unit is proposed as 

critical habitat because it is essential for 

the conservation of the species. 

Occupancy of these livestock tanks at 

the time of listing is unknown, as they 

were not surveyed for frogs until 2007; 

however, these sites are important 

breeding sites for recovery. Twin Tanks 

held more than 1,000 frogs in 2008, and 

is a robust breeding population. Ox 

Frame and Twin tanks are too far apart 

(4.3 mi (7.0 km) overland) across rugged 

terrain to expect frogs to move between 

these sites. Hence, these tanks serve as 

isolated populations. PCE 1 is present at 

both sites. The Twin Tanks area is less 

than 0.5 mi (0.8 km) upslope of active 

mining at Freeport McMoRan’s Sierrita 

Copper Mine and could be affected by 

those mining activities. Both sites are 

also at risk of introduction of nonnative 

predators, such as bullfrogs and 

crayfish. Presence of chytridiomycosis 

at these tanks has not been investigated. 

Unit 2: Garcia Tank 

Unit 2, consisting of 0.7 ac (0.3 ha), 

is a former cattle tank located on the 

Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge 

(NWR), Pima County, Arizona. It is a 

double tank; the southwest or 

downstream impoundment is what 

dependably holds water, but both parts 

of the tank are proposed as critical 

habitat. This unit is proposed as critical 

habitat because it was occupied at the 

time of listing and currently contains 

sufficient PCEs (PCE 1) to support lifehistory functions essential for the 

conservation of the species. 

A breeding site, this unit was known 

to have been occupied in 2002 and 

2006. Leopard frogs were noted in 2010, 

but they were not identified to species 

(the lowland leopard frog, Lithobates 

yavapaiensis, is known to occur in the 

area). It is about 3.6 mi (5.8 km) over 

land across dissected and hilly terrain to 

the next nearest population at Lower 

Carpenter Tank. The nearest known 

populations to the east are on the 

Coronado National Forest more than 9.0 

mi (14 km) away. Hence, this site is 

isolated and is managed as an isolated, 

robust population. The greatest threats 

needing management are introductions 

of or colonization by nonnative species, 

such as bullfrogs and crayfish; and 

drought that could greatly reduce or 

eliminate the aquatic habitat. 

Unit 3: Buenos Aires NWR Central 

Tanks 

This unit, consisting of 1,720 ac (696 

ha) within the Buenos Aires National 

Wildlife Refuge (NWR), Pima County, 

Arizona, includes former cattle tanks 

and other waters used as breeding and 

dispersal sites plus intervening and 

connecting drainages and uplands. This 

unit is proposed as critical habitat 

because it was occupied at the time of 

listing and currently contains sufficient 

PCEs (PCEs 1 and 2) to support lifehistory functions essential for the 

conservation of the species. 

Core breeding sites at permanent or 

nearly permanent tanks (Carpenter, 

Rock, State, Triangle, and New Round 

Hill) support the strongest 

metapopulation known within the range 

of the species. Chongo Tank, where a 

population was established in 2009, 

may become a sixth breeding site. Seven 

other tanks support frogs periodically to 

regularly, and breeding and recruitment 

likely takes place at these tanks in wet 

cycles. Frogs occupied Carpenter, Rock, 

and Triangle Tanks in 2002 at or about 

the time of listing. Tanks proposed for 

designation include Carpenter, Rock, 

State, Triangle, New Round Hill, 

Banado, Choffo, Barrel Cactus, Sufrido, 

Hito, Morley, McKay, and Chongo 

Tanks. McKay Tank is actually a cluster 

of three tanks, all of which are proposed 

as critical habitat. Also proposed as 

critical habitat are the intervening 

drainages, including: (1) Puertocito 

Wash from Triangle Tank north through 

and including Aguire Lake to New 

Round Hill Tank, then upstream to the 

confluence with Las Moras Wash, and 

upstream in Las Moras Wash to Chongo 

Tank; (2) an unnamed drainage from 

Puertocito Wash upstream to McKay 

Tank; (3) an unnamed drainage from 

Puertocito Wash upstream to Rock 

Tank, including Morley Tank, then 

upstream in an unnamed drainage to the 

top of that drainage, directly overland to 

an unnamed drainage, and then 

upstream to Hito Tank and downstream 

to McKay Tank; (4) from Sufrido Tank 

downstream in an unnamed drainage to 

its confluence with an unnamed 

drainage running between Rock and 

Morley tanks; (5) Lopez Wash from 

Carpenter Tank downstream to Aguire 

Lake; (6) an unnamed drainage from its 

confluence with Lopez Wash upstream 

to Choffo Tank; (7) an unnamed 

drainage from its confluence with Lopez 

Wash upstream to State Tank; (8) an 

unnamed drainage from Banado Tank 

downstream to its confluence with an 

unnamed drainage, then upstream in 

that drainage to Barrel Cactus Tank; and 

(9) an unnamed drainage from Banado 

Tank upstream to a saddle, then directly 

downslope to Lopez Wash. 

In this unit, bullfrogs remain a threat, 

but efforts are underway to eliminate 

the last known populations of bullfrogs 

in the Altar Valley (on the Santa 

Margarita Ranch to the south of Buenos 

Aires NWR). Frogs in this area have 

tested positive for chytridiomycosis, but 

the disease appears to have little effect 

on population viability. 

Unit 4: Bonita, Upper Turner, and 

Mojonera Tanks 

This unit includes 201 ac (81 ha) of 

Coronado National Forest lands in the 

Pajarito and Atascosa Mountains, Santa 

Cruz County, Arizona. This unit is 

proposed as critical habitat because it 

was occupied at the time of listing and 

currently contains sufficient PCEs to 

support life-history functions essential 

for the conservation of the species. 

Two breeding sites (Bonita Tank and 

Mojonera Tank), combined with a 

dispersal site or site where breeding and 

recruitment may occur in wet years 

(Upper Turner Tank), form the nucleus 

for a future metapopulation. Three 

additional waters—Sierra Tank East, 

Sierra Tank West, and Sierra Well—may 

have the potential to support breeding 

with habitat work. Frogs currently 

occupy Bonita and Mojonera Tanks, and 

Bonita was occupied at the time of 

listing. Frogs were last found at Upper 

Turner Tank in 2004. The occupancy 

status of Mojonera and Upper Turner 

Tanks at the time of listing is unknown. 

The proposed critical habitat in Unit 4 

also includes intervening drainages, 

uplands, and ephemeral or intermittent 

waters as follows: (1) From Upper 

Turner Tank upstream in an unnamed 

drainage to its confluence with a minor 

drainage coming in from the east, then 

directly upslope in that drainage and 

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 

to Bonita Canyon, and upstream in 

Bonita Canyon to Bonita Tank; and (2) 

from Mojonera Tank downstream in 

Mojonera Canyon to a sharp bend where 

the drainage turns west-northwest, then 

southeast and upstream in an unnamed 

drainage to a saddle, downslope through 

an unnamed drainage to its confluence 

with another unnamed drainage, 

upstream in that unnamed drainage to a 

saddle, and then downstream in an 

unnamed drainage to Sierra Well, to 

include Sierra Tank West and Sierra 

Tank East, then directly overland to 

Upper Turner Tank. 

In this unit, bullfrogs are a continuing 

threat, and illegal border activity and 

associated law enforcement have 

resulted in watershed damage. A road 

on the berm of Upper Turner Tank is 

scheduled for improvement to access a 

surveillance tower operated by U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection. Frogs in 

this region have tested positive for 

chytridiomycosis, but the disease 

appears to have little effect on 

population viability. 

Unit 5: Sycamore Canyon 

This unit includes 262 ac (106 ha) of 

Coronado National Forest land and 7 ac 

(3 ha) of private lands along Atascosa 

Canyon through Bear Valley Ranch in 

the Pajarito and Atascosa Mountains, 

Santa Cruz County, Arizona. This unit 

is proposed as critical habitat because it 

was occupied at the time of listing and 

currently contains sufficient PCEs (PCEs 

1 and 2) to support life-history functions 

essential for the conservation of the 

species. 

Sycamore Canyon is the only 

significant site with moving water in 

recovery unit 1 to support breeding 

Chiricahua leopard frogs. Most other 

sites are livestock tanks or impounded 

springs. Sycamore Canyon, Bear Valley 

Ranch Tank, Rattlesnake Tank, and 

Atascosa Canyon downstream of Bear 

Valley Ranch were all occupied by 

Chiricahua leopard frogs at the time of 

listing. The occupancy status of the 

other sites at the time of listing is 

unknown. Sycamore Canyon, Yank 

Tank, North Mesa Tank, South Mesa 

Tank, and Bear Valley Ranch Tank are 

currently occupied. The current 

occupancy status of Rattlesnake Tank 

and Atascosa Canyon downstream of 

Bear Valley Ranch Tank is unknown. 

Proposed critical habitat includes 

approximately 6.35 mi (10.23 km) of 

Sycamore Canyon from Ruby Road to 

the international border, which supports 

frogs and breeding, although in the 

driest months (May and June) the stream 

dries to pools and tinajas (a term used 

in the American Southwest for water 

pockets formed in bedrock depressions 

that occur below waterfalls or are carved 

out by spring flow or seepage). 

A number of livestock tanks in the 

region form a strong metapopulation 

with Sycamore Canyon. Proposed 

critical habitat includes the following 

tanks and their connecting drainages: (1) 

From Yank Tank downstream in an 

unnamed drainage to Sycamore Canyon; 

(2) from North Mesa Tank downstream 

in Atascosa Canyon to its confluence 

with Pen ̃ asco Canyon, then from that 

confluence downstream in Pen ̃ asco 

Canyon to Sycamore Canyon; (3) from 

Horse Pasture Spring downstream to 

Pen ̃ asco Canyon; (4) from Bear Valley 

Ranch Tank downstream in an unnamed 

drainage to Atascosa Canyon; (5) from 

South Mesa Tank downstream in an 

unnamed drainage to Pen ̃ asco Canyon; 

and (6) from Rattlesnake Tank 

downstream in an unnamed canyon to 

its confluence with another unnamed 

drainage, then upstream in that drainage 

to South Mesa Tank. 

Bullfrogs have been a continuing 

problem in this unit, although recent 

control efforts seem to have eliminated 

them from Sycamore Canyon. Nonnative 

green sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus) have 

occasionally been found in Sycamore 

Canyon, as well. Pools critical to 

survival of frogs and tadpoles through 

the dry season, are sensitive to 

sedimentation and erosion upstream in 

the watershed of Sycamore Canyon. The 

earliest records of chytridiomycosis in 

the United States are from Sycamore 

Canyon (1972). A robust population of 

Chiricahua leopard frogs persists at this 

site despite the disease and periodic 

die-offs. Illegal border activity and 

associated law enforcement have 

resulted in many trails and new vehicle 

routes in the area, as well as trampling 

in the canyon. 

Sycamore Canyon is designated a 

Research Natural Area by the Coronado 

National Forest and is closed to 

livestock grazing. Critical habitat is 

designated for the Sonora chub (Gila 

ditaenia) in Sycamore Canyon from 

Hank and Yank Spring (about 0.25 mi 

(0.40 km) downstream of the Ruby Road 

crossing) downstream to the 

international border, and in a 25-ft (7.6- 

m) strip on both sides of the creek (51 

FR 16042; April 30, 1986). Much of this 

unit also lies within the Pajarita 

Wilderness area. These designations 

provide some level of protection to 

Chiricahua leopard frog habitats in 

Sycamore Canyon. 

Unit 6: Pen ̃ a Blanca Lake and Spring 

and Associated Tanks 

This unit includes 202 ac (82 ha) and 

is all on Coronado National Forest 

lands, Santa Cruz County, Arizona. This 

area is proposed as critical habitat 

because it was occupied at the time of 

listing and currently contains sufficient 

PCEs (PCEs 1 and 2) to support lifehistory functions essential for the 

conservation of the species. 

This unit is a metapopulation that 

includes Pen ̃ a Blanca Lake, Pen ̃ a Blanca 

Spring, Summit Reservoir, Tinker Tank, 

Thumb Butte Tank, and Coyote Tank. 

These sites were all occupied in 2009. 

Chiricahua leopard frogs and tadpoles 

were found in Pen ̃ a Blanca Lake in 2009 

and 2010, after the lake had been 

drained and then refilled, which 

eliminated the nonnative predators. 

However, early in 2010, rainbow trout 

(Oncorhynchus mykiss) were restocked 

back into the lake, and plans are 

underway to reestablish a variety of 

warm water fishes, as well. Currently, 

the Service is working with project 

proponents to help design the sportfish 

project in a way that will allow 

persistence of Chiricahua leopard frogs, 

but whether this site retains the PCEs 

necessary for breeding will be evaluated 

in our final critical habitat 

determination. 

In 2002, Chiricahua leopard frogs 

were only known to occur at Pen ̃ a 

Blanca Spring. Occupancy status at the 

time of listing for the other sites is 

unknown. Proposed critical habitat also 

includes: (1) From Summit Reservoir 

directly southeast to a saddle on 

Summit Motorway, then downslope to 

an unnamed drainage and downstream 

in that drainage to its confluence with 

Alamo Canyon, then downstream in 

Alamo Canyon to its confluence with 

Pen ̃ a Blanca Canyon, then downstream 

in Pen ̃ a Blanca Canyon to Pen ̃ a Blanca 

Lake, to include Pen ̃ a Blanca Spring; (2) 

from Thumb Butte Tank downstream in 

an unnamed drainage to its confluence 

with Alamo Canyon; (3) from Tinker 

Tank downstream in an unnamed 

drainage to its confluence with Alamo 

Canyon, then downstream in Alamo 

Canyon to the confluence with the 

drainage from Summit Reservoir; and 

(4) from Coyote Tank downstream in an 

unnamed drainage to its confluence 

with Alamo Canyon, and then 

downstream in Alamo Canyon to the 

confluence with the drainage from 

Tinker Tank, to include Alamo Spring. 

Nonnative introduced predators, 

particularly bullfrogs and sportfish, 

remain a serious threat in this region. A 

concerted effort was made in 2008–2010 

to clear the area of bullfrogs. The effort 

appears to be successful, and Chiricahua 

leopard frogs have benefited. However, 

there is a continuing threat of reinvasion 

or introduction of bullfrogs. As 

discussed, sportfish at Pen ̃ a Blanca Lake 

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 

region test positive for 

chytridiomycosis; however, the disease 

appears to have little effect on 

population viability. 

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

Unit 7: Florida Canyon 

This unit includes 4 ac (2 ha) and is 

all on Coronado National Forest lands in 

the Santa Rita Mountains, Pima County, 

Arizona. This unit is proposed as 

critical habitat because it is essential for 

the conservation of the species. 

Chiricahua leopard frogs currently 

occupy this site; however, its occupancy 

status at the time of listing is unknown. 

A single frog was found in 2008, which 

was augmented with frogs from 

elsewhere in the Santa Rita Mountains 

in 2009. The site is too far from other 

known breeding populations to be part 

of a metapopulation (the next nearest 

population is about 5 mi (8 km) straight 

line distance away in Unit 8; hence, it 

will be managed as an isolated, robust 

population). PCE 1 is present and will 

be enhanced in 2010, with the addition 

of a steel tank for breeding. Included in 

the proposal is approximately 1,521 ft 

(463 m) of Florida Canyon from a siltedin dam to the downstream end of the 

Florida Workstation property. 

Water is a limiting factor in this 

system, particularly during drought. 

Fire in the watershed could result in 

scouring and sedimentation in the pools 

important as habitat for the frog. The 

addition of a steel tank will provide 

dependable water for breeding that is 

safe from erosion or sedimentation 

events. Chyridiomycosis and introduced 

predators are potential threats, but 

neither has been recorded at this site. 

Unit 8: Eastern Slope of the Santa Rita 

Mountains 

This unit includes 172 ac (70 ha) of 

Coronado National Forest lands and 14 

ac (6 ha) of private lands in the 

Greaterville area in Pima County, 

Arizona. This unit is proposed as 

critical habitat because it is essential for 

the conservation of the species. 

Included in the proposed critical 

habitat designation are two metal 

troughs in Louisiana Gulch, Greaterville 

Tank, Los Posos Gulch Tank, and 

Granite Mountain Tank complex. The 

Granite Mountain Tank complex 

includes two impoundments and a well. 

All but Los Posos Gulch Tank are 

currently occupied breeding sites; 

however, the occupancy status at the 

time of listing for these sites is 

unknown. PCEs 1 and 2 are present. 

More than 60 frogs were observed at Los 

Posos Gulch Tank in 2008. It was once 

thought to be a robust breeding site; 

however, it dried, and the frogs 

disappeared in 2009. These four sites 

collectively form a metapopulation. A 

number of other sites in this region have 

been found to support dispersing 

Chiricahua leopard frogs; however, only 

a few frogs and no breeding have been 

observed at these sites, so they are 

thought to represent dispersing frogs. 

The occupancy status of these other 

sites at the time of listing is unknown. 

Proposed critical habitat also includes 

intervening drainages as follows: (1) 

From Los Posos Gulch upstream to a 

saddle, then downslope in an unnamed 

drainage to the confluence with another 

unnamed drainage, then upstream and 

south in that drainage to a saddle, and 

downslope through an unnamed 

drainage to its confluence with Ophir 

Gulch, then in Ophir Gulch to upper 

Granite Mountain Tank, to include an 

ephemeral tank near upper Granite 

Mountain Tank and a well; (2) from 

Greaterville Tank downstream in an 

unnamed drainage to Ophir Gulch; and 

(3) Louisiana Gulch from the metal 

tanks upstream to the headwaters of 

Louisiana Gulch then across a saddle 

and downslope through an unnamed 

drainage to its confluence with Ophir 

Gulch. 

Surface water is a primary limiting 

factor in this unit. The breeding habitat 

at Louisiana Gulch, although limited to 

two 6.0-ft (1.8-m) diameter steel tanks, 

is dependable because it is fed by a 

well. The other tanks are filled by runoff 

and susceptible to drying during 

drought. Nonnative predators and 

chytridiomycosis are not known to be 

imminent threats in this area. 

Unit 9: Las Cienegas National 

Conservation Area 

This unit is in Pima County, Arizona, 

and includes 1,235 ac (500 ha) of 

Bureau of Land Management lands and 

186 ac (75 ha) of Arizona State Land 

Department lands, including an 

approximate 4.33-mi (6.98-km) reach of 

Empire Gulch and 1.91 mi (3.08 km) of 

Cienega Creek, including the Cinco 

Ponds. This unit is proposed as critical 

habitat because it was occupied at the 

time of listing and currently contains 

sufficient PCEs (PCEs 1 and 2) to 

support life-history functions essential 

for the conservation of the species. 

At the time of listing, Empire Gulch 

was occupied; however the occupancy 

status of Cinco Ponds at that time is 

unknown. Currently, Chiricahua 

leopard frogs are extant at Empire Gulch 

and Cinco Ponds. Frogs breed in a reach 

of Empire Gulch near Empire Ranch. 

This reach includes: (1) Empire Gulch 

from a pipeline road crossing above the 

breeding site downstream to Cienega 

Creek; and (2) Cienega Creek from the 

Empire Gulch confluence upstream to 

the approximate end of the wetted reach 

and where the creek bends hard to the 

east, to include Cinco Ponds. An 

enclosed Chiricahua leopard frog 

facility exists along Empire Gulch and is 

used to headstart eggs and tadpoles for 

release to augment the wild population. 

Frogs may breed periodically at Cinco 

Ponds. These sites are too far (more than 

8.0 mi (13 km) straight line distance) 

from the next nearest population, which 

is in Unit 8; thus the population(s) in 

Unit 9 currently acts as an isolated 

population(s). 

The recovery program for the 

Chiricahua leopard frog at Las Cienegas 

is a collaborative, multi-partner 

approach that recently got a boost with 

a substantial grant from the National 

Fish and Wildlife Foundation. However, 

bullfrogs are present and represent a 

persistent problem. Chiricahua leopard 

frogs suffer from chytridiomycosis in 

this unit, which has resulted in periodic 

die-offs; however, the frogs are 

persisting with the disease. Crayfish 

occur within a few miles and pose a 

significant threat if they reach Cienega 

Creek or Empire Gulch. The frog 

population in this unit is not robust. 

Las Cienegas National Conservation 

Area is managed under the principles of 

multiple-use and ecosystem 

management for future generations. 

Empire Gulch and Cienega Creek 

downstream of its confluence with 

Empire Gulch is designated critical 

habitat for the endangered Gila chub 

(Gila intermedia) (70 FR 66663; 

November 2, 2005). The chub and the 

endangered Gila topminnow 

(Poeciliopsis occidentalis) occur in 

Cienega Creek adjacent to Empire 

Gulch. The Gila topminnow also occurs 

in Empire Gulch. Neither species occurs 

in Cinco Ponds. Where these species or 

critical habitat occur, some level of 

protection may be afforded to 

Chiricahua leopard frog habitat. 

Unit 10: Pasture 9 Tank 

This unit includes 0.5 ac (0.2 ha) and 

is a former cattle pond entirely on 

private lands of the San Rafael Ranch, 

San Rafael Valley, Santa Cruz County, 

Arizona. It is proposed as critical habitat 

because it is essential for the 

conservation of the species. 

This unit was not known to be 

occupied at the time of listing; however, 

Chiricahua leopard frogs were 

established at this site through a 

reintroduction in 2009. The next nearest 

population is about a 10.5-mi (16.8-km), 

straight-line distance away in the Unit 

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 

managed as an isolated population. PCE 

1 is present in this unit. 

The site is fenced with bullfrog 

exclusion fencing, which also excludes 

livestock, and the pond is equipped 

with a solar-powered pump and well 

that provides a continual source of 

water for the pond. The design of the 

fence allows Chiricahua leopard frogs to 

exit the fenced area, but they cannot 

return. Proposed critical habitat 

includes all areas within the fence. This 

is a cooperative project with the 

landowner through the Service’s 

Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program. 

The landowner has also entered into a 

Safe Harbor Agreement for the 

Chiricahua leopard frog; however, 

bullfrogs are in the area and remain a 

threat if the fence is breached. 

Chytridiomycosis is present in 

endangered Sonoran tiger salamander 

(Ambystoma tigrinum stebbinsi) 

populations in the San Rafael Valley, 

and the disease has caused mass die-offs 

and extirpations of Chiricahua leopard 

frogs in the nearby Huachuca 

Mountains; as a result, chytridiomycosis 

is considered a threat at Pasture 9 Tank. 

This unit is being considered for 

exclusion from the final rule for critical 

habitat under section 4(b)(2) of the Act 

(see Application of Section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act section below). 

Unit 11: Scotia Canyon 

This unit includes 70 ac (29 ha) in 

Scotia Canyon, Huachuca Mountain, 

Cochise County, Arizona, and is entirely 

on Coronado National Forest lands. This 

unit is proposed as critical habitat 

because it is essential for the 

conservation of the species. 

The unit encompasses an approximate 

1.36-mi (2.19-km) reach of the canyon 

with perennial pools, as well as a 

perennial travertine (a form of 

limestone) seep, a spring fed, perennial 

impoundment (Peterson Ranch Pond), 

and an ephemeral impoundment 

adjacent to Peterson Ranch Pond. There 

is also a perennial or nearly perennial 

impoundment in the channel 

downstream of the travertine seep. 

Breeding habitat occurs at Peterson 

Ranch Pond and possibly at other 

perennial or nearly perennial pools. 

Chiricahua leopard frogs were 

reestablished in this canyon via a 

translocation in 2009; the last record of 

a Chiricahua leopard frog in the canyon 

before that was 1986. Scotia Canyon was 

not occupied at the time of listing. PCEs 

1 and 2 are present. 

Currently, this site is isolated from 

other populations, the nearest of which 

is in Unit 15, about a 4.4-mi (7.0-km), 

straight-line distance away over 

mountainous terrain. Hence this site is 

managed as an isolated population, but 

there is some potential for creating 

connectivity to the metapopulation in 

Unit 14 via population reestablishment 

in Garden Canyon at Fort Huachuca. 

Scotia Canyon, with its pond and stream 

habitats, has the potential to be a robust 

population. 

This canyon, and sites around it, has 

been the subject of intensive bullfrog 

eradication and habitat enhancement 

work in preparation for reestablishing 

the Chiricahua leopard frog. However, 

bullfrog reinvasion is a significant, 

continuing threat, and other nonnative 

predators could potentially reach Scotia 

Canyon via natural or human assisted 

immigration. In addition, tiger 

salamanders (Ambystoma mavortium) 

from the Peterson Ranch Pond tested 

positive for chytridiomycosis in 2009; 

however, in 2010, the frogs appeared to 

be doing well in that same pond, and it 

is unclear as to whether tiger 

salamander have persisted at that pond. 

Nonetheless, disease has resulted in 

extirpations elsewhere in the Huachuca 

Mountains, and is considered a serious 

threat in Scotia Canyon. Further, heavy 

fuel loads could result in a catastrophic 

wildfire, which would have significant 

detrimental effects on the frog and its 

aquatic habitats. Finally, a road through 

the canyon is eroded in places and 

contributes sediment to the stream; it 

receives much use by recreationists and 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection. 

The proposed critical habitat 

designation for the Chiricahua leopard 

frog largely overlaps that of critical 

habitat for the endangered plant 

Huachuca water-umbel (Lilaeopsis 

schaffneriana var. recurva). Several 

listed and candidate species have been 

recorded in Scotia Canyon. These 

occurrences of critical habitat and listed 

species provide some level of protection 

to Chiricahua leopard frog habitat in 

this unit. 

Unit 12: Beatty’s Guest Ranch 

This unit includes 10 ac (4.0 ha) of 

private lands in Miller Canyon on the 

east slope of the Huachuca Mountains, 

Cochise County, Arizona. This unit is 

proposed as critical habitat because it 

was occupied at the time of listing and 

currently contains sufficient PCEs (PCEs 

1 and 2) to support life-history functions 

essential for the conservation of the 

species. 

Beatty’s Guest Ranch is one of four 

proposed critical habitat units (12, 13, 

14, and 15) which was considered to be 

populated by the Ramsey Canyon 

leopard frog, until the Ramsey Canyon 

leopard frog was determined to be the 

same species as the Chiricahua leopard 

frog in 2008 (Crothers 2008, p. 7). Frogs 

and habitat in these four units have 

been managed intensively since 1995. A 

conservation agreement and very active 

conservation partnership was 

formalized in 1997. The conservation 

agreement implements the Chiricahua 

leopard frog recovery plan in this 

portion of the Huachuca Mountains. 

More recently, landowners in this unit 

enrolled their lands in the Arizona 

Game and Fish Department’s (AGFD) 

Safe Harbor Agreement with a 

Certificate of Inclusion. Currently, The 

Nature Conservancy is in the process of 

enrolling their Ramsey Canyon Preserve 

in Unit 14, as well. Because frogs would 

not exist on these properties but for 

reestablishment projects by the Service 

and AGFD with the permission of the 

landowners, Beatty’s Guest Ranch and 

The Nature Conservancy’s Ramsey 

Canyon Preserve have been assigned a 

zero baseline for frogs under the Safe 

Harbor Agreement. 

Frogs were present in Unit 12 at the 

time of listing and are currently extant. 

This is a robust breeding population 

that inhabits a number of constructed 

ponds on the property. Frogs freely 

move among the ponds through an 

apple orchard, connecting streams, and 

overland. Beatty’s Guest Ranch is too far 

from other populations (about a 3.0-mi 

(4.8-km), straight-line distance from 

Unit 14 over rugged terrain, or about 2.0 

mi (3.2 km) along ephemeral or 

intermittent drainages and 1.7 mi (2.7 

km) overland to Unit 13) to form a 

metapopulation, and because of 

presence of chytridiomycosis and 

population decline and extirpation 

associated with the disease in Units 13, 

14, and 15, such connection is not 

desirable. As a result, Unit 12 is 

managed as an isolated, robust 

population. This is the most stable and 

robust population of Chiricahua leopard 

frogs known in recovery unit 2. 

Given the presence of 

chytridiomycosis in Units 13, 14, and 15 

and its apparent dire effects on 

Chiricahua leopard frog populations 

there, chytridiomycosis is an ever 

present threat in Unit 12. However, 

frogs at the Beatty’s Guest Ranch have 

never tested positive for the disease. 

Factors may be acting at this site to 

prevent its establishment as an epizootic 

disease (an outbreak of disease affecting 

many animals of one kind at the same 

time). Because of the diligent 

management of the Beatty family, no 

other factors threaten this population. 

The frogs are present as a result of a 

translocation agreed to by the Beattys, 

who are signatories to the conservation 

agreement described above, and have 

also enrolled their property into a Safe 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

14144 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

Harbor Agreement for the Chiricahua 

leopard frog. Under section 4(b)(2) of 

the Act, this unit is being considered for 

exclusion from the final rule for critical 

habitat (see Application of Section 

4(b)(2) of the Act section below). 

Unit 13: Carr Barn Pond 

This unit includes 0.6 ac (0.3 ha) of 

Coronado National Forest lands in the 

Huachuca Mountains, Cochise County, 

Arizona. Carr Barn Pond is an 

impoundment with a small, lined pond 

with water provided from a well. During 

runoff events, the size of the pond 

expands considerably and then 

gradually shrinks back to the lined 

section. 

This unit is proposed as critical 

habitat because it was occupied at the 

time of listing and currently contains 

sufficient PCEs to support life-history 

functions essential for the conservation 

of the species. 

As with Units 12, 14, and 15, this unit 

has been the subject of a conservation 

agreement and much intensive 

management for the Ramsey Canyon 

(=Chiricahua) leopard frog. The 

Coronado National Forest created and 

now maintains Carr Barn Pond 

consistent with the Ramsey Canyon 

(=Chiricahua) leopard frog conservation 

agreement, to which they are a 

signatory. This site was occupied at the 

time of listing and was occupied into 

2009, but the population has since been 

eliminated, probably by 

chytridiomycosis. This site is too far 

away (3.4 mi (5.4 km) from Unit 14 and 

about 3.0 mi (4.8 km) from Unit 12 by 

way of a straight-line distance over 

rugged terrain) to be part of a 

metapopulation; hence, it is currently 

considered isolated. There is some 

potential for connecting it to Units 11, 

14, and 15 (see discussion above), but 

additional habitat creation or 

enhancement and population 

reestablishment would be needed. 

The unit has a history of nonnative 

predator problems and disease. We 

believe PCE 1 is present, but disease is 

a serious threat here that may be an 

impediment to viable frog populations. 

The population has been eliminated 

after chytridiomycosis die-offs three 

times; twice the population has 

subsequently been reestablished 

through translocations. Largemouth bass 

have been introduced illegally into the 

pond and then removed, and bullfrogs 

periodically invade the site but are 

promptly removed before they breed. 

Unit 14: Ramsey and Brown Canyons 

This unit includes 65 ac (26 ha) of 

private lands in Ramsey Canyon and 58 

ac (24 ha) of Coronado National Forest 

in Brown and Ramsey Canyons, 

Huachuca Mountains, Cochise County, 

Arizona. This unit is proposed as 

critical habitat because it was occupied 

at the time of listing and currently 

contains sufficient PCEs to support lifehistory functions essential for the 

conservation of the species. 

This unit along with other Units (12, 

13, and 15) have been managed 

intensively for Ramsey Canyon 

(=Chiricahua) leopard frog conservation 

since 1995. This unit is managed as a 

metapopulation. Places where frogs 

have bred and that still retain PCE 1 

include Ramsey Canyon, Trout and 

Meadow Ponds on private lands owned 

by The Nature Conservancy, and the 

Ramsey Canyon Box; and in Brown 

Canyon, the Wild Duck Pond, House 

Pond, and the Brown Canyon Box (on 

Coronado National Forest lands). PCEs 1 

and 2 are present within this unit. 

In addition to the breeding ponds, this 

critical habitat proposal also includes 

dispersal sites and corridors for 

connectivity among breeding ponds as 

follows: (1) From the top of the Box in 

Ramsey Canyon downstream to a dirt 

road crossing of Ramsey Canyon at the 

mouth of the canyon; (2) Brown Canyon 

from the Box downstream to the Wild 

Duck Pond and House Pond on the 

former Barchas Ranch; and (3) from the 

dirt road crossing of Ramsey Canyon 

directly overland to House Pond. 

The Ramsey Canyon portion of the 

unit was not occupied at the time of 

listing, but Brown Canyon was 

occupied. Both canyons are considered 

currently occupied, but although frogs 

have bred at the Box in Brown Canyon, 

the site is too small to support more 

than just a few frogs. In addition, recent 

die-offs associated with 

chytridiomycosis have significantly 

reduced populations in both canyons. 

The House and Wild Duck ponds as 

well as Ramsey Canyon have a history 

of chytridiomycosis outbreaks. The 

Ramsey Canyon population has been 

eliminated twice and then reestablished; 

the Wild Duck and House Ponds have 

also undergone repeated disease-related 

declines and extirpations followed by 

reestablishments. The populations tend 

to do well for months or years after 

reestablishment only to experience 

epizootic (an outbreak of disease 

affecting many animals of one kind at 

the same time) chytridiomycosis 

outbreaks followed by declines or 

extirpation. 

Additional threats in this unit include 

nonnative species, drying, 

sedimentation, and fire. Nonnative 

predators threaten populations at the 

House and Wild Duck Ponds, where 

bullfrogs have been found periodically 

and goldfish were once introduced. 

Those two ponds are buffered against 

drought and drying by a pipeline from 

a spring and a windmill. However, the 

Box in Brown Canyon is subject to low 

water and drying during drought. That 

later population depends upon 

immigration or active reestablishment 

for long-term persistence. The Trout and 

Meadow Ponds in Ramsey Canyon are 

fed by pipelines; thus the water supply 

is dependable. The Trout Pond could 

however be filled in with sediment 

during a flood. Further, a fire in the 

watershed could threaten aquatic 

breeding sites in both canyons. 

Lands owned by The Nature 

Conservancy in Ramsey Canyon are 

known as the Ramsey Canyon Preserve 

and are managed for preservation of 

natural features and species, including 

the Chiricahua leopard frog. The Nature 

Conservancy has been an active 

participant in Chiricahua leopard frog 

recovery for many years; the Ramsey 

Canyon Preserve is currently in the 

process of being signed onto a Safe 

Harbor Agreement, and The Nature 

Conservancy signed the Ramsey Canyon 

leopard frog conservation agreement, 

which implements the Chiricahua 

leopard frog recovery plan in the 

Huachuca Mountains. Under section 

4(b)(2) of the Act, the Ramsey Canyon 

Preserve is being considered for 

exclusion from the final rule for critical 

habitat (see Application of Section 

4(b)(2) of the Act section below). 

Recovery Unit 3 (Chiricahua MountainsMalpai Borderlands-Sierra Madre, 

Arizona, New Mexico, and Mexico) 

Unit 15: High Lonesome Well 

This unit includes 0.4 ac (0.2 ha) of 

privately owned lands in the Playas 

Valley, Hidalgo County, New Mexico. 

This unit is proposed as critical habitat 

because it was occupied at the time of 

listing and currently contains sufficient 

PCEs (PCE 1) to support life-history 

functions essential for the conservation 

of the species. 

This unit consists of an elevated 

concrete tank into which Chiricahua 

leopard frogs were introduced prior to 

listing (Painter 2000, p. 15). The tank is 

supplied with water from a windmill 

and provides water for livestock. The 

site supports a robust breeding 

population, but is much too far from 

other populations to be part of a 

metapopulation (the nearest population 

is in Unit 17, 25.4 mi (40.6 km) to the 

west). Furthermore, although frogs can 

exit the tank, they cannot get back into 

the tank. As a result, it is managed as 

an isolated, robust population. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 14145 

Chiricahua leopard frogs were present 

at the time of listing and are currently 

extant. The population is threatened by 

deterioration of the concrete tank, 

which needs repair or replacement. 

Catastrophic failure of the tank would 

result in loss of this population. 

Chytridiomycosis has not been detected 

at this site, but disease testing has been 

minimal. Nonnative predators have not 

been recorded. Because of the nature of 

the site, such predators could not 

colonize the tank on their own; they 

would have to be introduced. 

Unit 16: Peloncillo Mountains 

This unit includes 366 ac (148 ha) of 

Coronado National Forest lands and 289 

ac (117 ha) of private lands in Hidalgo 

County, New Mexico. This unit is 

proposed as critical habitat because it 

was occupied at the time of listing and 

currently contains sufficient PCEs (PCEs 

1 and 2) to support life-history functions 

essential for the conservation of the 

species. 

Aquatic habitats proposed as critical 

habitat in this unit include Geronimo, 

Javelina, State Line, and Canoncito 

Ranch Tanks; Maverick Spring; and 

pools or ponds in the Cloverdale 

Cienega and along Cloverdale Creek 

below Canoncito Ranch Tank. Breeding 

occurs in State Line and Canoncito 

Ranch Tanks, and possibly other aquatic 

sites. Canoncito Ranch and Geronimo 

tanks were occupied at the time of 

listing. The occupancy status of the 

other sites at that time is unknown. All 

four of the tanks and Maverick Spring 

have recent records of frogs (2007 to the 

present) and are considered currently 

occupied. Frogs disperse from 

Canoncito Ranch Tank into Cloverdale 

Cienega and Cloverdale Creek when 

water is present. This unit is managed 

as a metapopulation. 

Also included in this critical habitat 

proposal are intervening drainages and 

uplands needed for connectivity among 

these aquatic sites, including: (1) 

Cloverdale Creek from Canoncito Ranch 

Tank downstream to rock pools about 

630 feet (192 m) below the Cloverdale 

Road crossing of Cloverdale Creek, 

including Cloverdale Cienega; (2) from 

Geronimo Tank downstream in an 

unnamed drainage to its confluence 

with Clanton Draw, then upstream to 

the confluence with an unnamed 

drainage, and upstream in that drainage 

to its headwaters, across a mesa to the 

headwaters of an unnamed drainage, 

then downslope through that drainage 

to State Line Tank; (3) from State Line 

Tank upstream in an unnamed drainage 

to a mesa, then directly overland to the 

headwaters of Cloverdale Creek, and 

then downstream in Cloverdale Creek to 

Javelina Tank; and (4) from Javelina 

Tank downstream in Cloverdale Creek 

to the Canoncito Ranch Tank, to include 

Maverick Spring. 

Periodic drought dries most of the 

aquatic sites completely or to small 

pools, which limits population growth 

potential. Nonnative sportfish are 

present at Geronimo Tank and may 

preclude successful recruitment. 

Occurrence of chytridiomycosis in this 

area has not been investigated, but may 

also be a limiting factor. 

Sky Island Alliance is working with 

partners to restore the Cloverdale 

Cienega, which should improve aquatic 

habitats for Chiricahua leopard frogs. 

The owner of the Canoncito Ranch has 

signed onto a Safe Harbor Agreement for 

the Chiricahua leopard frog. Under 

section 4(b)(2) of the Act, the private 

lands in Unit 16 are being considered 

for exclusion from the final rule for 

critical habitat (see Application of 

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act section below). 

Unit 17: Cave Creek 

This unit includes 234 ac (95 ha) of 

Coronado National Forest lands and 92 

ac (37 ha) of private lands owned by the 

American Museum of Natural History in 

the Chiricahua Mountains, Cochise 

County, Arizona. This unit is proposed 

as critical habitat because it was 

occupied at the time of listing and 

currently contains sufficient PCEs to 

support life-history functions essential 

for the conservation of the species. 

Included in the proposed critical 

habitat are an approximate 5.84-mi 

(9.41-km) reach of Cave Creek and 

associated ponds in or near the channel, 

from Herb Martyr Pond downstream to 

the eastern U.S. Forest Service 

boundary, to include John Hands Pond 

and a spring-fed pond at the Southwest 

Research Station. PCEs 1 and 2 are 

present. This site will be managed as a 

metapopulation. 

Herb Martyr Pond is the type locality 

for the Chiricahua leopard frog; 

however, no frogs have been observed at 

the site since 1977. The pool behind the 

dam is entirely silted in, and pools at 

the base of the dam are probably not 

adequate for Chiricahua leopard frog 

survival or reproduction. However, with 

restoration this site could once again 

support Chiricahua leopard frogs. The 

pond below the dam at John Hands 

appears suitable for occupancy, but 

Chiricahua leopard frogs have not been 

recorded there since 1966. The springfed pond at the Southwest Research 

Station appears to be excellent habitat, 

but we have no record of the species 

occurring there. Chiricahua leopard 

frogs were occasionally seen in Cave 

Creek through 2002, and an egg mass 

observed in Cave Creek on the 

Southwest Research Station property 

indicates it may be suitable for breeding, 

although the creek dries to shallow 

pools in most years in May and June. 

This unit is not currently occupied by 

Chiricahua leopard frogs; however, the 

Southwest Research Station is 

headstarting tadpoles collected from 

Leslie Canyon NWR (Unit 18); they will 

be captively bred and released at the 

pond on the station’s property as early 

as 2011. 

Scarcity of water can occur in drought 

years; however, the pond at the 

Southwest Research Station is fed by a 

well and thus is buffered against 

drought. Bullfrogs occur to the east but 

have never been recorded in the unit. 

The current status and past history of 

chytridiomycosis in this unit are 

unknown; however, the pond at the 

Southwest Research Station is fed by a 

warm spring and could provide some 

buffer against the disease. Rainbow trout 

were present and occurred concurrently 

with Chiricahua leopard frogs at Herb 

Martyr Pond, but no trout are currently 

known in the unit. 

The Southwest Research Station has 

signed a Safe Harbor Agreement for the 

Chiricahua leopard frog and is an active 

participant in recovery. The Service and 

AGFD are working with additional 

private landowners downstream of the 

proposed critical habitat to bring them 

into the Safe Harbor Agreement. Under 

section 4(b)(2) of the Act, the American 

Museum of Natural History lands are 

being considered for exclusion from the 

final rule for critical habitat (see 

Application of Section 4(b)(2) of the Act 

section below). 

Unit 18: Leslie Creek 

The unit consists of 26 ac (11 ha) of 

National Wildlife Refuge lands on Leslie 

Canyon NWR, Cochise County, Arizona. 

This unit is proposed as critical habitat 

because it was occupied at the time of 

listing and currently contains sufficient 

PCEs (PCE 1) to support life-history 

functions essential for the conservation 

of the species. 

This unit is a stream system with 

intermittent pools and two small 

impoundments. Its upstream limit is the 

Leslie Canyon NWR boundary, and its 

downstream limit is at the crossing of 

Leslie Canyon Road, an approximate 

stream distance of 4,094 ft (1,248 m). 

Chiricahua leopard frogs were present 

in this unit at the time of listing and are 

currently extant. This population is too 

far (24.8 mi (36.7 km)) from the next 

nearest breeding site (North Tank in 

Unit 19) to be part of a metapopulation. 

Hence it is managed as an isolated 

population. 

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 

factors in this unit. Chiricahua leopard 

frogs are positive for chytridiomycosis 

at this site, and although they are 

persisting with the disease, the 

population is not robust, and the effects 

of the disease may be responsible in 

part. Bullfrogs occur in ponds to the 

east, but have never been recorded in 

Leslie Creek. 

The endangered Huachuca waterumbel, endangered Yaqui chub (Gila 

purpurea), and endangered Yaqui 

topminnow (Poeciliopsis occidentalis 

sonoriensis) all occur in Leslie Creek, 

and the area is managed to conserve the 

aquatic and riparian habitats of the 

canyon. A landowner adjacent to the the 

refuge has signed a Safe Harbor 

Agreement for the Chiricahua leopard 

frog and other species. With future 

habitat renovations and population 

reestablishments, there is some 

potential for developing additional 

populations of Chiricahua leopard frogs 

in this area, which could form a 

metapopulation with the Leslie Canyon 

population. 

Unit 19: Rosewood and North Tanks 

This unit includes 19 ac (8 ha) of 

private land and 78 ac (31 ha) of land 

owned by the Arizona State Land 

Department in the San Bernardino 

Valley, Cochise County, Arizona. This 

unit is proposed as critical habitat 

because it was occupied at the time of 

listing and currently contains sufficient 

PCEs (PCEs 1 and 2) to support lifehistory functions essential for the 

conservation of the species. 

Included in this proposed unit are 

two livestock tanks (Rosewood and 

North Tanks) and drainages and 

uplands to allow for movement of frogs 

between them. North Tank is on private 

land, while Rosewood Tank and the 

connecting drainage are on Arizona 

State Land Department lands. Rosewood 

Tank was occupied at the time of listing, 

but North Tank was not. Both tanks are 

currently occupied. Rosewood Tank is a 

breeding population, and North Tank 

probably supports breeding. The North 

Tank is a recent (2008) reestablishment 

site for which breeding has not yet been 

documented. Two interconnected 

breeding sites do not make a 

metapopulation (four or more 

interconnected breeding sites are 

necessary, Service 2007, p. K–3); hence 

this unit is considered an isolated 

population. 

The intervening drainages and 

uplands proposed as critical habitat are 

as follows: (1) From Rosewood Tank 

downstream in an unnamed drainage 

that is parallel to and just south of the 

Guadalupe Canyon Road to its 

confluence with a large unnamed 

drainage, then upstream in that 

drainage; (2) under Guadalupe Canyon 

Road and east to its confluence with a 

minor unnamed drainage; (3) upstream 

in that unnamed minor drainage to its 

headwaters; (4) then overland to the 

headwaters of another unnamed 

drainage; (5) downstream in that 

drainage to its confluence with the 

drainage containing North Tank; and (6) 

downstream in that drainage to North 

Tank. 

Chytridiomycosis has not been 

recorded in this unit despite its 

presence nearby at San Bernardino 

NWR. High pH at Rosewood Tank may 

be a limiting factor for the disease 

organism. No nonnative predators have 

been found at either of these tanks. 

Rosewood Tank has been equipped with 

two small, concrete-lined refugia ponds 

fed by a well so that the frogs can persist 

at this site even if the livestock tank, 

which is filled by runoff, goes dry. 

For many years, the owners of the 

Magoffin Ranch in this unit have made 

unprecedented efforts to maintain this 

population. The private and Arizona 

State Land Department lands in the 

proposal are covered by a Safe Harbor 

Agreement for the Chiricahua leopard 

frog. The Magoffin Ranch owners have 

worked tirelessly for the recovery of this 

species. Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, 

lands in this unit are being considered 

for exclusion from the final rule for 

critical habitat (see Application of 

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act section below). 

Recovery Unit 4 (Pin ̃ aleno-GaliuroDragoon Mountains, Arizona) 

Unit 20: Deer Creek 

This unit consists of 17 ac (7 ha) of 

Coronado National Forest, 69 ac (28 ha) 

of Arizona State Land Department 

lands, and 34 ac (14 ha) of private lands 

in the Galiuro Mountains, Graham 

County, Arizona. This unit is proposed 

as critical habitat because it is essential 

for the conservation of the species. PCEs 

1 and 2 are present in this unit. 

Included in proposed critical habitat 

are Home Ranch, Clifford’s, Vermont, 

and Middle Tanks, a series of 10 

impoundments on the Penney Mine 

lease, and intervening drainages, 

primarily Deer Creek, and associated 

uplands and ephemeral tanks that 

provide corridors for movement among 

these tanks. Breeding has been 

confirmed on Deer Creek above 

Clifford’s Tank, and in Home Ranch and 

Vermont Tanks, and is suspected in the 

other three sites named above when 

water is present long enough for 

tadpoles to metamorphose into adults (3 

to 9 months). Home Ranch Tank 

supports a robust or nearly robust 

population of Chiricahua leopard frogs. 

This unit functions as a metapopulation. 

Intervening drainages include: (1) Deer 

Creek from a point where it exits a 

canyon and turns abruptly to the east, 

upstream to its confluence with an 

unnamed drainage, upstream in that 

drainage to a confluence with four other 

drainages, upstream from that 

confluence in the western drainage to 

Clifford’s Tank, upstream from that 

confluence in the west-central drainage 

to an unnamed tank, then directly 

overland southeast to another unnamed 

tank, then downstream from that tank in 

an unnamed drainage to the 

aforementioned confluence and 

upstream in that unnamed drainage to a 

saddle, and downstream from that 

saddle in an unnamed drainage to its 

confluence with an unnamed tributary 

to Gardner Canyon, and upstream in 

that unnamed tributary to Home Ranch 

Tank; (2) from the largest of the Penney 

Mine Tanks directly overland and 

southwest to an unnamed tank, and 

downstream from that tank in an 

unnamed drainage to the 

aforementioned confluence, to include 

another unnamed tank situated in that 

drainage; (3) from Vermont Tank 

directly overland and east to Deer Creek; 

and (4) from Middle Tank upstream in 

an unnamed drainage to a saddle, and 

then directly downslope to Deer Creek. 

The primary threat to Chiricahua 

leopard frogs and their habitats in this 

unit is periodic drought that results in 

breeding sites drying out. During a 

severe drought in 2002, all but one of 

the waters in the unit dried out. The 

occupancy status of the unit at the time 

of listing is unknown. Frogs in this unit 

reportedly died for unknown reasons in 

the 1980s (Goforth 2005, p. 2), possibly 

indicative of chytridiomycosis; 

however, no Chiricahua leopard frogs 

have tested positive for the disease from 

this unit. The only nonnative aquatic 

predator recorded in this unit is the 

barred tiger salamander. 

Recovery work has occurred in this 

unit, including headstarting of egg 

masses and reestablishment and 

augmentation of populations. The 

Service, AGFD, Arizona State Land 

Department, and an agate miner (Penney 

Mine Tanks) have drafted a 

conservation plan for managing habitats 

on the mine lease, but funds are lacking 

to implement that plan. 

Unit 21: Oak Spring and Oak Creek 

This unit consists of 27 ac (11 ha) of 

Coronado National Forest lands in the 

Galiuro Mountains, Graham County, 

Arizona. Oak Spring and Oak Creek are 

proposed as critical habitat because they 

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 

species. 

The unit is currently occupied; 

however, its occupancy status at the 

time of listing is unknown. It is just 

north of Deer Creek (Unit 20) but is too 

far (about 1.6 mi (2.6 km)) overland (via 

straight-line distance) from the nearest 

aquatic sites (Home Ranch and 

Clifford’s Tanks) in that unit. 

Connectivity is further complicated by a 

ridgeline between Oak Spring and Home 

Ranch Tank. Hence, this site is managed 

as an isolated population. 

PCEs 1 and 2 are present in this unit. 

The site does not support enough frogs 

to be considered a robust population. 

This unit is an approximate 1.06-mi 

(1.71-km) intermittent reach of an 

incised canyon punctuated by pools of 

varying permanence, from Oak Spring 

downstream in Oak Creek to where a 

hiking trail intersects the creek. The 

largest pool, Cattail Pool, is permanent 

or nearly so and typically supports 

several Chiricahua leopard frogs and 

breeding. The reach proposed for 

critical habitat captures the area where 

Chiricahua leopard frogs have been 

seen. 

The primary threat in this unit is 

extended drought during which all of 

the pools are subject to reduction or 

drying. Cattail Pool is spring-fed, and is 

likely the last pool to dry out. Oak 

Spring is also tapped for water 

developments, which may limit the 

capability of the site to support frogs. 

Chiricahua leopard frogs have been 

headstarted and released at this site to 

augment the population. 

Unit 22: Dragoon Mountains 

This unit includes 74 ac (30 ha) of 

Coronado National Forest lands in 

Cochise County, Arizona. This uit is 

proposed as critical habitat because it 

was occupied at the time of listing and 

currently contains sufficient PCEs (PCEs 

1 and 2) to support life-history functions 

essential for the conservation of the 

species. 

Shaw Tank and Tunnel Spring in 

Middlemarch Canyon are proposed as 

critical habitat in this unit and are 

currently occupied breeding sites. The 

latter is a robust population that was 

occupied at the time of listing. Shaw 

Tank is a reestablishment site that was 

not known to be occupied in 2002. 

Also included in the proposal as 

proposed critical habitat is Halfmoon 

Tank, which supported a robust 

population of Chiricahua leopard frogs 

until 2002. It dried or nearly dried that 

year and may or may not have 

supported Chiricahua leopard frogs at 

the time of listing. PCE 1 at Halfmoon 

Tank has been compromised by siltation 

and recent drought. The tank is in need 

of renovation so that it may again 

dependably hold water and support 

breeding. 

Currently, not enough breeding sites 

exist to comprise a metapopulation (four 

are necessary) in this unit; however, 

with additional habitat creation or 

renovation, a metapopulation may be 

possible, which is needed for this 

recovery unit (the only other 

metapopulation is in Unit 20). 

Also included in this critical habitat 

proposal are intervening drainages for 

connectivity, including Stronghold 

Canyon from Halfmoon Tank to Cochise 

Spring, then upstream in an unnamed 

canyon to Shaw Tank, and continuing 

upstream to the headwaters of that 

canyon, across a saddle and 

downstream in Middlemarch Canyon to 

Tunnel Spring. 

Threats to the Chiricahua leopard frog 

and its habitat are primarily scarcity of 

suitable breeding habitat and loss of that 

habitat during drought. Tunnel Spring is 

spring-fed and thus buffered against 

drought; however, Shaw and Halfmoon 

Tanks are filled with runoff. Neither 

nonnative predators nor 

chytridiomycosis have been noted in 

these populations and habitats, although 

if introduced they would constitute 

additional stressors. 

Recovery work, including 

headstarting of eggs collected from 

Tunnel Spring and establishment of a 

new population at Shaw Tank with 

reared tadpoles and frogs, has been 

accomplished in this unit, and the U.S. 

Forest Service’s livestock permittee has 

been an enthusiastic participant in those 

recovery activities. 

Recovery Unit 5 (Mogollon Rim-Verde 

River, Arizona) 

Unit 23: Buckskin Hills 

This unit includes 232 ac (94 ha) of 

Coconino National Forest lands in 

Yavapai County, Arizona. This unit is 

proposed as critical habitat because it 

was occupied at the time of listing and 

currently contains sufficient PCEs (PCEs 

1 and 2) to support life-history functions 

essential for the conservation of the 

species. 

Included in this proposed critical 

habitat unit are six tanks occupied at the 

time of listing (Sycamore Basin, Middle, 

Walt’s, Partnership, Black, and 

Buckskin) that form a metapopulation. 

Frogs currently occur at Middle and 

Walt’s Tanks. Also included in the 

critical habitat proposal are two tanks 

occupied in 2001 that probably dried 

out during a drought in 2002: Doren’s 

Defeat and Needed Tanks. The former 

holds water well and is about 0.5 mi 

(0.8 km) from Partnership Tank and 0.67 

mi (1.07 km) from Walt’s Tank. Needed 

Tank may not hold water long enough 

for breeding, but it provides a stopover 

for dispersing frogs. 

This proposed critical habitat also 

includes drainages and uplands likely 

used as dispersal corridors among these 

tanks, including: (1) From Middle Tank 

downstream in Boulder Canyon to its 

confluence with an unnamed drainage 

that comes in from the northwest, to 

include Black Tank, then upstream in 

that unnamed drainage to a saddle, to 

include Needed Tank, downstream from 

the saddle in an unnamed drainage to 

its confluence with another unnamed 

drainage, downstream in that drainage 

to the confluence with an unnamed 

drainage, to include Walt’s Tank, and 

upstream in that unnamed drainage to 

Partnership Tank; (2) from Doren’s 

Defeat Tank upstream in an unnamed 

drainage to Partnership Tank; (3) from 

the confluence of an unnamed drainage 

with Boulder Canyon west to a point 

where the drainage turns southwest, 

then directly overland to the top of 

Sycamore Canyon, and then 

downstream in Sycamore Canyon to 

Sycamore Basin Tank; and (4) from 

Buckskin Tank upstream in an unnamed 

drainage to the top of that drainage, then 

directly overland to an unnamed 

drainage that contains Walt’s Tank. 

The greatest threats are reintroduction 

of nonnative species and drought. 

Divide Tank, which is adjacent to 

Highway 260, has supported nonnatives 

in the past and is a likely place for 

future illegal stockings of fish or 

bullfrogs. If established there, 

nonnatives could spread to sites 

proposed herein as critical habitat. All 

of the tanks proposed as critical habitat 

are filled by runoff; hence, they are 

vulnerable to drying during drought. 

When the species was proposed for 

listing, the populations in the Buckskin 

Hills were unknown; however, during 

2000–2001, frogs were found at 11 sites. 

After a severe drought in 2002, frogs 

only remained at Sycamore Basin and 

Walt’s Tanks. Drilling a well to make 

one or more of the tanks less susceptible 

to drying is cost prohibitive because of 

the extreme depth to groundwater. 

Because the tanks depend on runoff, 

and as most tanks went dry in 2002, 

protecting more than the minimum four 

breeding sites needed for a 

metapopulation is warranted. 

Chytridiomycosis has not been found in 

any wild frogs in the Buckskin Hills; 

however, the disease occurs in Arizona 

treefrogs (Hyla wrightorum) and western 

chorus frogs (Pseudacris triseriata) less 

than 10 mi (16 km) to the east, and frogs 

collected from Walt’s Tank 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

14148 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

subsequently tested positive for the 

disease in captivity. It is unknown 

whether they contracted the disease in 

the wild or while captive. 

Much recovery work has been 

accomplished in this unit, including 

captive rearing, population 

reestablishments, tank renovations, 

erosion control, fencing, and 

elimination of nonnative predators such 

as sportfishes and crayfish. 

Unit 24: Crouch, Gentry, and Cherry 

Creeks, and Parallel Canyon 

This unit includes 334 ac (135 ha) of 

Tonto National Forest lands, 64 ac (26 

ha) of AGFD lands, and 6 ac (3 ha) of 

private lands in Gila County, Arizona. 

This unit is proposed as critical habitat 

because it was occupied at the time of 

listing and currently contains sufficient 

PCEs (PCEs 1 and 2) to support lifehistory functions essential for the 

conservation of the species. 

Included as proposed critical habitat 

are Trail Tank, HY Tank, Carroll Spring, 

West Prong of Gentry Creek, Pine 

Spring, and portions of Cherry and 

Crouch Creeks, all of which provide 

breeding or potential breeding habitat. 

Also included are intervening drainages 

and uplands needed for connectivity 

among breeding sites, including: (1) 

Cherry Creek from Rock Spring 

upstream to its confluence with an 

unnamed drainage, upstream in that 

drainage and across a saddle, then 

downstream in an unnamed drainage to 

Trail Tank; (2) Crouch Creek from its 

headwaters just south of Highway 288 

downstream to an unnamed drainage 

leading to Pine Spring, to include 

Cunningham Spring and Carroll Spring, 

then upstream in that unnamed 

drainage from Crouch Creek to Pine 

Spring; (3) from HY Tank downstream 

in an unnamed drainage to Cherry 

Creek, to include Bottle Spring; (4) from 

Cunningham Spring east across a low 

saddle to West Prong of Gentry Creek 

where the creek turns southwest; and (5) 

from Bottle Spring south over a low 

saddle to the headwaters of Crouch 

Creek. 

At the time of listing, Chiricahua 

leopard frogs occurred in Crouch Creek, 

Carroll Spring, HY Tank, Bottle Spring, 

and West Prong of Gentry Creek. Trail 

Tank has nearly permanent water and is 

in the Parallel Canyon drainage, but 

close to the divide with Cherry Creek. 

In May 2010, it was renovated to remove 

a breeding population of bullfrogs and 

green sunfish. Additional followup 

removal of bullfrogs occurred in July 

2010. Bullfrogs at the nearby ephemeral 

Roadside Tank were also eliminated in 

2010. Once bullfrogs are confirmed 

absent, plans will move forward to 

translocate Chiricahua leopard frogs to 

Trail Tank. 

Chiricahua leopard frogs were moved 

to Pine Spring in 2006, and habitat work 

was accomplished there to improve pool 

habitats. However, no frogs were 

observed during a site visit in May 2010. 

The connectivity of Pine Spring to 

Cunningham Spring and other sites 

upstream in Crouch Creek is 

complicated by a waterfall below 

Cunningham Spring; however, an 

overland route of less than a mile 

provides access around the waterfall. 

Chiricahua leopard frogs were first 

noted in Cherry Creek in 2008, just 

before additional frogs were released 

into that site. Reproduction has been 

noted and frogs were observed in Cherry 

Creek in 2010. 

Threats in this unit include predation 

by nonnative species, including 

bullfrogs, crayfish, and sportfish; 

predation by tiger salamanders 

(presumably native); chytridiomycosis, 

which was found in a Cherry Creek frog 

in 2009; and minimal water. None of the 

populations are robust due to the small 

size of breeding habitats. It is hoped that 

Trail Tank may provide enough aquatic 

habitat for a robust population. Other 

sites have renovation potential and 

could possibly in the future support 

robust populations, but none of the 

other sites currently have the PCEs due 

to presence of nonnative species or 

other factors. 

This unit has received habitat work, 

renovations, nonnative species control, 

headstarting, population 

reestablishment, and population 

augmentation. 

Unit 25: Ellison and Lewis Creeks 

This unit includes 83 ac (34) of Tonto 

National Forest lands and 15 ac (6 ha) 

of private lands in Gila County, Arizona. 

This unit is proposed as critical habitat 

because it is essential for the 

conservation of the species. PCEs 1 and 

2 are present in this unit. 

Included in this critical habitat 

proposal are potential breeding sites at 

Moore Saddle Tank #42, Ellison Creek 

just east of Pyle Ranch, Lewis Creek 

downstream of Pyle Ranch, and Low 

Tank. Intervening drainages that 

provide connectivity among the latter 

three sites are also proposed as critical 

habitat as follows: (1) Unnamed 

tributary to Ellison Creek from its 

confluence with an unnamed drainage 

downstream to Ellison Creek; (2) then 

directly west across the Ellison Creek 

floodplain and over a low saddle to 

Lewis Creek below Pyle Ranch; (3) then 

downstream in Lewis Creek to its 

confluence with an unnamed drainage; 

and (4) then upstream in that unnamed 

drainage to Low Tank. 

Moore Saddle Tank #42 is about 0.8 

mi (1.3 km) overland from Low Tank; 

hence, it is within the one-mile 

overland distance for reasonable 

dispersal likelihood; however, there are 

four drainages that bisect that route, and 

it is likely that any Chiricahua leopard 

frogs traversing those uplands would 

move down or upstream in one of those 

drainages rather than crossing them. As 

a result, Moore Saddle Tank #42 will be 

managed as an isolated and potentially 

robust population. 

This leaves the other sites one short 

of the four needed to form a 

metapopulation; however, no other sites 

in the area are known that contain the 

PCEs or have the potential for 

developing the PCEs. Additional 

exploration of the area and likely some 

habitat renovation will be needed to 

secure a fourth site. 

Chiricahua leopard frogs have 

occasionally been found in Ellison 

Creek. In 1998, small numbers of frogs 

were found here, but were not seen 

again until 2006. Despite intensive 

surveys, no frogs were found in 2007 or 

2008. 

Whether this unit was occupied at the 

time of listing is unclear. In 2009, egg 

masses from Crouch Creek in Unit 24 

were headstarted, and tadpoles and 

young frogs were stocked at the four 

sites listed above as potential breeding 

sites. Frogs from those releases appeared 

to be doing well at all four sites in 2010. 

Additional releases of Crouch Creek 

frogs occurred in July 2010. 

Recovery Unit 6 (White MountainsUpper Gila, Arizona and New Mexico) 

Unit 26: Concho Bill and Deer Creek 

This unit includes 17 ac (7 ha) of 

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest in 

Apache County, Arizona. This unit is 

proposed as critical habitat because it is 

essential for the conservation of the 

species. PCE 1 is present. Included in 

this critical habitat proposal is a spring 

at Concho Bill and a meadow-ephemeral 

stream reach extending for 

approximately 2,667 ft (813 m) below 

the spring. 

This is an isolated population that 

was established through captive 

breeding and translocation of stock from 

Three Forks, which is also in recovery 

unit 6 in Arizona. Frogs were first 

released at the spring pool in 2000; 

subsequent releases have augmented the 

population. Whether the frogs persisted 

after that initial release until the time of 

listing is unknown. The population is 

small and generally only a few frogs if 

any are detected during surveys. 

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 

habitat for breeding and overwintering, 

which thus far has limited the size of 

the population. Small populations are 

subject to extirpation from random 

variations in demographics of age 

structure and sex ratio, and from disease 

and natural events (Service 2007, p. 38). 

In addition, crayfish are nearby in the 

Black River and could invade this site. 

Unit 27: Campbell Blue and Coleman 

Creeks 

The unit includes 174 ac (70 ha) of 

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest in 

Greenlee County, Arizona. This unit is 

proposed as critical habitat because it 

was occupied at the time of listing and 

currently contains sufficient PCEs (PCE 

1) to support life-history functions 

essential for the conservation of the 

species. 

Included as critical habitat is an 

approximate 2.04-mi (3.28-km) reach of 

Campbell Blue Creek from the western 

boundary of Luce Ranch upstream to the 

Coleman Creek confluence, and 

Coleman Creek from its confluence with 

Campbell Blue Creek upstream to its 

confluence with Canyon Creek, an 

approximate stream distance of 1.04 mi 

(1.68 km). 

This unit is too far from other known 

Chiricahua leopard frog populations to 

be considered part of a metapopulation. 

The nearest population is about 12.2 mi 

(19.6 km) to the northwest in Unit 26. 

Frogs were observed in Unit 27 in 2002, 

and then again in 2010. No more than 

a few frogs were seen during surveys 

(two were observed in 2010); however, 

the site is difficult to survey and frogs 

have many opportunities for hiding 

from observers. 

Crayfish and introduced rainbow 

trout are present throughout this stream 

system, which likely limit recruitment 

of frogs into the population. In 2010, the 

creeks had numerous beaver ponds and 

vegetation cover that are probably 

important as protection from predators. 

Backwaters and off-channel pools 

provide better habitat than the often 

swiftly moving, shallow water in the 

creeks. The presence of 

chytridiomycosis has not been 

investigated in this unit. 

Unit 28: Tularosa River 

This unit contains 335 ac (135 ha) of 

Gila National Forest and 1,575 ac (637 

ha) of private lands in Catron County, 

New Mexico. This unit is proposed as 

critical habitat because it was occupied 

at the time of listing and currently 

contains sufficient PCEs (PCEs 1 and 2) 

to support life-history functions 

essential for the conservation of the 

species. 

This unit is an approximate 19.31-mi 

(31.08-km) reach of the Tularosa River 

from Tularosa Spring downstream to the 

entrance to the canyon below Hell Hole. 

Frogs were observed in this reach in 

2002 at the time of listing and continue 

to persist. This unit is isolated from 

other populations, but is a large system 

potentially capable of supporting a 

robust population. 

In 2009, small numbers of frogs were 

found at two sites in the unit. The frogs 

may occur throughout this reach of the 

river, but breeding is likely limited to 

isolated localities where nonnative 

predators are rare or absent. Crayfish are 

abundant, rainbow trout are present, 

and bullfrogs have recently been found 

downstream of the Apache Creek 

confluence and just below Hell Hole. 

Chytridiomycosis is present. The first 

Chiricahua leopard frogs to test positive 

for the disease in New Mexico (1985) 

were found at Tularosa Spring. The 

frogs were found at that site through 

2005, but none have been observed 

since. A robust population was present 

nearby at a pond in a tributary to Kerr 

Canyon, in Kerr Canyon, and at Kerr 

Spring, but experienced a die-off from 

chytridiomycosis in 2009; it is unknown 

if frogs persist in that area. 

Chytridiomycosis is considered a 

serious threat in this unit. Both bullfrogs 

and crayfish are relatively recent 

arrivals in this system and limit, but 

thus far have not precluded, recovery 

opportunities. 

The proposed critical habitat does not 

extend much below Hell Hole because 

of a lack of recent frog observations in 

that reach, presumably due to 

prevalence of nonnative species and 

disease. Chiricahua leopard frogs 

occurred in the 1980s in this lower 

reach but have not been observed since. 

Unit 29: Deep Creek Divide Area 

This unit consists of 408 ac (165 ha) 

of Gila National Forest and 102 ac (41 

ha) of private lands in Catron County, 

New Mexico. This unit is proposed as 

critical habitat because it was occupied 

at the time of listing and currently 

contains sufficient PCEs (PCEs 1 and 2) 

to support life-history functions 

essential for the conservation of the 

species. 

Included as proposed critical habitat 

are three livestock tanks (Long Mesa, 

Cullum, and Burro Tanks) in the Deep 

Creek Divide area and connecting 

reaches of North and South Fork of 

Negrito Creek above their confluence. 

Long Mesa Tank is currently occupied; 

surveys in 2010 did not find frogs at 

Cullum Tanks or the North Fork of 

Negrito Creek, although Chiricahua 

leopard frogs occupied these sites in 

2009. Frogs were last found in South 

Fork of Negrito Creek in 2006, and at 

Burro Tank in 2002. Four 

impoundments on private lands along 

South Fork of Negrito Creek have not 

been surveyed for frogs; however, it is 

presumed they serve or once served as 

habitat for Chiricahua leopard frogs. 

Long Mesa, Cullum, and Burro Tanks, 

and South Fork of Negrito Creek were 

occupied at the time of listing. All sites 

are thought to retain the PCEs. 

Also included in this proposed 

critical habitat are intervening drainages 

and uplands for movement among these 

breeding sites as follows: (1) From Burro 

Tank downstream in Burro Canyon to 

Negrito Creek, then upstream in Negrito 

Creek to the confluence of South Fork 

and North Fork of Negrito Creek; (2) 

from Long Mesa Tank overland and east 

to Shotgun Canyon, then downstream in 

that canyon to Cullum Tank; and (3) 

from Cullum Tank downstream in 

Shotgun and Bull Basin Canyons to an 

unnamed drainage, then upstream in 

that drainage to its confluence with a 

minor drainage coming off Rainy Mesa 

from the east-northeast, then upstream 

in that drainage and across Rainy Mesa 

to Burro Tank. 

Populations in this unit have suffered 

from chytridiomycosis. A complex of 

tanks, springs, and streams in the Deep 

Creek Divide area was once a stronghold 

for the Chiricahua leopard frog on the 

Gila National Forest. However, most of 

those populations contracted the 

disease, suffered die-offs, and 

disappeared. Frogs on the North Fork of 

Negrito Creek were few in number and 

appeared sick in 2008. Their possible 

absence in 2010 may be a result of a 

disease-related die-off. Presence of the 

disease compromises PCE 1 and limits 

recovery opportunities in this unit. 

Unit 30: Main Diamond Creek 

This unit consists of 14 ac (6 ha) of 

Gila National Forest and 40 ac (16 ha) 

of private lands along Main Diamond 

Creek downstream of Links Ranch, 

Catron County, New Mexico. This unit 

is proposed as critical habitat because it 

was occupied at the time of listing and 

currently contains sufficient PCEs (PCE 

1) to support life-history functions 

essential for the conservation of the 

species. 

This site currently supports a robust 

population. Chiricahua leopard frogs 

may occur periodically or regularly at 

an impoundment at Links Ranch, but 

that impoundment also contains 

bullfrogs and may have sportfish, as 

well. This proposed critical habitat 

includes an approximate 3,980-ft (1,213- 

m), perennial or nearly perennial reach 

of Main Diamond Creek from the 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

14150 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

downstream (western) boundary of 

Links Ranch downstream through a 

meadow to the confluence of a drainage 

that comes in from the south, which is 

also where the creek enters a canyon. 

This population is about a 4.6-mi (7.4- 

km), straight-line distance over rugged 

terrain to the next nearest population at 

Beaver Creek (Unit 31). As a result, it is 

managed as an isolated, robust 

population. 

Chytridiomycosis has not been found 

in this population, but is a potential 

threat. Bullfrogs at the impoundment 

likely prey upon Chiricahua leopard 

frogs. The creek is primarily privately 

owned; the future plans of the 

landowners regarding land management 

in the area are unknown. 

Unit 31: Beaver Creek 

This unit consists of 132 ac (54 ha) of 

Gila National Forest and 25 ac (10 ha) 

of private lands near Wall Lake, Catron 

County, New Mexico. This unit is an 

approximate 5.59-mi (8.89-km) portion 

of Beaver Creek beginning at a warm 

spring and running downstream to its 

confluence with Taylor Creek. Below 

that confluence, the stream is known as 

the East Fork of the Gila River. This unit 

is proposed as critical habitat because it 

is essential for the conservation of the 

species. PCE 1 is present in this unit. 

The status of the population at the 

time of listing is unknown; however, 

Chiricahua leopard frogs are currently 

present. The population is not well 

studied; Beaver Creek is, however, a 

long enough reach that it could support 

a robust population. The nearest known 

population of Chiricahua leopard frogs 

is at Main Diamond Creek (Unit 30), 

approximately a 4.6-mi (7.4-km), 

straight-line distance away over rugged 

terrain. As a result, this site is managed 

as an isolated population. 

The spring at the upstream end of the 

unit is a warm spring, which may help 

frogs survive with chytridiomycosis, if 

the disease is present or colonizes the 

area in the future (Johnson and 

Smorynski 1998, p. 45; Service 2007, p. 

26). Rainbow trout, bass (Microptus sp.), 

and bullfrogs reportedly occur along 

Beaver Creek with Chiricahua leopard 

frogs, although trout are limited to the 

cooler waters near the confluence with 

Taylor Creek (Johnson and Smorynski 

1998, pp. 44–45). The mechanisms by 

which Chiricahua leopard frogs coexist 

with these nonnative predators are 

unknown; however, habitat complexity 

and adequate cover are likely important 

features that may need special 

management. 

Recovery Unit 7 (Upper Gila-Blue River, 

Arizona and New Mexico) 

Unit 32: Left Prong of Dix Creek 

This unit contains 13 ac (5 ha) of 

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest lands 

in Greenlee County, Arizona. This unit 

is proposed as critical habitat because it 

is essential for the conservation of the 

species. PCE 1 is present. 

This reach runs from a warm spring 

above ‘‘The Hole’’ and continues to the 

confluence with the right prong of Dix 

Creek, an approximate stream distance 

of 4,248 ft (1,296 m). This population 

was discovered in 2003; its status at the 

time of listing is unknown. Chiricahua 

leopard frogs were found again in 2005. 

They were not observed in 2010, but a 

large boulder has lodged itself in the 

canyon, blocking access to the spring; 

hence, the warm spring was not 

surveyed. In 2003, Chiricahua leopard 

frogs were also reported from below a 

warm spring in the Right Prong of Dix 

Creek; however, surveys in 2010 only 

found lowland leopard frogs. Either the 

frogs in this reach were misidentified in 

2003, or lowland leopard frogs have 

displaced Chiricahua leopard frogs in 

the Right Prong. Currently, the 

population in the Left Prong is isolated. 

The next nearest known Chiricahua 

leopard frog population is at Rattlesnake 

Pasture Tank (Unit 33), about a 6.0-mi 

(9.6-km), straight-line distance over 

rough terrain. A number of stock tanks 

have potential to connect these two sites 

and form a metapopulation; however, 

they have not been investigated in 

enough detail to understand whether 

PCEs are present or have the potential 

to be developed. No Chiricahua leopard 

frogs have ever been found in these 

tanks. 

This proposed critical habitat 

overlaps that of critical habitat for Gila 

chub (Gila intermedia), which provides 

a level of protection for this unit. A 

healthy population of Gila chub, as well 

as other native fishes, occurs in the Left 

Prong of Dix Creek. A natural rock 

barrier about a mile below the 

confluence of the Right and Left Prongs 

serves as a barrier to upstream 

movement of nonnative fishes from the 

San Francisco River. The warm waters 

of the spring may allow persistence of 

Chiricahua leopard frogs if 

chytridiomycosis is present or if it 

colonizes this area in the future. A 

rough dirt road crosses the left prong of 

Dix Creek in the proposed critical 

habitat unit. It likely contributes some 

sediment to the stream. 

Unit 33: Rattlesnake Pasture Tank and 

Associated Tanks 

This unit contains 59 ac (24 ha) of 

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest in 

Greenlee County, Arizona. This unit is 

proposed as critical habitat because it is 

essential for the conservation of the 

species. PCEs 1 and 2 are present in this 

unit. 

Included in the proposed critical 

habitat are three stock tanks: Rattlesnake 

Pasture, Rattlesnake Gap, and Buckhorn. 

Also included are intervening drainages 

and uplands for connectivity, including: 

(1) From Rattlesnake Pasture Tank 

downstream in an unnamed drainage to 

Red Tank Canyon (including Buckhorn 

Tank), then upstream in Red Tank 

Canyon to Rattlesnake Gap Tank; and 

(2) from Rattlesnake Gap Tank upstream 

in an unnamed drainage to its 

confluence with a minor drainage, then 

upslope to a saddle, and across that 

saddle and directly downslope to 

Rattlesnake Pasture Tank. 

Chiricahua leopard frogs were 

discovered at Rattlesnake Pasture Tank 

in 2003, and are currently there. Status 

at the time of listing is unknown. The 

species has not been found at 

Rattlesnake Gap or Buckhorn Tanks; 

however, all three tanks are close to 

each other and well connected via 

drainages to allow movement of frogs 

from Rattlesnake Pasture Tank to these 

other tanks. Rattlesnake Gap and 

Buckhorn Tanks appear to have fairly 

permanent water. Other tanks in the 

area, including Cold Spring Mountain 

Tank and Rattlesnake Tanks #1 and 2, 

do not hold water consistently enough 

to support a breeding population of 

frogs (and Chiricahua leopard frogs have 

not been found at these other tanks). 

The three tanks proposed form a 

nucleus from which a metapopulation 

could be constructed; however, habitat 

work will be needed to achieve the 

fourth breeding site of the 

metapopulation. 

Tiger salamanders, presumably native 

Arizona tiger salamanders (Ambystoma 

mavortium nebulosum), occur in all 

three tanks and likely prey upon 

Chiricahua leopard frogs to some 

degree. However, a healthy population 

of Chiricahua leopard frogs occurs with 

Arizona tiger salamanders at Rattlesnake 

Pasture Tank. Three juvenile to small 

adult bullfrogs, which were likely 

immigrants from another site, were 

found at Rattlesnake Gap Tank in June 

2010. If a population of bullfrogs is 

established at Rattlesnake Gap Tank, it 

would threaten Chiricahua leopard frogs 

in Rattlesnake Pasture Tank and the 

capacity for recovery in this recovery 

unit 7. These tanks are fed by rainfall 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 14151 

runoff, but Rattlesnake Pasture Tank 

may be spring fed as well. Nonetheless, 

there is some risk that these tanks, 

particularly Buckhorn Tank, could dry 

out during an extended drought. 

Unit 34: Coal Creek 

This unit consists of 7 ac (3 ha) of 

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest in 

Greenlee County, Arizona, and is 

proposed as critical habitat because it is 

essential for the conservation of the 

species. This is an approximate 3,447-ft 

(1,051-m) reach of Coal Creek from 

Highway 78 downstream to the 

confluence with an unnamed drainage. 

Seasonally this creek dries up to 

isolated pools where Chiricahua leopard 

frogs take refuge. However, during the 

spring and summer, Coal Creek 

typically carries water and the frogs 

distribute themselves throughout this 

reach. PCE 1 is present. 

This population was discovered in 

2003, and is considered to be still in 

existence. Status at the time of listing is 

unknown. This unit is isolated from 

other Chiricahua leopard frog 

populations, the nearest of which is 

Rattlesnake Pasture Tank in Unit 33, 5.1 

mi (8.2 km) to the west over rugged 

terrain. Hence, it is currently managed 

as an isolated population; however, it 

may not have sufficient habitat to 

support a robust population in most 

years. There may be some potential for 

linking this population to Units 32 or 

33, if aquatic habitats in between could 

be identified, renovated as needed, and 

populations of frogs established. 

However, potential sites and presence of 

PCEs have not been investigated in any 

detail. No Chiricahua leopard frogs have 

been found at sites between Units 32, 

33, and 34. 

Neither chytridiomycosis nor 

nonnative predators is known to be a 

problem in this unit; however, if 

introduced, they could be a serious 

impediment to recovery, particularly 

when the creek dries to isolated pools, 

concentrating frogs and any predators or 

disease in remaining waters. Wildfire in 

the area could result in ash flow, 

sedimentation, and erosion in Coal 

Creek, degrading or eliminating habitat 

for Chiricahua leopard frogs. The 

primary threat is probably extended 

drought, during which the aquatic 

habitats of the frog could be severely 

limited or could dry out completely, 

resulting in extirpation of this isolated 

population. 

Unit 35: Blue Creek 

This unit includes 24 ac (10 ha) of 

Bureau of Land Management and 12 ac 

(5 ha) of private lands in Grant County, 

New Mexico. This unit is proposed as 

critical habitat because it was occupied 

at the time of listing and currently 

contains sufficient PCEs to support lifehistory functions essential for the 

conservation of the species. 

Included in this unit is an 

approximate 2.37-mi (3.81-km) reach of 

Blue Creek from adjacent to a corral on 

private lands downstream to the 

confluence of a drainage that comes in 

from the east. This is an area where 

Chiricahua leopard frogs are currently 

known to breed. Additional habitat may 

occur upstream on private or State 

lands; however, the private reach 

immediately above the proposed critical 

habitat lacks breeding pools and no 

frogs have been found there (Barnitz 

2010, p. 1). The lands upstream of there 

have not been surveyed. 

PCE 1 is present in this unit; however, 

this unit is much too far from other 

known Chiricahua leopard frog 

populations to be considered part of a 

metapopulation. The nearest population 

is at Coal Creek (Unit 34) more than 22 

mi (35 km) away by way of a straightline distance. 

The primary limiting factor in this 

proposed critical habitat reach is lack of 

perennial flow and periodic flash 

flooding during the summer. In some 

years, the entire reach goes dry in June; 

however, in wetter periods frogs breed 

throughout this reach. Scouring floods, 

which happen during or after summer 

rains, likely wash tadpoles downstream 

and out of the unit. Nonnative aquatic 

predators are not known in the unit, and 

although a Chiricahua leopard frog from 

this unit tested positive for 

chytridiomycosis in 2009, no die-offs 

have been noted. Wildfire in the area 

could result in ash flow, sedimentation, 

and erosion in Blue Creek, degrading or 

eliminating habitat for Chiricahua 

leopard frogs. 

Recovery Unit 8 (Black-Mimbres-Rio 

Grande, New Mexico) 

Unit 36: Seco Creek 

This unit includes 610 ac (247 ha) of 

private lands and 66 ac (27 ha) of Gila 

National Forest in Sierra County, New 

Mexico. This area is proposed as critical 

habitat because it was occupied at the 

time of listing and currently contains 

sufficient PCEs to support life-history 

functions essential for the conservation 

of the species. 

The proposed critical habitat 

includes: (1) The North Fork of Seco 

Creek from Sawmill Well downstream 

to the confluence with South Fork of 

Seco Creek, including from west to east, 

Sucker Ledge, Davis Well, North Seco 

Well, Pauge Well, and LM Bar Well; (2) 

South Seco Creek from South Seco Well 

downstream to its confluence with the 

North Fork of Seco Creek; (3) Seco Creek 

from the confluence with North and 

South Forks of Seco Creek to the 

confluence with Ash Creek, including 

Fish Well and Johnson Well; and (4) 

Ash Creek from Artesia Well 

downstream to Seco Creek. 

Chiricahua leopard frogs are known to 

breed at all of the above mentioned 

wells except Sawmill and Johnson 

Wells. They also breed in a perennial 

reach of Seco Creek below Johnson 

Well. Frogs were extant at Davis Well, 

LM Bar Well, North Seco Well, Pauge 

Well, and Sucker Ledge at the time of 

listing. Status at other sites in 2002 is 

unknown. All of the aquatic sites are 

currently occupied. PCEs 1 and 2 are 

present in the unit. 

The aquatic sites form a 

metapopulation, and frogs move among 

these sites via reaches of the intervening 

creeks. This unit represents the 

strongest metapopulation in New 

Mexico. 

Chytridiomycosis has caused 

extirpations in this region, and in 2001, 

four tadpoles from Seco Creek appeared 

to have damaged mouthparts consistent 

with the disease. However, no frogs 

have tested positive since then. 

Bullfrogs have been found occasionally, 

but the landowner (Ladder Ranch) 

dispatches them as they are discovered. 

Tiger salamanders (Ambystoma 

mavortium) occur in most waters on the 

Ladder Ranch and likely prey upon 

Chiricahua leopard frog tadpoles and 

small frogs, but the frogs and 

salamanders are able to coexist together. 

Most of the wells listed above are either 

artesian or equipped with solar-powered 

pumps, and thus provide dependable 

water through drought periods. 

Recovery work in this unit has 

included fencing some of the waters 

from the bison that graze the area and 

reestablishment of populations using 

wild-to-wild translocations. The Ladder 

Ranch also monitors the frogs and 

habitats, and recently they have 

initiated a captive breeding facility and 

program to rear frogs for population 

augmentation and reestablishment. 

They also hold Seco Creek frogs in 

refugia near the ranch headquarters. 

Research on movements of Chiricahua 

leopard frogs using radiotelemetry has 

been funded by the Ladder Ranch and 

carried out in the Seco Creek area. 

Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, private 

lands in this unit are being considered 

for exclusion from the final rule for 

critical habitat (see Application of 

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act section below). 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

14152 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

Unit 37: Alamosa Warm Springs 

This unit consists of 54 ac (22 ha) of 

private, 25 ac (10 ha) of New Mexico 

State, and 0.2 ac (0.1 ha) of Bureau of 

Land Management lands at the 

headwaters of Alamosa Creek, Socorro 

County, New Mexico. This unit is 

proposed as critical habitat because it 

was occupied at the time of listing and 

currently contains sufficient PCEs to 

support life-history functions essential 

for the conservation of the species. PCE 

1 is present in this unit. 

Proposed critical habitat includes an 

approximate 4,974-ft (1,516-m) spring 

run from the confluence of Wildhorse 

Canyon and Alamosa Creek downstream 

to the confluence with a drainage that 

comes in from the north, which is below 

the gauging station in Monticello Box. 

This reach includes areas where frogs 

have been found in recent years 

(Christman 2006b, p. 11). 

At its source, waters at Alamosa 

Warm Springs range from 77 to 85 °F 

(25.0 to 29.3 °C) (Christman 2006b, p. 3). 

Chytridiomycosis is present in this 

population, and presumably the warm 

waters allow persistence despite the 

disease. 

This is a robust, breeding population, 

but it is too far removed from other 

Chiricahua leopard frog populations to 

be part of a metapopulation. The nearest 

population is in Unit 38, 20.3 mi (32.5 

km) to the south-southeast. As a result, 

this site is managed as an isolated, 

robust population. 

Alamosa Warm Springs is at the 

northeastern edge of the distribution of 

the Chiricahua leopard frog. The species 

was present at the time of listing and is 

currently present. This site is droughtresistant because of perennial spring 

flow. Nonnative aquatic predators are 

unknown at this site, but if introduced 

could pose a serious threat to the 

population. Heavy livestock grazing on 

the site, in the watershed, and a dirt 

road through the canyon have degraded 

the habitat for Chiricahua leopard frogs, 

and flooding likely flushes tadpoles out 

of the unit periodically (Christman 

2006b, pp. 5–6). 

The endangered Alamosa springsnail 

(Tryonia alamosae) occurs at Alamosa 

Warm Springs; its presence may provide 

some additional level of protection to 

Chiricahua leopard frog. The future land 

management plans of the landowners 

are unknown. 

Unit 38: Cuchillo Negro Warm Springs 

and Creek 

This unit consists of 3 ac (1 ha) of 

Bureau of Land Management, 3 ac (1 ha) 

of New Mexico State, and 23 ac (9 ha) 

of private lands in Sierra County, New 

Mexico. This unit is proposed as critical 

habitat because it was occupied at the 

time of listing and currently contains 

sufficient PCEs to support life-history 

functions essential for the conservation 

of the species. 

Two springs on Bureau of Land 

Management land are the source of a 

mostly perennial stream flow that runs 

for about 6.0 mi (9.6 km) down Cuchillo 

Negro Creek; however, the Chiricahua 

leopard frogs are rarely found more than 

1.2 mi (2.0 km) downstream of the warm 

springs (Christman 2006a, p. 8). The 

proposed critical habitat begins at the 

upper of the two springs and follows 

Cuchillo Negro Creek downstream to the 

confluence with an unnamed drainage 

that comes in from the south, for an 

approximate stream distance of 1.58 mi 

(2.54 km). 

Chytridiomycosis is present in this 

population, and it is likely that frogs 

persist where the water is warm, but 

succumb to the disease in the cooler 

waters downstream. Chiricahua leopard 

frogs currently persist in very low 

numbers in this unit. 

PCE 1 is present in this unit; however, 

this site is too far from other Chiricahua 

leopard frog populations to be 

considered part of a metapopulation. 

The nearest population is in Unit 36, 

about 12.7 mi (20.3 km) to the southsouthwest. Hence, this population is 

managed as an isolated population. 

Chiricahua leopard frogs coexist with 

plains leopard frogs at this site; and it 

is likely the plains leopard frogs 

occasionally prey upon Chiricahua 

leopard frog tadpoles and small frogs. 

Bullfrogs have been recorded in 

Cuchillo Negro Creek, but only rarely, 

and apparently do not breed or persist 

in the reach with the leopard frogs 

(Christman 2006a, p. 9). 

The primary threats in this unit are 

periodic cleaning out of the channel by 

the Cuchillo Acequia Association, 

seasonal flooding that eliminates 

tadpoles and fills in pools, and 

chytridiomycosis. The springs located 

on Bureau of Land Management land are 

the source of downstream irrigation 

water, and the Cuchillo Acequia 

Association has maintained two 

trenches through the springs reportedly 

to improve flow. Channel work in 2001 

resulted in extensive damage to the 

springs, stream, and riparian vegetation 

(67 FR 40802; June 13, 2002). 

The private landowner downstream of 

the springs is the Ladder Ranch, and as 

described in the Unit 36 description 

above, the ranch is an active participant 

in Chiricahua leopard frog recovery. 

Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, the 

private lands in Unit 38 are being 

considered for exclusion from the final 

rule for critical habitat (see Application 

of Section 4(b)(2) of the Act section 

below). 

Unit 39: Ash and Bolton Springs 

This unit consists of 49 ac (20 ha) of 

private lands east of Hurley in Grant 

County, New Mexico. This unit is 

proposed as critical habitat because it 

was occupied at the time of listing and 

currently contains sufficient PCEs to 

support life-history functions essential 

for the conservation of the species. 

Included in the critical habitat 

proposal are Ash Spring and a spring in 

Bolton Canyon locally known as Bolton 

Springs. Also included are ephemeral or 

intermittent drainages and uplands 

needed for movement of frogs among 

these two breeding sites as follows: (1) 

From the spring box at Ash Spring 

downstream in a drainage to a dirt road 

crossing; and (2) west and overland 

from the ruins of an old house below 

Ash Spring to a low saddle, then 

downslope into an unnamed drainage, 

and downstream in that drainage to its 

confluence with another unnamed 

drainage, downstream in that unnamed 

drainage its confluence with another 

unnamed drainage, then upstream in 

that unnamed drainage to the top of that 

drainage and directly downslope and 

west to another unnamed drainage, 

downstream in that unnamed drainage 

to its confluence with Bolton Canyon, 

and upstream in Bolton Canyon to the 

locally known Bolton Springs. 

Populations at Ash and Bolton 

Springs were present at the time of 

listing and currently still exist. PCEs 1 

and 2 are present in this unit. These 

sites were once part of a 

metapopulation, but recent extirpations 

have left only these two populations. 

There may be potential in the future to 

rebuild a metapopulation through 

natural recolonization or population 

reestablishments, if threats can be 

managed. 

The lands are owned by FreeportMcMoRan Copper and Gold 

Subsidiaries as part of the Chino Copper 

Mine, which is based in nearby Santa 

Rita and Hurley. In December 2008, 

Freeport-McMoRan announced plans to 

suspend mining and milling activities at 

Chino. The majority of the work force 

was laid off in 2009. To our knowledge, 

no current plans exist to expand the 

mine into the area proposed for critical 

habitat, and Freeport-McMoRan and its 

predecessor, Phelps-Dodge, have been 

cooperative in conservation of the 

Chiricahua leopard frog. 

Chytridiomycosis is probably the key 

threat in this unit; this region has 

experienced die-offs and extirpations 

associated with chytridiomycosis. Large 

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 

Ash Spring in 2007; however, the frogs 

at Bolton Springs have shown no signs 

of disease. Both populations exist in 

small aquatic sites that cannot sustain 

large populations; hence they are also 

vulnerable to variations in 

environmental conditions and 

population demographics. 

Unit 40: Mimbres River 

This unit consists of 1,097 ac (444 ha) 

of private lands in Grant County, New 

Mexico. The unit is proposed as critical 

habitat because it was occupied at the 

time of listing and currently contains 

sufficient PCEs to support life-history 

functions essential for the conservation 

of the species. 

The unit is divided into two disjunct 

reaches of the Mimbres River that are 

separated by a 6.6-mi (10.6-km), 

intermittent reach. PCE 1 is present; 

however, the two reaches may be too far 

apart to reasonably expect frogs to move 

between the two sites, and the next 

nearest Chiricahua leopard frog 

population is at Ash Spring in Unit 39, 

over 10 mi (16 km) away from the lower 

Mimbres River reach across rugged 

terrain. 

Proposed critical habitat in the upper 

Mimbres River includes an approximate 

2.42-mi (3.89-km) reach that begins 

where the river flows into The Nature 

Conservancy’s property and continues 

downstream to the confluence with Bear 

Canyon. The approximate 5.82-mi (9.36- 

km) proposed lower critical habitat 

reach begins at the bridge over the 

Mimbres River just west of San Lorenzo 

and continues downstream to where it 

exits the The Nature Conservancy’s 

Disert parcel near Faywood. The two 

proposed critical habitat reaches are 

largely perennial, although portions of 

the river dry out during drought. Frogs 

are currently present in both reaches of 

the Mimbres River. 

The best breeding site in the upper 

reach is at Moreno Spring, which 

harbors a robust population of 

Chiricahua leopard frogs. In the upper 

reach, frogs are also observed and breed 

in the river itself and at ponds at Emory 

Oak Ranch. Breeding occurs in the 

lower river reach as well, where a robust 

population is present near San Juan. 

Chytridiomycosis is present in this 

unit; however, frogs are persisting with 

the disease. Moreno Spring is a warm 

spring that likely provides some buffer 

against the effects of the 

chytridiomycosis. Other threats include 

agricultural and rural development, 

water diversions, groundwater 

pumping, and leveeing and bankline 

work to protect properties from 

flooding. Periodic high flows probably 

wash some tadpoles out of the system 

and fill in pools used for breeding. No 

bullfrogs or crayfish have ever been 

found in this unit; although if 

introduced, they could pose a 

significant threat. 

The threatened Chihuahua chub (Gila 

nigrescens) occurs in the upper reach, 

and introduced rainbow trout occur 

throughout the areas where there is 

water. Both trout and chub likely prey 

upon Chiricahua leopard frog tadpoles. 

Bear Canyon Reservoir in Bear Canyon 

near the town of Mimbres reportedly 

supports populations of channel catfish 

(Ictalurus punctatus), black crappie 

(Pomoxis nigromaculatus), largemouth 

bass, and bluegill (Lepomis 

macrochirus), plus winter stocked 

rainbow trout (Johnson and Smorynski 

1998, p. 132). These species may spill 

periodically into the Mimbres River 

from the reservoir, adding additional 

nonnative predators to the river. 

Presence of the Chihuahua chub and 

protections afforded by the Act may 

provide some level of protection to the 

upper reach. In addition, The Nature 

Conservancy owns the majority of the 

river in the upper reach (not including 

Moreno Spring or Emory Oak Ranch) 

and significant parcels in the lower 

reach. These lands, known as The 

Mimbres River Preseve, are managed for 

the benefit of the Chihuahua chub, 

Chiricahua leopard frog, and other 

riparian and aquatic resources. Under 

section 4(b)(2) of the Act, private lands 

owned by The Nature Conservancy in 

this unit are being considered for 

exclusion from the final rule for critical 

habitat (see Application of Section 

4(b)(2) of the Act section below). 

Effects of Critical Habitat Designation 

Section 7 Consultation 

Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires 

Federal agencies, including the Service, 

to ensure that actions they authorize, 

fund, or carry out are not likely to 

destroy or adversely modify critical 

habitat. Decisions by the Fifth and 

Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeal have 

invalidated our definition of 

‘‘destruction or adverse modification’’ 

(50 CFR 402.02) (see Gifford Pinchot 

Task Force v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, 378 F. 3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2004) 

and Sierra Club v. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service et al., 245 F.3d 434, 442 

(5th Cir. 2001), and as a result, we do 

not rely on this regulatory definition 

when analyzing whether an action is 

likely to destroy or adversely modify 

critical habitat. Under the statutory 

provisions of the Act, we determine 

destruction or adverse modification on 

the basis of whether, with 

implementation of the proposed Federal 

action, the affected critical habitat 

would remain functional (or retain those 

PCEs that relate to the ability of the area 

to periodically support the species) to 

serve its intended conservation role for 

the species. 

If a species is listed or critical habitat 

is designated, section 7(a)(2) of the Act 

requires Federal agencies to ensure that 

activities they authorize, fund, or carry 

out are not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of the species or to 

destroy or adversely modify its critical 

habitat. If a Federal action may affect a 

listed species or its critical habitat, the 

responsible Federal agency (action 

agency) must enter into consultation 

with us. As a result of this consultation, 

we document compliance with the 

requirements of section 7(a)(2) through 

our issuance of: 

(1) A letter of concurrence with 

determination by a Federal agency that 

their actions may affect, but are not 

likely to adversely affect, listed species 

or critical habitat; or 

(2) A biological opinion for Federal 

actions that may affect, and are likely to 

adversely affect, listed species or critical 

habitat. 

When we issue a biological opinion 

concluding that a project is likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of a 

listed species or destroy or adversely 

modify critical habitat, we also provide 

reasonable and prudent alternatives to 

the project, if any are identifiable. 

‘‘Reasonable and prudent alternatives’’ 

are defined at 50 CFR 402.02 as 

alternative actions identified during 

consultation that: 

• Can be implemented in a manner 

consistent with the intended purpose of 

the action, 

• Can be implemented consistent 

with the scope of the Federal agency’s 

legal authority and jurisdiction, 

• Are economically and 

technologically feasible, and 

• Would, in the Director’s opinion, 

avoid jeopardizing the continued 

existence of the listed species or 

destroying or adversely modifying 

critical habitat. 

Reasonable and prudent alternatives 

can vary from slight project 

modifications to extensive redesign or 

relocation of the project. Costs 

associated with implementing a 

reasonable and prudent alternative are 

similarly variable. 

Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require 

Federal agencies to reinitiate 

consultation on previously reviewed 

actions in instances where we have 

listed a new species or subsequently 

designated critical habitat that may be 

affected and the Federal agency has 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

14154 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

retained discretionary involvement or 

control over the action (or the agency’s 

discretionary involvement or control is 

authorized by law). Consequently, 

Federal agencies may sometimes need to 

request reinitiation of consultation with 

us on actions for which formal 

consultation has been completed, if 

those actions with discretionary 

involvement or control may affect 

subsequently listed species or 

designated critical habitat. 

Federal activities that may affect the 

Chiricahua leopard frog or its critical 

habitat require section 7 consultation 

under the Act. Activities on State, 

Tribal, local, or private lands requiring 

a Federal permit (such as a permit from 

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under 

section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 

U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or a permit from us 

under section 10 of the Act) or involving 

some other Federal action (such as 

funding from the Natural Resource 

Conservation Service, Federal Highway 

Administration, Federal Aviation 

Administration, or the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency) are 

subject to the section 7 consultation 

process. Federal actions not affecting 

listed species or critical habitat, and 

actions on State, Tribal, local or private 

lands that are not federally authorized, 

funded, or permitted do not require 

section 7 consultations. 

Application of the ‘‘Adverse 

Modification’’ Standard 

The key factor related to the adverse 

modification determination is whether, 

with implementation of the proposed 

Federal action, the affected critical 

habitat would continue to serve its 

intended conservation role for the 

species, or retain those PCEs that relate 

to the ability of the area to periodically 

or regularly support the species. 

Activities that may destroy or adversely 

modify critical habitat are those that 

alter the PCEs to an extent that 

appreciably reduces the conservation 

value of critical habitat for the 

Chiricahua leopard frog. As discussed 

above, the role of critical habitat is to 

support the life-history needs of the 

species and provide for the conservation 

of the species as breeding habitat or as 

movement corridors among breeding 

sites in a metapopulation. 

Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us 

to briefly evaluate and describe, in any 

proposed or final regulation that 

designates critical habitat, activities 

involving a Federal action that may 

destroy or adversely modify such 

habitat, or that may be affected by such 

designation. 

Activities that, when carried out, 

funded, or authorized by a Federal 

agency, may affect critical habitat and 

therefore should result in consultation 

for the Chiricahua leopard frog include, 

but are not limited to: 

(1) Actions that would significantly 

increase sediment deposition or 

scouring within the stream channel or 

pond that acts as a breeding site or a 

movement corridor among breeding 

sites in a metapopulation. Such 

activities could include, but are not 

limited to: Excessive sedimentation 

from livestock overgrazing; road 

construction; commercial or urban 

development; channel alteration; timber 

harvest; prescribed fires; off-road 

vehicle or recreational use; and other 

alterations of watersheds and 

floodplains. These activities could 

adversely affect the potential for frogs to 

survive or breed at a breeding site, and 

reduce the likelihood that frogs could 

move among subpopulations in a 

metapopulation, which in turn would 

decrease the viability of the 

metapopulation and its component local 

populations. 

(2) Actions that would alter water 

chemistry beyond the tolerance limits of 

the Chiricahua leopard frog (see 

discussion above, ‘‘Aquatic Breeding 

Habitat and Immediately Adjacent 

Uplands’’). Such activities could 

include, but are not limited to: Release 

of chemicals, biological pollutants, or 

effluents into the surface water or into 

connected groundwater at a point 

source or by dispersed release (nonpoint source); livestock grazing that 

results in waters heavily polluted by 

feces; runoff from agricultural fields; 

roadside use of salts; aerial persticide 

overspray; runoff from mine tailings or 

other mining activities; and ash flow 

and fire retardants from fires and fire 

suppression. These actions could 

adversely affect the ability of the habitat 

to support survival and reproduction of 

Chiricahua leopard frogs at breeding 

sites. Variances in water chemistry or 

temperature could also affect the frog’s 

ability to survive with chytridiomycosis. 

(3) Actions that would alter the water 

quantity or permanence of a breeding 

site or dispersal corridor. If the 

permanence of an aquatic system 

declines so that it regularly dries up for 

more than a month each year, it will 

lose its ability to support breeding 

Chiricahua leopard frogs. If the quantity 

of water declines, it may reduce the 

likelihood that the site will support a 

population of frogs that is robust enough 

to be viable over time. Similarly, 

ephemeral, intermittent, or perennial 

ponds can be important stop-over points 

for frogs moving among breeding sites in 

a metapopulation. Reducing the 

permanence of these sites may reduce 

their ability to facilitate frog 

movements. However, in some cases, 

increasing permanence can be 

detrimental as well, in that it could 

create favorable habitat for predatory 

fishes, bullfrogs, or crayfish that 

otherwise could not exist in the system. 

Such activities that could cause these 

effects include, but are not limited to, 

water diversions, groundwater 

pumping, watershed degredation, 

construction or destruction of dams or 

impoundments, developments or 

‘improvements’ at a spring, 

channelization, dredging, road and 

bridge construction, and destruction of 

riparian or wetland vegetation. 

(4) Actions that would directly or 

indirectly result in introduction of 

nonnative predators, increase the 

abundance of extant predators, or 

introduce disease, particularly 

chytridiomycosis. Possible actions 

could include, but are not limited to: 

Introduction or stocking of fishes, 

bullfrogs, crayfish, tiger salamanders or 

other predators on the Chiricahua 

leopard frog; creating or sustaining a 

sport fishery that encourages use of live 

fish, crayfish, tiger salamanders, or frogs 

as bait; water diversions, canals, or 

other water conveyance that moves 

water from one place to another and 

through which inadvertent transport of 

predators into Chiricahua leopard frog 

habitat may occur; and movement of 

water, mud, wet equipment, or vehicles 

from one aquatic site to another, 

through which inadvertent transport of 

may occur. 

(5) Actions and structures that would 

physically block movement among 

breeding sites in a metapopulation. 

Such actions and structures include, but 

are not limited to: Urban, industrial, or 

agricultural development; reservoirs 

stocked with predatory fishes, bullfrogs, 

or crayfish that are 50 ac (20 ha) or more 

in size; highways that do not include 

frog fencing and culverts; and walls, 

dams, fences, canals, or other structures 

that physically block movement. These 

actions and structures could reduce or 

eliminate immigration and emigration 

among breeding sites in a 

metapopulation, reducing the viability 

of the metapopulation and its 

subpopulations. 

(6) Actions that would remove or 

block access to riparian vegetation and 

banklines within 20 ft (6.1 m) of the 

high water line of breeding ponds or to 

the upland edge of the wetland and 

riparian vegetation community lining 

breeding sites, whichever is greatest, or 

that would reduce vegetation in 

movement corridors among breeding 

sites in a metapopulation. Such 

activities could include, but are not 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 14155 

limited to: Clearing of riparian or 

wetland vegetation; saltcedar (Tamarix 

sp.) control; road, bridge, or canal 

construction; urban development; 

conversion of river bottomlands to 

agriculture; stream or drainage 

channelization; and levee or dike 

construction. In some cases, thinning of 

very dense vegetation, such as cattails, 

which can completely take over an 

aquatic site, can be beneficial to the frog 

and its habitat. However, in most cases, 

vegetation clearing or removal, or 

blocking access to uplands adjacent to 

breeding sites, will reduce the quality of 

foraging and basking habitat, and may 

increase the likelihood of successful 

predation because cover has been 

removed. 

We note that the above activities may 

adversely affect critical habitat. As 

stated previously, an activity adversely 

affecting critical habitat must be of a 

severity or intensity that the PCEs are 

compromised to the extent that the 

critical habitat can no longer meet its 

intended conservation function before a 

destruction or adverse modification 

determination is reached. Within the 

context of the goals and purposes of the 

recovery strategy in the species’ 

recovery plan, an activity that 

compromises the PCEs to the point that 

one or more of the recovery criteria 

could not be achieved or would be very 

difficult to achieve in one or more 

recovery units would deteriorate the 

value of critical habitat to the point that 

its conservation function could not be 

met. 

Exemptions 

Application of Section 4(a)(3) of the Act 

The Sikes Act Improvement Act of 

1997 (Sikes Act) (16 U.S.C. 670a) 

required each military installation that 

includes land and water suitable for the 

conservation and management of 

natural resources to complete an 

integrated natural resources 

management plan (INRMP) by 

November 17, 2001. An INRMP 

integrates implementation of the 

military mission of the installation with 

stewardship of the natural resources 

found on the base. Each INRMP 

includes: 

• An assessment of the ecological 

needs on the installation, including the 

need to provide for the conservation of 

listed species; 

• A statement of goals and priorities; 

• A detailed description of 

management actions to be implemented 

to provide for these ecological needs; 

and 

• A monitoring and adaptive 

management plan. 

Among other things, each INRMP 

must, to the extent appropriate and 

applicable, provide for fish and wildlife 

management; fish and wildlife habitat 

enhancement or modification; wetland 

protection, enhancement, and 

restoration where necessary to support 

fish and wildlife; and enforcement of 

applicable natural resource laws. 

The National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Pub. L. 108– 

136) amended the Act to limit areas 

eligible for designation as critical 

habitat. Specifically, section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) 

of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) 

now provides: ‘‘The Secretary shall not 

designate as critical habitat any lands or 

other geographical areas owned or 

controlled by the Department of 

Defense, or designated for its use, that 

are subject to an integrated natural 

resources management plan prepared 

under section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 

U.S.C. 670a), if the Secretary determines 

in writing that such plan provides a 

benefit to the species for which critical 

habitat is proposed for designation.’’ 

There are no Department of Defense 

lands within the proposed critical 

habitat designation; thus we are not 

exempting any lands from critical 

habitat under section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the 

Act. 

Exclusions 

Application of Section 4(b)(2) of the Act 

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that 

the Secretary must designate and revise 

critical habitat on the basis of the best 

available scientific data after taking into 

consideration the economic impact, 

national security impact, and any other 

relevant impact of specifying any 

particular area as critical habitat. The 

Secretary may exclude an area from 

critical habitat if he determines that the 

benefits of such exclusion outweigh the 

benefits of specifying such area as part 

of the critical habitat, unless he 

determines, based on the best scientific 

data available, that the failure to 

designate such area as critical habitat 

will result in the extinction of the 

species. In making that determination, 

the legislative history is clear that the 

Secretary has broad discretion regarding 

which factor(s) to use and how much 

weight to give to any factor. 

Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we 

may exclude an area from designated 

critical habitat based on economic 

impacts, impacts on national security, 

or any other relevant impacts. In 

considering whether to exclude a 

particular area from the designation, we 

must identify the benefits of including 

the area in the designation, identify the 

benefits of excluding the area from the 

designation, and determine whether the 

benefits of exclusion outweigh the 

benefits of inclusion. If based on this 

analysis, we make this determination, 

then we can exclude the area only if 

such exclusion would not result in the 

extinction of the species. 

When considering the benefits of 

inclusion for an area, we consider the 

additional regulatory benefits that area 

would receive from the protection from 

adverse modification or destruction as a 

result of actions with a Federal nexus; 

the educational benefits of mapping 

essential habitat for recovery of the 

listed species; and any benefits that may 

result from a designation due to State or 

Federal laws that may apply to critical 

habitat. 

When considering the benefits of 

exclusion, we consider, among other 

things, whether exclusion of a specific 

area is likely to result in conservation; 

the continuation, strengthening, or 

encouragement of partnerships; 

implementation of a management plan 

that provides equal to or more 

conservation than a critical habitat 

designation would provide; or a 

combination of these. 

In the case of the Chiricahua leopard 

frog, the benefits of critical habitat 

include public awareness of Chiricahua 

leopard frog presence and the 

importance of habitat protection, and in 

cases where a Federal nexus exists, 

increased habitat protection for 

Chiricahua leopard frogs due to the 

protection from adverse modification or 

destruction of critical habitat. 

The consultation provisions under 

section 7(a) of the Act constitute the 

regulatory benefits of critical habitat. 

Federal agencies must consult with us 

on discretionary actions that may affect 

critical habitat and must avoid 

destroying or adversely modifying 

critical habitat. Federal agencies must 

also consult with the Service on 

discretionary actions that may affect a 

listed species and refrain from 

undertaking actions that are likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of 

such species. The analysis of effects to 

critical habitat is a separate and 

different analysis from that of the effects 

to the species. Therefore, the difference 

in outcomes of these two analyses 

represents the regulatory benefit of 

critical habitat. For some species, and in 

some locations, the outcome of these 

analyses will be similar, because effects 

on habitat will often result in effects on 

the species. However, the regulatory 

standard is different. The jeopardy 

analysis looks at the action’s impact on 

survival and recovery of the species, 

while the adverse modification analysis 

examines the action’s effects on the 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

14156 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

designated habitat’s contribution to the 

species’ conservation. This will, in 

many instances, lead to different results 

and different regulatory requirements. 

Thus, critical habitat designations may 

provide greater regulatory benefits to the 

recovery of a species. 

There are two limitations to the 

regulatory effect of critical habitat. First, 

a section 7(a)(2) consultation is required 

only where there is a Federal nexus (an 

action authorized, funded, or carried out 

by any Federal agency). If there is no 

Federal nexus, the critical habitat 

designation of non-Federal lands itself 

does not restrict any actions that destroy 

or adversely modify critical habitat. 

However, this does not apply in 

situations where non-Federal lands have 

a Federal nexus (e.g., a private project 

on non-Federal lands that requires the 

issuance of a permit from a Federal 

agency). Second, the designation only 

limits destruction or adverse 

modification. Critical habitat 

designation alone does not require 

property owners to undertake 

affirmative actions to promote the 

recovery of the species. 

The designation of critical habitat 

does not require that any management 

or recovery actions take place on the 

lands included in the designation. Even 

in cases where consultation has been 

initiated under section 7(a)(2) of the 

Act, the end result of consultation is to 

avoid jeopardy to the species or adverse 

modification of its critical habitat or 

both, but not necessarily to manage 

critical habitat or institute recovery 

actions on critical habitat. Conversely, 

voluntary conservation efforts 

implemented through management 

plans may institute proactive actions 

over the lands they encompass and are 

often put in place to remove or reduce 

known threats to a species or its habitat, 

therefore implementing recovery 

actions. 

Another benefit of including lands in 

critical habitat is that serves to educate 

landowners, State and local 

governments, and the public regarding 

the potential conservation value of an 

area. This helps focus and promote 

conservation efforts by other parties by 

clearly delineating areas of high 

conservation value for the affected 

species. For example, critical habitat 

designation can help inform State 

agencies and local governments about 

areas that could be conserved under 

State laws or local ordinances. 

Most federally listed species in the 

United States will not recover without 

the cooperation of non-Federal 

landowners. More than 60 percent of the 

United States is privately owned 

(National Wilderness Institute 1995, p. 

2), and at least 80 percent of endangered 

or threatened species occur either 

partially or solely on private lands 

(Crouse et al. 2002, p. 720). Stein et al. 

(1995, p. 400) found that only about 12 

percent of listed species were found 

almost exclusively on Federal lands (90 

to 100 percent of their known 

occurrences restricted to Federal lands) 

and that 50 percent of federally listed 

species are not known to occur on 

Federal lands at all. 

The majority of Chiricahua leopard 

frog habitat and localities are on Federal 

lands, mostly lands managed by the U.S. 

Forest Service; however, key aquatic 

sites are sometimes on non-Federal 

lands. This is particularly true for New 

Mexico, where of the 11 proposed 

critical habitat units in that State, 4 are 

entirely non-Federal lands and the other 

7 contain lands owned by non-Federal 

entities. 

Building partnerships and promoting 

voluntary cooperation of landowners are 

essential to understanding the status of 

species on non-Federal lands, and 

necessary for implementing recovery 

actions, such as reestablishing listed 

species and restoring and protecting 

habitat. Many non-Federal landowners 

derive satisfaction from contributing to 

endangered species recovery. We strive 

to promote these private-sector efforts 

through the Department of the Interior’s 

Cooperative Conservation philosophy. 

Conservation agreements with nonFederal landowners (HCPs, Safe Harbor 

Agreements, other conservation 

agreements, easements, and State and 

local regulations) enhance species 

conservation by extending species 

protections beyond those available 

through section 7(a)(2) consultations. In 

the past decade and a half, we have 

encouraged non-Federal landowners to 

enter into conservation agreements, 

based on our philosophy that voluntary 

conservation can benefit both 

landowners and wildlife, and that we 

can achieve greater species conservation 

on non-Federal land through such 

partnerships than we can through 

regulatory methods (61 FR 63854; 

December 2, 1996). For the Chiricahua 

leopard frog, we have often used the 

Service’s Partners for Fish and Wildlife 

grant program to work with non-Federal 

partners on recovery projects for this 

species. This grant program requires a 

commitment from the participating 

landowner to maintain the 

improvements funded by the program 

for 10 years. We have also worked with 

private landowners on Chiricahua 

leopard frog conservation via Safe 

Harbor Agreements in Arizona and 

southwestern New Mexico, a 

conservation agreement for the Ramsey 

Canyon (=Chiricahua) leopard frog that 

protects frogs and their habitats on 

private and public lands in the 

Huachuca Mountains of Arizona, and 

HCPs in southeastern Arizona and 

southwestern New Mexico. 

Many private landowners, however, 

are wary of the possible consequences of 

attracting or maintaining endangered 

species to their property. Mounting 

evidence suggests that some regulatory 

actions by the Federal government, 

while well-intentioned and required by 

law, can (under certain circumstances) 

have unintended negative consequences 

for the conservation of species on 

private lands (Wilcove et al. 1996, pp. 

5–6; Bean 2002, pp. 2–3; Conner and 

Mathews 2002, pp. 1–2; James 2002, pp. 

270–271; Koch 2002, pp. 2–3; Brooke et 

al. 2003, pp. 1639–1643). Many 

landowners fear a decline in their 

property value due to real or perceived 

restrictions on land-use options where 

threatened or endangered species are 

found. Consequently, harboring 

endangered species is viewed by many 

landowners as a liability. This 

perception results in anti-conservation 

incentives, because maintaining habitats 

that harbor endangered species 

represents a risk to future economic 

opportunities (Main et al. 1999, pp. 

1264–1265; Brook et al. 2003, pp. 1644– 

1648). 

According to some researchers, the 

designation of critical habitat on private 

lands significantly reduces the 

likelihood that landowners will support 

and carry out conservation actions 

(Main et al. 1999, p. 1263; Bean 2002, 

p. 2; Brook et al. 2003, pp. 1644–1648). 

The magnitude of this outcome is 

greatly amplified in situations where 

active management measures (such as 

reestablishment, fire management, 

control of invasive species) are 

necessary for species conservation (Bean 

2002, pp. 3–4). Such is the case for the 

Chiricahua leopard frog. We believe that 

the judicious exclusion of specific areas 

of non-federally owned lands from 

critical habitat designations can 

contribute to the species’ recovery and 

provide a superior level of conservation. 

The purpose of designating critical 

habitat is to contribute to the 

conservation of endangered and 

threatened species and the ecosystems 

upon which they depend. The outcome 

of the designation, triggering regulatory 

requirements for actions authorized, 

funded, or carried out by Federal 

agencies under section 7(a)(2) of the 

Act, can sometimes be 

counterproductive to its intended 

purpose on non-Federal lands. Thus, the 

benefits of excluding areas that are 

covered by effective partnerships or 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 14157 

other conservation commitments can 

often be high. 

When we evaluate the existence of a 

conservation plan when considering the 

benefits of exclusion, we consider a 

variety of factors, including, but not 

limited to, whether the plan is finalized; 

how it provides for the conservation of 

the essential physical and biological 

features; whether there is a reasonable 

expectation that the conservation 

management strategies and actions 

contained in a management plan will be 

implemented into the future; whether 

the conservation strategies in the plan 

are likely to be effective; and whether 

the plan contains a monitoring program 

or adaptive management to ensure that 

the conservation measures are effective 

and can be adapted in the future in 

response to new information. 

After evaluating the benefits of 

inclusion and the benefits of exclusion, 

we carefully weigh the two sides to 

determine whether the benefits of 

exclusion outweigh those of inclusion. 

If we determine that they do, we then 

determine whether exclusion would 

result in extinction. If exclusion of an 

area from critical habitat will result in 

extinction, we will not exclude it from 

the designation. 

Exclusions Based on Economic Impacts 

Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we 

consider the economic impacts of 

specifying any particular area as critical 

habitat. In order to consider economic 

impacts, we are preparing an analysis of 

the economic impacts of the proposed 

critical habitat designation and related 

factors. 

We will announce the availability of 

the draft economic analysis as soon as 

it is completed, at which time we will 

seek public review and comment. At 

that time, copies of the draft economic 

analysis will be available for 

downloading from the Internet at 

http://www.regulations.gov, or by 

contacting the Arizona Ecological 

Services Field Office directly (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section). 

During the development of a final 

designation, we will consider economic 

impacts, public comments, and other 

new information, and areas may be 

excluded from the final critical habitat 

designation under section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act and our implementing regulations at 

50 CFR 424.19. 

Exclusions Based on National Security 

Impacts 

Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we 

consider whether there are lands owned 

or managed by the Department of 

Defense (DOD) where a national security 

impact might exist. In preparing this 

proposal, we have determined that the 

lands within the proposed designation 

of critical habitat for the Chiricahua 

leopard frog are not owned or managed 

by DOD, and we therefore anticipate no 

impact to national security. We are not 

considering any areas for exclusion 

based on impacts to national security. 

Exclusions Based on Other Relevant 

Impacts 

Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we 

consider any other relevant impacts, in 

addition to economic impacts and 

impacts to national security. We 

consider a number of factors including 

whether the landowners have developed 

any HCPs or other management plans 

for the area, or whether there are 

conservation partnerships that would be 

encouraged by designation of, or 

exclusion from, critical habitat. In 

addition, we look at any Tribal issues, 

and consider the government-togovernment relationship of the United 

States with Tribal entities. We also 

consider any social impacts that might 

occur because of the designation. 

Habitat Conservation Plans 

We consider a current plan (HCPs as 

well as other types) to provide adequate 

management or protection if it meets the 

following criteria: 

(1) The plan is complete and provides 

the same or better level of protection 

from adverse modification or 

destruction than that provided through 

a consultation under section 7 of the 

Act; 

(2) There is a reasonable expectation 

that the conservation management 

strategies and actions will be 

implemented for the foreseeable future, 

based on past practices, written 

guidance, or regulations; and 

(3) The plan provides conservation 

strategies and measures consistent with 

currently accepted principles of 

conservation biology. 

We are requesting comments on the 

benefit to the Chiricahua leopard frog 

from the Malpai Borderlands HCP, 

Malpai Borderlands Safe Harbor 

Agreement, and the AGFD Safe Harbor 

Agreement. 

Malpai Borderlands HCP 

The proposed critical habitat units 

covered by this completed HCP that 

addresses the Chiricahua leopard frog 

are Unit 16 (Peloncillo Mountains 

Tanks) and Unit 19 (Rosewood and 

North Tanks). Both critical habitat units 

are in recovery unit 3. The Malpai 

Borderlands HCP is an umbrella 

document under which individual 

landowners may participate. If a 

landowner seeks assistance from the 

Malpai Borderlands Group for a project 

covered by the HCP, then the 

conservation measures from the HCP 

become stipulations for that project. To 

date, the private landowners in Units 16 

and 19 have not conducted Malpaiassisted projects; thus the conservation 

measures from the HCP have not yet 

been implemented or realized on those 

lands. 

Malpai Borderlands Safe Harbor 

Agreement and the AGFD Safe Harbor 

Agreement 

Two umbrella Safe Harbor 

Agreements under which individual 

landowners can enroll their lands by 

signing a Certificate of Inclusion have 

been completed for Arizona and 

southwestern New Mexico. Under the 

Certificates of Inclusion, landowners 

commit to certain conservation actions. 

These agreements have, in some cases, 

facilitated habitat improvements and 

translocations of Chiricahua leopard 

frogs to private lands to establish new 

populations. Under section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act, we will assess the appropriateness 

of exclusions from critical habitat for 

non-Federal lands in proposed critical 

habitat units that are enrolled under 

either the AGFD Safe Harbor Agreement 

or the Malpai Borderlands Safe Harbor 

Agreement. We will also consider 

exclusions for non-Federal lands that 

are protected by conservation 

easements, conservation agreements, or 

other forms of protective management 

that benefit the Chiricahua leopard frog 

and its habitats. Specific units for which 

we are considering exclusions from 

critical habitat designation are 

discussed and described below. 

Unit 10 (Pasture 9 Tank). The 

landowner signed a Certificate of 

Inclusion under the AGFD’s Safe Harbor 

Agreement and allowed us to establish 

a population of Chiricahua leopard frogs 

at this site. With financial assistance 

from the Service’s Partners for Wildlife 

Program, Pasture 9 Tank has been 

equipped with a solar-powered well that 

provides a dependable water source for 

the frogs, and the site is enclosed with 

bullfrog exclusion fencing. The 

landowner also has a conservation 

easement on the ranch and is nearing 

completion of an HCP, and although 

that HCP does not specifically address 

the Chiricahua leopard frog, 

commitments in the HCP would benefit 

Chiricahua leopard frog conservation. 

The conservation easement limits 

development and guarantees that the 

ranch will remain in perpetuity as open 

space. All lands in Unit 10 (0.5 ac (0.2 

ha)) will be considered for exclusion. 

Unit 12 (Beatty’s Guest Ranch). This 

unit is entirely privately owned. The 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

14158 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

landowner signed onto the AGFD Safe 

Harbor Agreement with a Certificate of 

Inclusion, and is also a signatory to the 

Ramsey Canyon Leopard Frog 

Conservation Agreement, which was 

developed prior to that species being 

recognized as the Chiricahua leopard 

frog. That conservation agreement is 

still in place and implements the 

Chiricahua leopard frog recovery plan 

on the eastern slopes of the Huachuca 

Mountains. The landowner allowed 

Chiricahua leopard frogs to be 

introduced to the property, and the 

Beatty family actively manages for the 

frogs and is an enthusiastic participant 

in the recovery program. All lands in 

Unit 12 (10 ac (4.0 ha)) will be 

considered for exclusion. 

Unit 14 (Ramsey and Brown 

Canyons). All lands owned by The 

Nature Conservancy in Ramsey Canyon 

(16 ac (6 ha)) of Unit 14 will be 

considered for exclusion. The Nature 

Conservancy is a signatory to the 

Ramsey Canyon Leopard Frog 

Conservation Agreement and has 

submitted a Certificate of Inclusion for 

the AGFD’s Safe Harbor Agreement. The 

Nature Conservancy has been an active 

participant in leopard frog conservation 

since conservation work began on the 

Chiricahua leopard frog in 1993. With 

assistance from the Service’s Partners 

for Fish and Wildlife Program, The 

Nature Conservancy has removed 

anthropogenic structures that interfered 

with channel morphology and restored 

the ‘Trout Pond’ for Chiricahua leopard 

frogs. They also monitor the frogs, 

developed the Meadow Ponds where the 

frogs breed, and have allowed numerous 

augmentations and introductions of 

leopard frogs to their Ramsey Canyon 

property. The property is managed as 

the Ramsey Canyon Preserve. The 

Conservancy is dedicated to the 

preservation of the canyon’s 

biodiversity, including the Chiricahua 

leopard frog. 

Unit 16 (Peloncillo Mountains Tanks). 

The private lands in this unit (289 ac 

(117 ha)) are located on the Canoncito 

Ranch, a part of the Diamond A Ranch. 

All of those private lands will be 

considered for exclusion from critical 

habitat designation. The ranch is 

covered by a conservation easement that 

limits development and ensures that the 

ranch will be maintained in open space 

in perpetuity and with the capability to 

support a diverse array of wildlife and 

plants. If the landowner seeks assistance 

from Malpai Borderlands Group for 

projects covered by the Malpai 

Borderlands HCP, certain conservation 

measures will be required; however, to 

date the landowner has not elected to 

participate in the HCP. The owner has 

also enrolled lands in the unit in the 

Malpai Borderlands Safe Harbor 

Agreement with a Certificate of 

Inclusion and is further working with 

Sky Island Alliance on a restoration 

project of the Cloverdale Cienega, which 

will improve habitats for the Chiricahua 

leopard frog. 

Unit 17 (Cave Creek). Private lands in 

this unit are owned by the American 

Museum of Natural History in New York 

and managed as the Southwest Research 

Station. The property is a year-round 

field station for biologists, geologists, 

and anthropologists interested in 

studying the diverse environments and 

biotas of the Chiricahua Mountains and 

surrounding areas in southeastern 

Arizona. The property serves as an 

outdoor classroom for students and 

researchers. The Southwest Research 

Station has signed onto the AGFD’s Safe 

Harbor Agreement with a Certificate of 

Inclusion and, with assistance from the 

Service’s Partners for Fish and Wildlife 

Program, has developed indoor and 

outdoor captive propagation and 

headstarting facilities for the Chiricahua 

leopard frog. Under a section 10(a)(1)(A) 

enhancement of survival permit from 

the Service, the facilities house 

Chiricahua leopard frogs from proposed 

Unit 18 (Leslie Creek) with the objective 

of producing frogs for release at a pond 

on the station’s grounds, to augment the 

population in proposed Unit 18, and to 

provide stock for additional population 

establishments in recovery unit 3. The 

Southwest Research Station is an 

enthusiastic partner in recovery of the 

Chiricahua leopard frog. All lands in 

Unit 17 owned by the Southwest 

Research Station (92 ac (37 ha)) will be 

considered for exclusion. 

Unit 19 (Rosewood and North Tanks). 

This unit consists of private and Stateleased lands on the Magoffin Ranch. 

The owners of the Magoffin Ranch have 

enrolled these lands with a Certificate of 

Inclusion into the Malpai Borderlands 

Safe Harbor Agreement and have been 

an active participant in Chiricahua 

leopard frog conservation for more than 

15 years. They expended much time and 

labor to haul water to and maintain 

aquatic habitat at Rosewood Tank 

during a severe drought in the 1990s. 

They then constructed two concrete 

refugia adjacent to the tank that are fed 

by a well. The refugia maintain 

Chiricahua leopard frogs at the site even 

when the tank dries out completely. 

Chiricahua leopard frogs would have 

been extirpated from the site without 

these actions. They also allowed and 

participated in the establishment of a 

new population of Chiricahua leopard 

frogs at North Tank in 2008. Although 

most of the lands in this unit are owned 

by the Arizona State Land Department 

(78 ac (31 ha) versus 19 ac (8 ha) of 

private lands), all the lands in the unit 

are enrolled in the Safe Harbor 

Agreement and the Magoffin Ranch 

leases the State land for grazing and 

manages and maintains Rosewood and 

North Tanks. If the landowner seeks 

assistance from Malpai Borderlands 

Group for projects covered by the 

Malpai Borderlands HCP, certain 

conservation measures will be required; 

however, to date the landowner has not 

elected to participate in the HCP. All 

lands in Unit 19 (97 ac (39 ha)) will be 

considered for exclusion. 

Unit 36 (Seco Creek). This unit lies 

almost entirely within the privately 

owned Ladder Ranch. The very upper 

end of Seco Creek is on the Gila 

National Forest; only the private lands 

(610 ac (247 ha)) will be considered for 

exclusion. The 156,439-acre Ladder 

Ranch is owned by Turner Enterprises 

and is managed for its biodiversity. The 

Ladder Ranch has been an active 

participant in the conservation of a 

number of rare and listed species, 

including the Mexican wolf (Canis 

lupus baileyi), Bolson tortoise 

(Gopherus flavomarginatus), Chiricahua 

leopard frog, black-tailed prairie dog 

(Cynomys ludovicianus), American 

bison (Bison bison), and Rio Grande 

cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki 

virginalis). The strongest 

metapopulation of Chiricahua leopard 

frogs in New Mexico exists in Unit 36 

in part due to the diligent management 

of the Ladder Ranch, which has 

included fencing some of the ranch’s 

waters from the bison that graze the 

area, reestablishment of populations 

using wild-to-wild translocations, 

maintenance of wells and tanks, and 

controlling bullfrogs. The Ladder Ranch 

also monitors the frogs and habitats, and 

has recently initiated a captive breeding 

facility and program to rear frogs for 

population augmentation and 

reestablishment. The Service has 

provided funding for the captive 

breeding program under the Partners for 

Fish and Wildlife Program and other 

granting authorities. The Ladder Ranch 

maintains captive propagation facilities 

for the Chiricahua leopard frog under a 

section 10(a)(1)(A) enhancement of 

survival permit from the Service. 

Research on movements of Chiricahua 

leopard frogs using radiotelemetry has 

been funded by the Ladder Ranch and 

carried out in the Seco Creek area, and 

during the development of the recovery 

plan, Turner Endangered Species Fund 

paid for part of the Population and 

Habitat Viability Analysis (Service 2007, 

Appendix C, pp. C–1 to C–40). 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 14159 

Unit 38 (Cuchillo Negro Warm 

Springs and Creek). The private lands in 

Unit 38, which are part of the Ladder 

Ranch (23 ac (9 ha)), will be considered 

for exclusion based on the same 

rationale presented for Unit 36. 

Unit 40 (Mimbres River). Private lands 

owned by The Nature Conservancy are 

managed as the Mimbres River Preserve. 

These lands are managed for the benefit 

of the Chihuahua chub, Chiricahua 

leopard frog, and other riparian and 

aquatic resources. All of The Nature 

Conservancy’s lands in Unit 40 (510 ac 

(206 ha)) will be considered for 

exclusion. 

Table 3 below provides approximate 

areas (1,647 ac (667 ha)) of lands that 

meet the definition of critical habitat but 

for which the Service is considering 

possible exclusions under section 

4(b)(2) of the Act from the final critical 

habitat rule. Table 3 also provides our 

reasons for the exemptions and 

proposed exclusions. 

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

Unit Specific area to be considered for exclusion 

Section of the act 

that is the basis 

for possible exclusion or exemption 

Area meeting the 

definition of critical 

habitat in the unit 

(acres (hectares)) 

Possible exclusion 

in 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 

In accordance with our joint policy 

published in the Federal Register on 

July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we will seek 

the expert opinions of at least three 

appropriate and independent specialists 

regarding this proposed rule. The 

purpose of peer review is to ensure that 

our critical habitat designation is based 

on scientifically sound data, 

assumptions, and analyses. We will 

send copies of this proposed rule to 

these peer reviewers immediately 

following publication in the Federal 

Register. We will invite these peer 

reviewers to comment during the public 

comment period on our specific 

assumptions and conclusions 

concerning the taxonomic revision of 

the Chiricahua leopard frog, our 

assessment of threats to the currently 

described species Lithobates 

chiricahuensis, our proposal of listing as 

threatened the currently described 

species, and our proposed designation 

of critical habitat. 

We will consider all comments and 

information we receive during the 

comment period on this proposed rule 

during our preparation of a final 

determination. Accordingly, the final 

decision may differ from this proposal. 

Public Hearings 

The Act provides for one or more 

public hearings on this proposal, if 

requested. Requests must be received 

within 45 days after the date of 

publication of this proposed rule in the 

Federal Register (see the DATES section 

above). Such requests must be sent to 

the address shown in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section. We will 

schedule public hearings on this 

proposal, if any are requested, and 

announce the dates, times, and places of 

those hearings, as well as how to obtain 

reasonable accommodations, in the 

Federal Register and local newspapers 

at least 15 days before the hearing. A 

draft economic analysis and draft 

environmental assessment for this 

action will be prepared and made 

available to the public for review. At 

that time, we will reopen the comment 

period on this proposed rule and 

concurrently solicit comments on the 

draft economic analysis and draft 

environmental assessment. If 

determined necessary, in the Federal 

Register notice reopening the comment 

period, we will announce public 

hearing(s) during that comment period 

for the public to present oral and 

written comment on all three 

documents. 

Special Rule Under Section 4(d) of the 

Act 

The June 13, 2002, final rule (67 FR 

40790) listing the Chiricahua leopard 

frog as threatened included a special 

rule as defined under section 4(d) of the 

Act to ease the general take prohibitions 

for livestock use at or maintenance 

activities of livestock tanks located on 

private, State, or Tribal lands (see 50 

CFR 17.43(b)). Under section 4(d) of the 

Act, the Secretary may publish a special 

rule that modifies the standard 

protections for threatened species in the 

Service’s regulations at 50 CFR 17.31, 

which implement section 9 of the Act, 

with special measures that are 

determined to be necessary and 

advisable to provide for the 

conservation of the species. Based on 

changes made to the listed entity, we 

reevaluated the existing 4(d) rule to see 

if its measures are still necessary and 

advisable to the conservation of the 

species and appropriate to apply in the 

expanded range of the species. We 

determined that the measures of the 4(d) 

rule are appropriate and should be 

applied to the whole range. Therefore, 

we are not changing any conditions of 

the June 13, 2002, special rule, and it 

shall remain in effect as identified in 

our regulations at 50 CFR 17.43(b). 

The special rule replaces the Act’s 

general prohibitions against take of the 

Chiricahua leopard frog with special 

measures tailored to the conservation of 

the species on all non-Federal lands. 

Through the maintenance and operation 

of the stock tanks for cattle, habitat is 

provided for the leopard frogs, hence 

there is a conservation benefit to the 

species. Under the special rule, take of 

Chiricahua leopard frog caused by 

livestock use of or maintenance 

activities at livestock tanks located on 

private, State, or Tribal lands would be 

exempt from section 9 of the Act. A 

livestock tank is defined as an existing 

or future impoundment in an ephemeral 

drainage or upland site constructed 

primarily as a watering site for 

livestock. The rule targets tanks on 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

14160 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

private, State, and Tribal lands to 

encourage landowners and ranchers to 

continue to maintain these tanks as they 

provide habitat for the frogs. Livestock 

use and maintenance of tanks on 

Federal lands will be addressed through 

the section 7 process. When a Federal 

action, such as permitting livestock 

grazing on Federal lands, may affect a 

listed species, consultation between us 

and the action agency is required 

pursuant to section 7 of the Act. The 

conclusion of consultation may include 

mandatory changes in livestock 

programs in the form of measures to 

minimize take of a listed animal or to 

avoid jeopardizing the continued 

existence of a listed species. Changes in 

a proposed action resulting from 

consultations are almost always minor. 

Required Determinations 

Regulatory Planning and Review— 

Executive Order 12866 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has determined that this rule is 

not significant under Executive Order 

12866 (E.O. 12866). OMB bases its 

determination upon the following four 

criteria: 

(a) Whether the rule will have an 

annual effect of $100 million or more on 

the economy or adversely affect an 

economic sector, productivity, jobs, the 

environment, or other units of the 

government. 

(b) Whether the rule will create 

inconsistencies with other Federal 

agencies’ actions. 

(c) Whether the rule will materially 

affect entitlements, grants, user fees, 

loan programs, or the rights and 

obligations of their recipients. 

(d) Whether the rule raises novel legal 

or policy issues. 

At this time, we lack the available 

economic information necessary to 

determine whether the revised rule 

would have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more or 

affect the economy in a material way. To 

determine the economic consequences 

of designating the specific area as 

critical habitat, we are preparing a draft 

economic analysis of this proposed 

action, which will be available for 

public comment. This economic 

analysis also will be used to determine 

compliance with E.O. 12866, the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act, E.O. 12630, and E.O. 

13211. 

Further, E.O. 12866 directs Federal 

agencies promulgating regulations to 

evaluate regulatory alternatives (OMB 

Circular A–4, September 17, 2003). 

Under Circular A–4, once an agency 

determines that the Federal regulatory 

action is appropriate, the agency must 

consider alternative regulatory 

approaches. Because the determination 

of critical habitat is a statutory 

requirement under the Act, we must 

evaluate alternative regulatory 

approaches, where feasible, when 

promulgating a designation of critical 

habitat. 

In developing our designations of 

critical habitat, we consider economic 

impacts, impacts to national security, 

and other relevant impacts under 

section 4(b)(2) of the Act. Based on the 

discretion allowable under this 

provision, we may exclude any 

particular area from the designation of 

critical habitat providing that the 

benefits of such exclusion outweigh the 

benefits of specifying the area as critical 

habitat and that such exclusion would 

not result in the extinction of the 

species. As such, we believe that the 

evaluation of the inclusion or exclusion 

of particular areas, or a combination of 

both, constitutes our regulatory 

alternative analysis for designations. 

We will announce the availability of 

the draft economic analysis and draft 

environmental assessment in the 

Federal Register and in local 

newspapers to ensure that they are 

available for public review and 

comments. These documents will also 

be available on the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), as amended 

by the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 

1996, whenever an agency must publish 

a notice of rulemaking for any proposed 

or final rule, it must prepare and make 

available for public comment a 

regulatory flexibility analysis that 

describes the effects of the rule on small 

entities (small businesses, small 

organizations, and small government 

jurisdictions). However, no regulatory 

flexibility analysis is required if the 

head of the agency certifies the rule will 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. The SBREFA amended RFA to 

require Federal agencies to provide a 

certification statement of the factual 

basis for certifying that the rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

At this time, we lack the available 

economic information necessary to 

provide an adequate factual basis for the 

required RFA finding. Therefore, we 

defer the RFA finding until completion 

of the draft economic analysis prepared 

under section 4(b)(2) of the Act and E.O. 

12866. This draft economic analysis will 

provide the required factual basis for the 

RFA finding. Upon completion of the 

draft economic analysis, we will 

announce availability of that analysis of 

the proposed designation in the Federal 

Register and reopen the public 

comment period for the proposed 

designation. We will include with this 

announcement, as appropriate, an initial 

regulatory flexibility analysis or a 

certification that the rule will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

accompanied by the factual basis for 

that determination. 

As discussed above, designation of 

critical habitat will require Federal 

agencies to consult with the Service on 

activities that may affect critical habitat. 

If the site is occupied by Chiricahua 

leopard frogs, consultation would likely 

be triggered by the presence of the frog, 

regardless of critical habitat. From Table 

1, only 2 of the 40 sites proposed are 

currently unoccupied; however, this 

number is somewhat misleading in that, 

within individual units, there are often 

ponds or stream segments of critical 

habitat units that are occupied while 

others are not (see descriptions in 

Proposed Critical Habitat Designation). 

Within occupied units, there are 

sometimes aquatic sites that are 

unoccupied (while other aquatic sites 

have frogs). As a result, we expect more 

consultations on Federal actions than 

occur with just the listing of the frog 

without critical habitat. These 

consultations could incur project delays 

(consultations run 135 days from the 

date of initiation of consultation to the 

issuance of a biological opinion (50 CFR 

402.14(e)), and can be extended), and 

conservation measures developed 

during consultation, as well as 

mandatory reasonable and prudent 

alternatives, could cause additional 

project costs or alter the scope, timing, 

location, or duration of a project. 

Federal actions likely to incur these 

delays, additional costs, or limitations 

include issuance of livestock grazing 

permits, road construction, fuel 

reduction projects, prescribed fire, 

transmission lines, fiber optic lines, 

recreational developments or use, and 

other Federal actions common to 

Federal land management. Projects on 

non-Federal lands would be similarly 

affected if they are funded, authorized, 

or carried out by a Federal agency. We 

have concluded that deferring the RFA 

finding until completion of the draft 

economic analysis is necessary to meet 

the purposes and requirements of the 

RFA. Deferring the RFA finding in this 

manner will ensure that we make a 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 14161 

sufficiently informed determination 

based on adequate economic 

information and provide the necessary 

opportunity for public comment. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

In accordance with the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et 

seq.), we make the following findings: 

(a) This rule would not produce a 

Federal mandate. In general, a Federal 

mandate is a provision in legislation, 

statute, or regulation that would impose 

an enforceable duty upon State, local, or 

Tribal governments, or the private 

sector, and includes both ‘‘Federal 

intergovernmental mandates’’ and 

‘‘Federal private sector mandates.’’ 

These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 

658(5)-(7). ‘‘Federal intergovernmental 

mandate’’ includes a regulation that 

‘‘would impose an enforceable duty 

upon State, local, or [T]ribal 

governments’’ with two exceptions. It 

excludes ‘‘a condition of Federal 

assistance.’’ It also excludes ‘‘a duty 

arising from participation in a voluntary 

Federal program,’’ unless the regulation 

‘‘relates to a then-existing Federal 

program under which $500,000,000 or 

more is provided annually to State, 

local, and [T]ribal governments under 

entitlement authority,’’ if the provision 

would ‘‘increase the stringency of 

conditions of assistance’’ or ‘‘place caps 

upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal 

Government’s responsibility to provide 

funding,’’ and the State, local, or Tribal 

governments ‘‘lack authority’’ to adjust 

accordingly. At the time of enactment, 

these entitlement programs were: 

Medicaid; Aid to Families with 

Dependent Children work programs; 

Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social 

Services Block Grants; Vocational 

Rehabilitation State Grants; Foster Care, 

Adoption Assistance, and Independent 

Living; Family Support Welfare 

Services; and Child Support 

Enforcement. ‘‘Federal private sector 

mandate’’ includes a regulation that 

‘‘would impose an enforceable duty 

upon the private sector, except (i) a 

condition of Federal assistance or (ii) a 

duty arising from participation in a 

voluntary Federal program.’’ 

The designation of critical habitat 

does not impose a legally binding duty 

on non-Federal Government entities or 

private parties. Under the Act, the only 

regulatory effect is that Federal agencies 

must ensure that their actions do not 

destroy or adversely modify critical 

habitat under section 7. While nonFederal entities that receive Federal 

funding, assistance, or permits, or that 

otherwise require approval or 

authorization from a Federal agency for 

an action, may be indirectly impacted 

by the designation of critical habitat, the 

legally binding duty to avoid 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat rests squarely on the 

Federal agency. Furthermore, to the 

extent that non-Federal entities are 

indirectly impacted because they 

receive Federal assistance or participate 

in a voluntary Federal aid program, the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would 

not apply, nor would critical habitat 

shift the costs of the large entitlement 

programs listed above onto State 

governments. 

(b) We lack the available economic 

information to determine if a Small 

Government Agency Plan is required. 

Therefore, we defer this finding until 

completion of the draft economic 

analysis prepared under section 4(b)(2) 

of the Act. 

Takings 

In accordance with E.O. 12630 

(Government Actions and Interference 

with Constitutionally Protected Private 

Property Rights), we will analyze the 

potential takings implications of 

designating critical habitat for the 

Chiricahua leopard frog in a takings 

implications assessment. Following 

completion of the proposed rule, a draft 

economic analysis will be completed for 

the proposed designation. The draft 

economic analysis will provide the 

foundation for us to use in preparing a 

takings implications assessment. 

Federalism 

In accordance with E.O. 13132 

(Federalism), this proposed rule does 

not have significant Federalism effects. 

A Federalism assessment is not 

required. In keeping with Department of 

the Interior and Department of 

Commerce policy, we requested 

information from, and coordinated 

development of, this proposed critical 

habitat designation with appropriate 

State resource agencies in Arizona and 

New Mexico. The designation may have 

some benefit to these governments 

because the areas that contain the 

features essential to the conservation of 

the species are more clearly defined, 

and the PCEs of the habitat necessary to 

the conservation of the species are 

specifically identified. This information 

does not alter where and what federallysponsored activities may occur. 

However, it may assist local 

governments in long-range planning 

(rather than having them wait for caseby-case section 7 consultations to 

occur). 

Where State and local governments 

require approval or authorization from a 

Federal agency for actions that may 

affect critical habitat, consultation 

under section 7(a)(2) would be required. 

While non-Federal entities that receive 

Federal funding, assistance, or permits, 

or that otherwise require approval or 

authorization from a Federal agency for 

an action may be indirectly impacted by 

the designation of critical habitat, the 

legally binding duty to avoid 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat rests squarely on the 

Federal agency. 

Civil Justice Reform 

In accordance with E.O. 12988 (Civil 

Justice Reform), the Office of the 

Solicitor has determined that the rule 

does not unduly burden the judicial 

system and that it meets the 

requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) 

of the Order. We have proposed 

designating critical habitat in 

accordance with the provisions of the 

Act. This proposed rule uses standard 

property descriptions and identifies the 

PCEs within the designated areas to 

assist the public in understanding the 

habitat needs of the Chiricahua leopard 

frog. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

This rule does not contain any new 

collections of information that require 

approval by OMB under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 

et seq.). This rule would not impose 

recordkeeping or reporting requirements 

on State or local governments, 

individuals, businesses, or 

organizations. An agency may not 

conduct or sponsor, and a person is not 

required to respond to, a collection of 

information unless it displays a 

currently valid OMB control number. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) 

It is our position that, outside the 

jurisdiction of the U.S. Court of Appeals 

for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to 

prepare environmental analyses as 

defined by NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et 

seq.) in connection with designating 

critical habitat under the Act. We 

published a notice outlining our reasons 

for this determination in the Federal 

Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 

49244). This position was upheld by the 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth 

Circuit (Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 

F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied 

516 U.S. 1042 (1996)).] However, when 

the range of the species includes States 

within the Tenth Circuit, such as that of 

the Chiricahua leopard frog, under the 

Tenth Circuit ruling in Catron County 

Board of Commissioners v. U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, 75 F.3d 1429 (10th 

Cir. 1996), we will undertake a NEPA 

analysis for critical habitat designation 

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 

of the draft environmental assessment 

for this proposal when it is finished. 

Clarity of the Rule 

We are required by Executive Orders 

12866 and 12988 and by the 

Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 

1998, to write all rules in plain 

language. This means that each rule we 

publish must: 

(a) Be logically organized; 

(b) Use the active voice to address 

readers directly; 

(c) Use clear language rather than 

jargon; 

(d) Be divided into short sections and 

sentences; and 

(e) Use lists and tables wherever 

possible. 

If you feel that we have not met these 

requirements, send us comments by one 

of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES

section. To better help us revise the 

rule, your comments should be as 

specific as possible. For example, you 

should tell us the numbers of the 

sections or paragraphs that are unclearly 

written, which sections or sentences are 

too long, the sections where you feel 

lists or tables would be useful, etc. 

Government-to-Government 

Relationship With Tribes 

In accordance with the President’s 

memorandum of April 29, 1994, 

Government-to-Government Relations 

with Native American Tribal 

Governments (59 FR 22951), E.O. 13175, 

and the Department of the Interior’s 

manual at 512 DM 2, we readily 

acknowledge our responsibility to 

communicate meaningfully with 

recognized Federal Tribes on a 

government-to-government basis. In 

accordance with Secretarial Order 3206 

of June 5, 1997 ‘‘American Indian Tribal 

Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust 

Responsibilities, and the Endangered 

Species Act’’, we readily acknowledge 

our responsibilities to work directly 

with Tribes in developing programs for 

healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that 

Tribal lands are not subject to the same 

controls as Federal public lands, to 

remain sensitive to Indian culture, and 

to make information available to Tribes. 

We have determined that there are no 

Tribal lands occupied at the time of 

listing that contain the features essential 

for the conservation of, and no Tribal 

lands that are essential for the 

conservation of, the Chiricahua leopard 

frog. Therefore, we have not proposed 

designation of critical habitat for the 

Chiricahua leopard frog on Tribal lands. 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use 

On May 18, 2001, the President issued 

an Executive Order (E.O. 13211; Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use) on regulations that 

significantly affect energy supply, 

distribution, and use. E.O. 13211 

requires agencies to prepare Statements 

of Energy Effects when undertaking 

certain actions. We do not expect 

Chiricahua leopard frog critical habitat 

to significantly affect energy supplies, 

distribution, or use. As discussed above 

under Regulatory Flexibility Act, 

designation of critical habitat will 

require Federal agencies to consult with 

the Service on actions that may affect 

critical habitat. Those Federal actions 

could include construction of 

powerlines, energy pipelines, or other 

actions associated with energy supply, 

distribution, or use. The number of 

consultations may increase somewhat 

due to the two units that are not 

occupied; however, once in 

consultation, the outcome would not be 

substantially different unless there is an 

adverse modification biological opinion. 

Regardless of critical habitat, a Federal 

agency’s proposed action would result 

in a consultation anyway because the 

consultation would be triggered by the 

presence of the species. Hence, critical 

habitat would very often make little 

difference in the consultation outcome, 

unless there is an adverse modification 

biological opinion. We expect the vast 

majority of consultations projects to 

proceed with only minor changes that 

do not affect the project purpose or 

objectives (Tobin 2010, p. 55). 

Therefore, this action is not a significant 

energy action, and no Statement of 

Energy Effects is required. However, we 

will further evaluate this issue as we 

conduct our economic analysis, and 

review and revise this assessment as 

warranted. 

References Cited 

A complete list of references cited is 

available on the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov and upon request 

from the Arizona Ecological Services 

Field Office (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Authors 

The primary authors of this package 

are the staff members of the Arizona 

Ecological Services Field Office. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation. 

Proposed Regulation Promulgation 

Accordingly, we propose to amend 

part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 

50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 

as set forth below: 

PART 17—ENDANGERED AND 

THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS 

1. The authority citation for part 17 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 16 U.S.C. 

1531–1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201–4245; Pub. L. 99– 

625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted. 

2. In § 17.11(h), revise the entry for 

‘‘Frog, Chiricahua leopard’’ under 

‘‘Amphibians’’ in the List of Endangered 

and Threatened Wildlife to read as 

follows: 

§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened 

wildlife. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

Species 

Historic range 

Vertebrate population where endangered or threatened 

Status When listed Critical 

habitat 

Special 

rules Common name Scientific name 

*******

AMPHIBIANS ................................. ................................. ................................. .................... .................... ....................

*******

Frog, Chiricahua 

leopard.

Lithobates 

chiricahuensis.

U.S.A. (AZ, NM), 

Mexico.

Entire ...................... T 726 17.95(d) 17.43(b) 

*******

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 

adding an entry for ‘‘Chiricahua leopard 

frog (Lithobates chiricahuensis),’’ in the 

same alphabetical order that the species 

appears in the table at § 17.11(h), to read 

as follows: 

§ 17.95 Critical habitat—fish and wildlife. 

* * * * * 

(d) Amphibians. 

* * * * * 

Chiricahua leopard frog (Lithobates 

chiricahuensis) 

(1) Critical habitat units are depicted 

for Apache, Cochise, Gila, Graham, 

Greenlee, Pima, Santa Cruz, and 

Yavapai Counties, Arizona; and Catron, 

Grant, Hidalgo, Socorro, and Sierra 

Counties, New Mexico, on the maps 

below. 

(2) The primary constituent elements 

of critical habitat for the Chiricahua 

leopard frog are: 

(i) Aquatic breeding habitat and 

immediately adjacent uplands 

exhibiting the following characteristics: 

(A) Perennial (water present during 

all seasons of the year) or nearly 

perennial pools or ponds at least 6.0 feet 

(1.8 meters) in diameter and 20 inches 

(0.5 meters) in depth; 

(B) Wet in most years, and do not or 

only very rarely dry for more than a 

month; 

(C) pH greater than or equal to 5.6; 

(D) Salinity less than 5 parts per 

thousand; 

(E) Pollutants absent or minimally 

present at low enough levels that they 

are barely detectable; 

(F) Emergent and or submerged 

vegetation, root masses, undercut banks, 

fractured rock substrates, or some 

combination thereof; but emergent 

vegetation does not completely cover 

the surface of water bodies; 

(G) Nonnative crayfish, predatory 

fishes, bullfrogs, barred tiger 

salamanders, and other introduced 

predators absent or occurring at levels 

that do not preclude presence of the 

Chiricahua leopard frog; 

(H) Absence of chytridiomycosis, or if 

chytridiomycosis is present, then 

conditions that allow persistence of 

Chiricahua leopard frogs with the 

disease (e.g., water temperatures that do 

not drop below 20 °C (68 °F), pH of 

greater than 8 during at least part of the 

year); and 

(I) Uplands immediately adjacent to 

breeding sites that Chiricahua leopard 

frogs use for foraging and basking. 

(ii) Dispersal habitat, consisting of 

ephemeral (water present for only a 

short time), intermittent, or perennial 

drainages that are generally not suitable 

for breeding, and associated uplands 

that provide overland movement 

corridors for frogs among breeding sites 

in a metapopulation with the following 

characteristics: 

(A) Are not more than 1.0 mile (1.6 

kilometers) overland, 3.0 miles (4.8 

kilometers) along ephemeral or 

intermittent drainages, 5.0 miles (8.0 

kilometers) along perennial drainages, 

or some combination thereof not to 

exceed 5.0 miles (8.0 kilometers); 

(B) Provide some vegetation cover for 

protection from predators, and in 

drainages, some ephemeral, 

intermittent, or perennial aquatic sites; 

and 

(C) Are free of barriers that block 

movement by Chiricahua leopard frogs, 

including urban, industrial, or 

agricultural development; reservoirs 

that are 50 acres (20 hectares) or more 

in size and stocked with predatory 

fishes, bullfrogs, or crayfish; highways 

that do not include frog fencing and 

culverts; and walls, major dams, or 

other structures that physically block 

movement. 

(3) With the exception of 

impoundments, livestock tanks, and 

other constructed waters, critical habitat 

does not include manmade structures 

(such as buildings, aqueducts, runways, 

roads, and other paved areas) and the 

land on which they are located existing 

within the legal boundaries on the 

effective date of this rule. 

(4) Critical habitat map units. Data 

layers defining map units were created 

on a base of USGS 7.5’ quadrangles, the 

Service’s online Lands Mapper, the U.S. 

Geological Survey National 

Hydrography Dataset, and imagery from 

Google Earth. Lentic water bodies were 

digitized from Google Earth imagery. 

Point locations for lentic water bodies 

(still or non-flowing water bodies) were 

calculated as the geographic centroids of 

the digitized polygons defining the 

critical habitat boundaries. Line 

locations for lotic streams (flowing 

water) and drainages are depicted as the 

‘‘Flowline’’ feature class from the 

National Hydrography Dataset 

geodatabase. Overland connections were 

digitized from Google Earth imagery. 

Administrative boundaries for Arizona 

and New Mexico were obtained from 

the Arizona Land Resource Information 

Service and New Mexico Resource 

Geographic Information System, 

respectively. This includes the most 

current (as of the effective date of this 

rule) geospatial data available for land 

ownership, counties, States, and streets. 

Locations depicting critical habitat are 

expressed as decimal degree latitude 

and longitude in the World Geographic 

Coordinate System projection using the 

1984 datum (WGS84). Information on 

Chiricahua leopard frog localities was 

derived from survey forms, reports, 

publications, field notes, and other 

sources, all of which reside in our files 

at the Arizona Ecological Services Field 

Office, 2321 West Royal Palm Road, 

Suite 103, Phoenix, AZ 85021. 

Coordinates given for tanks are the 

approximate center points of those 

tanks. 

(5) Note: Index Map (Map 1) follows. 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

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 

Tank, Pima County, Arizona. 

(i) Twin Tanks, including the north 

tank (31.838230 N, 111.149875 W) and 

south tank (31.836031 N 111.149102 W), 

and the drainage running between them, 

a drainage distance of 979 feet (299 

meters). 

(ii) Ox Frame Tank (31.881882 N, 

111.200318 W). 

(iii) Note: Map of Unit 1, Twin Tanks 

and Ox Frame Tank (Map 2), follows: 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP15MR11.000</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 14165 

(7) Unit 2: Garcia Tank, Pima County, 

Arizona. 

(i) Garcia Tank (31.477060 N, 

111.454114 W). 

(ii) Note: Map of Unit 2, Garcia Tank 

(Map 3), follows: 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP15MR11.001</GPH>
14166 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

(8) Unit 3: Buenos Aires NWR Central 

Tanks, Pima County, Arizona. 

(i) Carpenter Tank (31.528748 N, 

111.454642 W). 

(ii) Rock Tank (31.583905 N, 

111.462366 W). 

(iii) State Tank (31.569254 N, 

111.477114 W). 

(iv) Triangle Tank (31.576105 N, 

111.510909 W). 

(v) New Round Hill Tank (31.613784 

N, 111.489390 W). 

(vi) Banado Tank (31.532759 N, 

111.474729 W). 

(vii) Choffo Tank (31.544627 N, 

111.463126 W). 

(viii) Barrel Cactus Tank (31.545284 

N, 111.490310 W). 

(ix) Sufrido Tank (31.566364 N, 

111.445892 W). 

(x) Hito Tank (31.579462 N, 

111.446984 W.) 

(xi) Morley Tank (31.599057 N, 

111.489088 W). 

(xii) McKay Tank (31.605788 N, 

111.474188 W). 

(xiii) Chongo Tank (31.64002 N, 

111.50435 W). 

(xiv) Arroyo del Compartidero from 

Triangle Tank (31.576105 N, 111.510909 

W) downstream through and including 

Aguire Lake to an unnamed drainage 

(31.594035 N, 111.504265 W); then 

downstream in that unnamed drainage 

to its confluence with Bailey Wash 

(31.596674 N, 111.501912 W); then 

downstream in Bailey Wash to its 

confluence with Puertocito Wash 

(31.604618 N, 111.494127 W); then 

downstream in Puertocito Wash to its 

confluence with Las Moras Wash 

(31.636031 N, 111.471749 W), including 

New Round Hill Tank (31.613784 N, 

111.489390 W); and upstream in Las 

Moras Wash to Chongo Tank (31.64002 

N, 111.50435 W), a distance of 

approximately 8.52 drainage miles 

(13.70 kilometers). 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP15MR11.002</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 14167 

(xv) An unnamed drainage from its 

confluence with Puertocito Wash 

(31.619650 N, 111.483551 W) upstream 

to McKay Tank (31.605788 N, 

111.474188 W, which is a cluster of 

three tanks), a distance of approximately 

1.55 drainage miles (2.50 kilometers). 

(xvi) Puertocito Wash from its 

confluence with Bailey Wash 

(31.604618 N, 111.494127 W) upstream 

to Sufrido Tank (31.566364 N, 

111.445892 W), including Morley Tank 

(31.599057 N, 111.489088 W), a 

distance of approximately 4.60 drainage 

miles (7.40 kilometers). 

(xvii) An unnamed drainage from its 

confluence with Puertocito Wash 

upstream to Rock Tank (31.583905 N, 

111.462366 W), then upstream in an 

unnamed drainage to the top of that 

drainage (31.582637 N, 111.456882 W) 

and directly overland to an unnamed 

drainage (31.583818 N, 111.455223 W), 

and then upstream to Hito Tank 

(31.579462 N, 111.446984 W) and 

downstream to McKay Tank (31.605788 

N, 111.474188 W), a distance of 

approximately 3.80 drainage miles (6.11 

kilometers) and 580 feet (177 meters) 

overland. 

(xviii) Lopez Wash from Carpenter 

Tank (31.528748 N, 111.454642 W) 

downstream to its confluence with 

Aguire Lake (31.590582 N, 111.499589 

W), a distance of approximately 6.75 

drainage miles (10.87 kilometers). 

(xix) An unnamed drainage from its 

confluence with Lopez Wash (31.542605 

N, 111.466699 W) upstream to Choffo 

Tank (31.544627 N, 111.463126 W), a 

distance of approximately 1,549 

drainage feet (472 meters). 

(xx) An unnamed drainage from its 

confluence with Lopez Wash (31.569735 

N, 111.482058 W) upstream to State 

Tank (31.569254 N, 111.477114 W), a 

distance of approximately 1,613 

drainage feet (492 meters). 

(xxi) An unnamed drainage from 

Banado Tank (31.532759 N, 111.474729 

W) downstream to the confluence with 

an unnamed drainage (31.545399 N, 

111.496152 W), and then upstream in 

that drainage to Barrel Cactus Tank 

(31.545284 N, 111.490310 W), a 

distance of approximately 2.21 drainage 

miles (3.56 kilometers). 

(xxii) An unnamed drainage from 

Banado Tank (31.532759 N, 111.474729 

W) upstream to a saddle (31.530907 N, 

111.463162 W), then directly downslope 

to Lopez Wash (31.532093 N, 

111.462159 W), a distance of 

approximately 3,831 drainage feet 

(1,168 meters) and 808 feet (246 meters) 

overland. 

(xxiii) Note: Map of Unit 3, Buenos 

Aires NWR Central Tanks (Map 4), 

follows: 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

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 

Mojonera Tanks, Santa Cruz County, 

Arizona. 

(i) Bonita Tank (31.43525 N, 

111.305505 W). 

(ii) Upper Turner Tank (31.429690 N, 

111.318332 W). 

(iii) Mojonera Tank (31.464250 N, 

111.320203 W). 

(iv) From Upper Turner Tank 

(31.429690 N, 111.318332 W) upstream 

in an unnamed drainage to its 

confluence with a minor drainage 

coming in from the east (31.431029 N, 

111.315846 W), then directly upslope in 

that drainage and east to a saddle 

(31.431015 N, 111.314770), and directly 

downslope through an unnamed 

drainage to Bonita Canyon (31.429806 

N, 111.310325 W), and upstream in 

Bonita Canyon to Bonita Tank, a 

distance of approximately 1.29 drainage 

miles (2.08 kilometers) and 150 feet (46 

meters) overland. 

(v) From Mojonera Tank (31.464250 

N, 111.320203 W) downstream in 

Mojonera Canyon to a sharp bend where 

the drainage turns west-northwest 

(31.445989 N, 111.343181 W); then 

southeast and upstream in an unnamed 

drainage to a saddle (31.443358 N, 

111.340675 W) and downslope through 

an unnamed drainage to its confluence 

with another unnamed drainage 

(31.438637 N, 111.341044 W); then 

upstream in that unnamed drainage to a 

saddle (31.438497 N, 111.337639 W); 

then downstream in an unnamed 

drainage to Sierra Well (31.433012 N, 

111.334709 W), to include Sierra Tank 

East (31.435488 N, 111.334736 W) and 

Sierra Tank West (31.435361 N, 

111.336103 W); then directly overland 

to Upper Turner Tank (31.429690 N, 

111.318332 W), a distance of 

approximately 3.45 drainage miles (5.56 

kilometers) and 5,270 feet (1,606 meters) 

overland. 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP15MR11.003</GPH>
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 

Cruz County, Arizona. 

(i) Sycamore Canyon from the Ruby 

Road bridge (31.434030 N, 111.186537 

W) south to the International Boundary 

(31.379952 N, 111.222937 W), a 

distance of 6.35 stream miles (10.23 

kilometers). 

(ii) Yank Tank (31.425426 N, 

111.183289 W). 

(iii) North Mesa Tank (31.415697 N, 

111.167584 W). 

(iv) Horse Pasture Spring (31.406812 

N, 111.184717 W). 

(v) Bear Valley Ranch Tank 

(31.413617 N, 111.176818 W). 

(vi) South Mesa Tank (31.406832 N, 

111.164505 W). 

(vii) Rattlesnake Tank (31.400654 N, 

111.163470 W). 

(viii) Yanks Canyon from Yank Tank 

(31.425426N, 111.183289W) 

downstream to its confluence with 

Sycamore Canyon (31.428987 N, 

111.190679 W), a distance of 

approximately 2,822 drainage feet (860 

meters). 

(ix) From North Mesa Tank 

(31.415697 N, 111.167584 W) 

downstream in Atascosa Canyon to its 

confluence with Pen ̃ asco Canyon 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP15MR11.004</GPH>
14170 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

(31.402594 N, 111.186647 W), then from 

that confluence downstream in Pen ̃ asco 

Canyon to its confluence with Sycamore 

Canyon (31.407395 N, 111.195820 W), a 

distance of approximately 2.91 drainage 

miles (4.69 kilometers). 

(x) From Horse Pasture Spring 

(31.406812 N, 111.184717 W) 

downstream to Pen ̃ asco Canyon, a 

drainage distance of approximately 

1,759 feet (536 meters). 

(xi) From Bear Valley Ranch Tank 

(31.413617 N, 111.176818 W) 

downstream in an unnamed drainage to 

its confluence with Atascosa Canyon 

(31.402583 N, 111.186593 W), a 

drainage distance of approximately 611 

stream feet (186 meters). 

(xii) From South Mesa Tank 

(31.406832 N, 111.164505 W) 

downstream in unnamed drainage to its 

confluence with another unnamed 

drainage (31.403615 N, 111.169213 W), 

then downstream in that unnamed 

drainage to its confluence with Pen ̃ asco 

Canyon (31.399519 N, 111.177701 W), 

then downstream in Pen ̃ asco Canyon to 

its confluence with Atascosa Canyon 

(31.402594 N, 111.186647 W), a 

drainage distance of approximately 2.05 

miles (3.30 kilometers). 

(xiii) From Rattlesnake Tank 

(31.400654 N, 111.163470 W) 

downstream in an unnamed drainage to 

its confluence with another unnamed 

drainage (31.403615 N, 111.169213 W), 

a drainage distance of approximately 

2,274 feet (693 meters). 

(xiv) Note: Map of Unit 5, Sycamore 

Canyon (Map 6), follows: 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP15MR11.005</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 14171 

(11) Unit 6: Pen ̃ a Blanca Lake and 

Spring and Associated Tanks, Santa 

Cruz County, Arizona. 

(i) Pen ̃ a Blanca Lake (31.409091 N, 

111.084971 W at the dam). 

(ii) Pen ̃ a Blanca Spring (31.388895 N, 

111.092297 W). 

(iii) Summit Reservoir (31.396565 N, 

111.141347 W). 

(iv) Tinker Tank (31.380107 N, 

111.136359 W). 

(v) Coyote Tank (31.369894 N, 

111.150751 W). 

(vi) Thumb Butte Tank (31.388426 N, 

111.118105 W). 

(vii) From Summit Reservoir directly 

southeast to a saddle on Summit 

Motorway (31.395580 N, 111.140552 

W), then directly downslope to an 

unnamed drainage at (31.394133 N, 

111.139450 W) and downstream in that 

drainage to its confluence with Alamo 

Canyon (31.384521 N, 111.121496 W), 

then downstream in Alamo Canyon to 

its confluence with Pen ̃ a Blanca Canyon 

(31.388301 N, 111.093728 W), then 

downstream in Pen ̃ a Blanca Canyon to 

Pen ̃ a Blanca Lake (31.409091 N, 

111.084971 W at the dam) to include 

Pen ̃ a Blanca Spring (31.388895 N, 

111.092297 W), a distance of 

approximately 4.44 drainage miles (7.10 

kilometers) and 1,040 feet (317 meters) 

overland. 

(viii) From Thumb Butte Tank 

(31.388426 N, 111.118105 W) 

downstream in an unnamed drainage to 

its confluence with Alamo Canyon 

(31.385228 N, 111.112132 W), a 

distance of approximately 2,494 

drainage feet (760 meters). 

(ix) From Tinker Tank (31.380107 N, 

111.136359 W) downstream in an 

unnamed drainage to its confluence 

with Alamo Canyon (31.379693 N, 

111.126053 W), then downstream in 

Alamo Canyon to the confluence with 

the drainage from Summit Reservoir 

(31.384521 N, 111.121496 W), a 

distance of approximately 1.55 drainage 

miles (2.50 kilometers). 

(x) From Coyote Tank (31.369894 N, 

111.150751 W) downstream in an 

unnamed drainage to its confluence 

with Alamo Canyon (31.365839 N, 

111.138388 W); then downstream in 

Alamo Canyon to the confluence with 

the drainage from Tinker Tank 

(31.379693 N, 111.126053 W), to 

include Alamo Spring (31.365993 N, 

111.137171 W), a distance of 

approximately 3.09 drainage miles (4.97 

kilometers). 

(xi) Note: Map of Unit 6, Pen ̃ a Blanca 

Lake and Spring and Associated Tanks 

(Map 7), follows: 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

14172 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

(12) Unit 7: Florida Canyon, Pima 

County, Arizona. 

(i) Florida Canyon from a silted-in 

dam (31.759444 N, 110.844095 W) 

downstream to just east of the Florida 

Workstation entrance gate (31.763186 N, 

110.845511 W), a distance of 

approximately 1,521 stream feet (463 

meters). 

(ii) Note: Map of Unit 7, Florida 

Canyon (Map 8), follows: 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP15MR11.006</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 14173 

(13) Unit 8: Eastern Slope of the Santa 

Rita Mountains, Pima County, Arizona. 

(i) Two galvanized metal tanks in 

Louisiana Gulch (31.74865 N, 110.72839 

W). 

(ii) Greaterville Tank (31.767186 N, 

110.759818 W). 

(iii) Los Posos Gulch Tank (31.768587 

N, 110.731583 W). 

(iv) Upper Granite Mountain Tank 

(31.760914 N, 110.760186 W). 

(v) From Los Posos Gulch Tank 

(31.768587 N, 110.731583 W) upstream 

to a saddle (31.771463 N, 110.748676 

W); then downslope in an unnamed 

drainage to the confluence with another 

unnamed drainage (31.772830 N, 

110.752727 W); then upstream and 

south in that drainage to a saddle 

(31.768245 N, 110.752891 W); then 

downslope in an unnamed drainage to 

its confluence with Ophir Gulch 

(31.763978 N, 110.751312 W); then 

upstream in Ophir Gulch to Upper 

Granite Mountain Tank (31.760914 N, 

110.760186 W), to include an ephemeral 

tank (31.761388 N, 110.759184 W) and 

a well (31.761584 N, 110.758169 W), a 

distance of approximately 2.59 drainage 

miles (4.17 kilometers) and 984 feet (300 

meters) overland. 

(vi) From Greaterville Tank 

(31.767186 N, 110.759818 W) 

downstream in an unnamed drainage to 

its confluence with Ophir Gulch 

(31.763978 N, 110.751312 W), a 

distance of approximately 3,446 

drainage feet (1,050 meters). 

(vii) Louisiana Gulch from the metal 

tanks (31.74865 N, 110.72839 W) 

upstream to the confluence with an 

unnamed drainage (31.756493 N, 

110.744175 W), then upstream in that 

drainage to its headwaters and across a 

saddle (31.759879 N, 110.748733 W) 

and downslope through an unnamed 

drainage to its confluence with Ophir 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP15MR11.007</GPH>
14174 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

Gulch (31.762953 N, 110.749329 W), 

then upstream in Ophir Gulch to the 

confluence with the unnamed drainage 

mentioned in subparagraph (13)(v) of 

this entry (31.763978 N, 110.751312 W), 

a distance of approximately 1.98 

drainage miles (3.19 kilometers) and 327 

feet (100 meters) overland. 

(viii) Note: Map of Unit 8, Eastern 

Slope of the Santa Rita Mountains (Map 

9), follows: 

(14) Unit 9: Las Cienegas National 

Conservation Area, Pima County, 

Arizona. 

(i) Empire Gulch near Empire Ranch, 

beginning at a pipeline access road 

crossing (31.787054 N, 110.648665 W) 

and continuing downstream to its 

confluence with Cienega Creek 

(31.808804 N, 110.589758 W), a 

distance of approximately 4.33 stream 

miles (6.98 kilometers). 

(ii) Cienega Creek from the Empire 

Gulch confluence (31.808804 N, 

110.589758 W) upstream to the 

approximate end of the wetted reach 

and where the creek bends hard to the 

east (31.776478 N, 110.590382 W), to 

include Cinco Ponds (31.793066 N, 

110.584422 W upstream to 31.788559 N, 

110.584114 W), a distance of 

approximately 1.91 stream miles (3.08 

kilometers). 

(iii) Note: Map of Unit 9, Las Cienegas 

National Conservation Area (Map 10), 

follows: 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP15MR11.008</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 14175 

(15) Unit 10: Pasture 9 Tank, Santa 

Cruz County, Arizona. 

(i) Pasture 9 Tank (31.375991 N, 

110.548386 E). 

(ii) Note: Map of Unit 10, Pasture 9 

Tank (Map 11), follows: 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP15MR11.009</GPH>
14176 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

(16) Unit 11: Scotia Canyon, Cochise 

County, Arizona. 

(i) Peterson Ranch Pond (31.457016 

N, 110.397724 W). 

(ii) Travertine Seep (31.453466 N, 

110.399386 W). 

(iii) Creek in Scotia Canyon from just 

east of Peterson Ranch Pond (31.455723 

N, 110.396124 W) downstream to the 

confluence of an unnamed drainage and 

a sharp bend in the canyon to the south 

(31.447598 N, 110.409884 W), a 

distance of approximately 1.36 stream 

miles (2.19 kilometers). 

(iv) Overland from Peterson Ranch 

Pond (31.457016 N, 110.397724 W) to 

the upper end of the Scotia Creek 

segment (31.455723 N, 110.396124 W), 

to include an ephemeral pond 

(31.456929 N, 110.397120 W), an 

overland distance of approximately 671 

feet (205 meters). 

(v) Overland from the Travertine Seep 

(31.453466 N, 110.399386 W) directly 

southeast to Scotia Creek (31.452720 N, 

110.398117 W), an overland distance of 

approximately 348 feet (106 meters). 

(vi) Note: Map of Unit 11, Scotia 

Canyon (Map 12), follows: 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP15MR11.010</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 14177 

(17) Unit 12: Beatty’s Guest Ranch, 

Cochise County, Arizona. 

(i) Private inholding defined 

approximately as follows: Northwest 

corner (31.416425 N, 110.277493 W), 

northeast corner (31.416425 N, 

110.276432 W), southeast corner 

(31.413455 N, 110.276432 W), and 

southwest corner (31.413455 N, 

110.277493 W). 

(ii) Note: Map of Unit 12, Beatty’s 

Guest Ranch (Map 13), follows: 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP15MR11.011</GPH>
14178 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

(18) Unit 13: Carr Barn Pond, Cochise 

County, Arizona. 

(i) Carr Barn Pond (31.452461 N, 

110.250355 W). 

(ii) Note: Map of Unit 13, Carr Barn 

Pond (Map 14), follows: 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP15MR11.012</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 14179 

(19) Unit 14: Ramsey and Brown 

Canyons, Cochise County, Arizona. 

(i) Ramsey Canyon from the upper 

end of The Box (31.440958 N, 

110.317879 W) downstream to a dirt 

road crossing at the mouth of Ramsey 

Canyon (31.462315 N, 110.291248 W), 

an approximate stream distance of 2.35 

miles (3.79 kilometers). 

(ii) Brown Canyon from The Box 

(31.456016 N, 110.323853 W) 

downstream to the Wild Duck Pond 

(31.475355 N, 110.297592 W) and 

House Pond (31.474068 N, 110.297565 

W) on the former Barchas Ranch, an 

approximate drainage distance of 2.26 

miles (3.64 kilometers). 

(iii) From the dirt road crossing at the 

mouth of Ramsey Canyon (31.462315 N, 

110.291248 W) directly overland to 

House Pond (31.474068 N, 110.297565 

W) on the former Barchas Ranch, a 

distance of approximately 4,594 feet 

(1,400 meters). 

(iv) Note: Map of Unit 14, Ramsey and 

Brown Canyons (Map 15), follows: 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP15MR11.013</GPH>
14180 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

(20) Unit 15: High Lonesome Well, 

Hidalgo County, New Mexico. 

(i) High Lonesome Well (31.417206 N, 

108.557791 W). 

(ii) Note: Map of Unit 15, High 

Lonesome Well (Map 16), follows: 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP15MR11.014</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 14181 

(21) Unit 16: Peloncillo Mountains 

Tanks, Hidalgo County, New Mexico. 

(i) Geronimo Tank (31.520685 N, 

109.016775 W). 

(ii) State Line Tank (31.498451 N, 

109.044940 W). 

(iii) Javelina Tank (31.484995 N, 

109.024970 W). 

(iv) Canoncito Ranch Tank (31.449553 

N, 109.986836 W). 

(v) Maverick Spring (31.469376 N, 

109.011142 W). 

(vi) Cloverdale Creek from the 

Canoncito Ranch Tank (31.449553 N, 

109.986836 W) downstream, including 

the cienega, to rock pools (31.432972 N, 

108.966535 W) about 630 feet 

downstream of the Cloverdale road 

crossing of Cloverdale Creek, an 

approximate stream distance of 1.91 

miles (3.07 kilometers) . 

(vii) From Geronimo Tank (31.520685 

N, 109.016775 W) downstream in an 

unnamed drainage to its confluence 

with Clanton Draw (31.520590 N, 

109.012263 W), then upstream to the 

confluence with an unnamed drainage 

(31.515818 N, 109.018117 W), and 

upstream in that drainage to its 

headwaters (31.501854 N, 109.031898 

W), across a mesa to the headwaters of 

an unnamed drainage (31.502220 N, 

109.033839 W), then downslope 

through that drainage to State Line Tank 

(31.498451 N, 109.044940 W), an 

approximate drainage distance of 3.07 

miles (4.94 kilometers) and 775 feet (236 

meters) overland. 

(viii) From State Line Tank upstream 

in an unnamed drainage to a mesa 

(31.488563 N, 109.036527 W), then 

directly overland to the headwaters of 

Cloverdale Creek (31.487477 N, 

109.028002 W), and then downstream in 

Cloverdale Creek to Javelina Tank 

(31.484995 N, 109.024970 W), an 

approximate drainage distance of 1.40 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP15MR11.015</GPH>
14182 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

miles (2.26 kilometers) and 2,245 feet 

(684 meters) overland. 

(ix) From Javelina Tank (31.484995 N, 

109.024970 W) downstream in 

Cloverdale Creek to the Canoncito 

Ranch Tank (31.449553 N, 109.986836 

W), to include Maverick Spring 

(31.469376 N, 109.011142 W), an 

approximate stream distance of 3.88 

miles (6.24 kilometers). 

(x) Note: Map of Unit 16, Peloncillo 

Mountains Tanks (Map 17), follows: 

(22) Unit 17: Cave Creek, Cochise 

County, Arizona. 

(i) Herb Martyr Pond (31.87243 N, 

109.23418 W). 

(ii) John Hands Pond below the dam 

(31.87868 N, 109.20470 W). 

(iii) Pond at the Southwest Research 

Station (31.883235 N, 109.208670 W). 

(iv) Cave Creek from Herb Martyr 

Pond (31.87243 N, 109.23418 W) 

downstream to the U.S. Forest Service 

boundary (31.899659 N, 109.159987 W), 

to include John Hands Pond (31.87868 

N, 109.20470 W) and the Pond at the 

Southwest Research Station (31.883235 

N, 109.208670 W), an approximate 

stream distance of 5.84 miles (9.41 

kilometers). 

(v) Note: Map of Unit 17, Cave Creek 

(Map 18), follows: 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP15MR11.016</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 14183 

(23) Unit 18: Leslie Creek, Cochise 

County, Arizona. 

(i) Leslie Creek from the upstream 

National Wildlife Refuge boundary 

(31.591072 N, 109.505311 W) 

downstream to the Leslie Canyon Road 

crossing (31.588510 N, 109.511598 W), 

an approximate stream distance of 4,094 

feet (1,248 meters). 

(ii) Note: Map of Unit 18, Leslie Creek 

(Map 19), follows: 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP15MR11.017</GPH>
14184 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

(24) Unit 19: Rosewood and North 

Tanks, Cochise County, Arizona. 

(i) Rosewood Tank (31.374888 N, 

109.143796 W). 

(ii) North Tank (31.38696 N, 

109.16115 W). 

(iii) From Rosewood Tank (31.374888 

N, 109.143796 W) downstream in an 

unnamed drainage that is parallel to and 

just south of Guadalupe Canyon Road to 

its confluence with a large unnamed 

drainage (31.379088 N, 109.154754 W), 

then upstream in that drainage, under 

Guadalupe Canyon Road and east to its 

confluence with a minor unnamed 

drainage (31.384072 N, 109.144919 W), 

then upstream in that unnamed minor 

drainage to its headwaters (31.384820 N, 

109.145383 W), then overland to the 

headwaters of another unnamed 

drainage (31.385462 N, 109.145980 W), 

then downstream in that drainage to its 

confluence with the drainage containing 

North Tank (31.388383 N, 109.151692 

W), and then downstream in that 

drainage to North Tank, an approximate 

distance of 2.57 drainage miles (4.14 

kilometers) and 543 feet (166 miles) 

overland. 

(iv) Note: Map of Unit 19, Rosewood 

and North Tanks (Map 20), follows: 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP15MR11.018</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 14185 

(25) Unit 20: Deer Creek, Graham 

County, Arizona. 

(i) Home Ranch Tank (32.656879 N, 

110.274556 W). 

(ii) Penney Mine Tanks, which 

includes a series of 10 small 

impoundments in a drainage from 

approximately 32.668795 N, 110.257763 

W downstream to 32.670055 N, 

110.257310 W. 

(iii) Clifford Tank (32.67130 N, 

110.264877 W). 

(iv) Vermont Tank (32.676883 N, 

110.262404 W). 

(v) Middle Tank (32.679691 N, 

110.252180 W). 

(vi) Deer Creek from a point where it 

exits a canyon and turns abruptly to the 

east (32.683937 N, 110.255290 W) 

upstream to its confluence with an 

unnamed drainage (32.673318 N, 

110.262748 W); then upstream in that 

drainage to a confluence with four other 

drainages (32.671318 N, 110.262600 W); 

then upstream from that confluence in 

the western drainage to Clifford Tank 

(32.67130 N, 110.264877 W); then 

upstream from that confluence in the 

west-central drainage to an unnamed 

tank (32.666108 N, 110.269204 W); then 

directly overland southeast to another 

unnamed tank (32.665124 N, 

110.265580 W); then downstream from 

that tank in an unnamed drainage to the 

aforementioned confluence (32.671318 

N, 110.262600 W), and upstream in that 

unnamed drainage to a saddle 

(32.662529 N, 110.265717 W); then 

downstream from that saddle in an 

unnamed drainage to its confluence 

with an unnamed tributary to Gardner 

Creek (32.660409 N, 110.265303 W); 

and upstream in that unnamed tributary 

to Home Ranch Tank (32.656879 N, 

110.274556 W), a distance of 

approximately 3.28 drainage miles (5.27 

kilometers) and 1,216 feet (371 meters) 

overland. 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP15MR11.019</GPH>
14186 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

(vii) From the largest of the Penney 

Mine Tanks (32.669696 N, 110.257652 

W) directly overland to an unnamed 

tank (32.688150 N, 110.260309 W), and 

downstream in an unnamed drainage to 

the aforementioned confluence 

(32.671318 N, 110.262600 W), including 

another unnamed tank (32.669324 N, 

110.261672 W) situated in that drainage, 

a distance of approximately 948 

drainage feet (289 meters) and 1,051 feet 

(320 meters) overland. 

(viii) From Vermont Tank (32.676883 

N, 110.262404 W) directly overland for 

approximately 468 feet (143 meters) to 

Deer Creek (32.677037 N, 110.260815 

W). 

(ix) From Middle Tank (32.679691 N, 

110.252180 W) upstream in an unnamed 

drainage to a saddle (32.677989 N, 

110.256915 W), then directly downslope 

to Deer Creek (32.678307 N, 110.258257 

W), an approximate drainage distance of 

1,530 feet (466 meters) and 436 feet (133 

meters) overland. 

(x) Note: Map of Unit 20, Deer Creek 

(Map 21), follows: 

(26) Unit 21: Oak Spring and Oak 

Creek, Graham County, Arizona. 

(i) Oak Creek from Oak Spring 

(32.673538 N, 110.293214 W) 

downstream to where a hiking trail 

intersects the creek (32.682618 N, 

110.283915 W), an approximate stream 

distance of 1.06 miles (1.71 kilometers). 

(ii) Note: Map of Unit 21, Oak Spring 

and Oak Creek (Map 22), follows: 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP15MR11.020</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 14187 

(27) Unit 22: Dragoon Mountains, 

Cochise County, Arizona. 

(i) Shaw Tank (31.906230 N, 

109.958350 W). 

(ii) Tunnel Spring (31.881018 N, 

109.948182 W). 

(iii) Halfmoon Tank (31.912453 N, 

109.977963 W). 

(iv) Stronghold Canyon from 

Halfmoon Tank (31.912453 N, 

109.977963 W) downstream to Cochise 

Spring (31.912026 N, 109.963266 W), 

then upstream in an unnamed canyon to 

Shaw Tank (31.906230 N, 109.958350 

W), and continuing upstream to the 

headwaters of that unnamed canyon 

(31.898491 N, 109.956589 W), then 

across a saddle and directly downslope 

to Middlemarch Canyon (31.894591 N, 

109.956429 W), downstream in 

Middlemarch Canyon to its confluence 

with an unnamed drainage (31.883322 

N, 109.949925 W), then upstream in that 

drainage to Tunnel Spring (31.881018 

N, 109.948182 W), an approximate 

distance of 3.71 drainage miles (5.97 

kilometers) and 1,300 feet (396 meters) 

overland. 

(v) Note: A Map of Unit 22, Dragoon 

Mountains (Map 23), follows: 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP15MR11.021</GPH>
14188 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

(28) Unit 23: Buckskin Hills, Yavapai 

County, Arizona. 

(i) Sycamore Basin Tank (34.481619 

N, 111.641676 W). 

(ii) Middle Tank (34.473076 N, 

111.624488 W). 

(iii) Walt’s Tank (34.455959 N, 

111.638497 W). 

(iv) Partnership Tank (34.452241 N, 

111.646271 W). 

(v) Black Tank (34.462968 N, 

111.623554 W). 

(vi) Buckskin Tank (34.472660 N, 

111.652468 W). 

(vii) Doren’s Defeat Tank (34.446271 

N, 111.641269 W). 

(viii) Needed Tank (34.461023 N, 

111.631271 W). 

(ix) From Middle Tank (34.473076 N, 

111.624488 W) downstream in Boulder 

Canyon to its confluence with an 

unnamed drainage that comes in from 

the northwest (34.455688 N, 111.625895 

W), to include Black Tank (34.462968 N, 

111.623554 W); then upstream in that 

unnamed drainage to a saddle 

(34.464120 N, 111.633633 W), to 

include Needed Tank (34.461023 N, 

111.631271 W); then downstream from 

the saddle in an unnamed drainage to 

its confluence with another unnamed 

drainage (34.466209 N, 111.636096); 

then downstream in that drainage to the 

confluence with an unnamed drainage 

(34.450688 N, 111.638111 W), to 

include Walt’s Tank (34.455959 N, 

111.638497 W), and upstream in that 

unnamed drainage to Partnership Tank 

(34.452241 N, 111.646271 W); then 

upstream from the aforementioned 

confluence (34.466209 N, 111.636096) 

in the unnamed drainage that includes 

Walt’s Tank to a point where the 

drainage turns east towards Boulder 

Canyon (34.469911 N, 111.630080 W), 

an approximate distance of 3.65 

drainage miles (5.87 kilometers) and 425 

feet (130 meters) overland. 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP15MR11.022</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 14189 

(x) From Doren’s Defeat Tank 

(34.446271 N, 111.641269 W) upstream 

in an unnamed drainage to Partnership 

Tank (34.452241 N, 111.646271 W), an 

approximate drainage distance of 3,310 

feet (1,009 meters). 

(xi) From the confluence of an 

unnamed drainage with Boulder Canyon 

(34.469515 N, 111.624979 W) west to a 

point where the drainage turns 

southwest (34.469911 N, 111.630080 

W), then directly overland to the top of 

Sycamore Basin (34.473970 N, 

111.633584 W), and then downstream in 

Sycamore Basin to Sycamore Basin 

Tank (34.481619 N, 111.641676 W), an 

approximate distance of 4,658 drainage 

feet (1,420 meters) and 1,827 feet (557 

meters) overland. 

(xii) From Buckskin Tank upstream in 

an unnamed drainage to the top of that 

drainage (34.465121 N, 111.641428 W), 

then directly overland to an unnamed 

drainage (34.462851 N, 111.637797 W) 

that contains Walt’s Tank, an 

approximate distance of 1,109 drainage 

feet (338 meters) and 1,429 feet (435 

meters) overland. 

(xiii) Note: Map of Unit 23, Buckskin 

Hills (Map 24), follows: 

(29) Unit 24: Crouch, Gentry, and 

Cherry Creeks, and Parallel Canyon, 

Gila County, Arizona. 

(i) Trail Tank (34.176747 N, 

110.812383 W). 

(ii) HY Tank (34.148580 N, 

110.831331 W). 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP15MR11.023</GPH>
14190 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

(iii) Carroll Spring (34.133090 N, 

110.838673 W). 

(iv) West Prong of Gentry Creek from 

the confluence with an unnamed 

drainage (34.133243 N, 110.827755 W) 

downstream to a point (34.123475 N, 

110.827872 W) where the creek turns 

southwest and is directly east of a 

saddle, then west overland across that 

saddle to Cunningham Spring 

(34.121883 N, 110.841424 W), an 

approximate distance of 3,837 drainage 

feet (1,169 meters) and 1,883 feet (574 

meters) overland. 

(v) Pine Spring (34.148580 N, 

110.831331 W). 

(vi) Bottle Spring (34.145180 N, 

110.837515 W). 

(vii) Cherry Creek from Rock Spring 

(34.155505 N, 110.852478 W) upstream 

to its confluence with an unnamed 

drainage (34.166956 N, 110.815587 W), 

then upstream in that drainage and 

across a saddle (34.176129 N, 

110.808920 W), then downstream in an 

unnamed drainage to Trail Tank 

(34.176747 N, 110.812383 W), an 

approximate distance of 3.77 drainage 

miles (6.07 kilometers) and 975 feet (297 

meters) overland. 

(viii) Crouch Creek from its 

headwaters just south of Highway 288 

(34.143151 N, 110.836876 W) 

downstream to an unnamed drainage 

leading to Pine Spring (34.102235 N, 

110.864341 W), to include Cunningham 

Spring and Carroll Spring; then 

upstream in that unnamed drainage 

from Crouch Creek to Pine Spring 

(34.148580 N, 110.831331 W), an 

approximate drainage distance of 5.48 

miles (8.82 kilometers). 

(ix) From HY Tank (34.176747 N, 

110.812383 W) downstream in an 

unnamed drainage to its confluence 

with Cherry Creek (34.154309 N, 

110.85077 W), to include Bottle Spring 

(34.145180 N, 110.837515 W), an 

approximate stream distance of 1.66 

miles (2.67 kilometers). 

(x) From Bottle Spring (34.145180 N, 

110.837515 W) south over a low saddle 

to the headwaters of Crouch Creek 

(34.143151 N, 110.836876 W), an 

approximate distance of 762 feet (232 

meters) overland. 

(xi) Note: Map of Unit 24, Crouch, 

Gentry, and Cherry Creeks, and Parallel 

Canyon (Map 25), follows: 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 14191 

(30) Unit 25: Ellison and Lewis 

Creeks, Gila County, Arizona. 

(i) Moore Saddle Tank #42 (34.374063 

N, 111.205040 W). 

(ii) Low Tank (34.36768 N, 111.19347 

W). 

(iii) Unnamed tributary to Ellison 

Creek from its confluence with an 

unnamed drainage (34.371458 N, 

111.169111 W) downstream to Ellison 

Creek below Pyle Ranch (34.364667 N, 

111.179966 W), then directly west 

across the Ellison Creek floodplain and 

over a low saddle to Lewis Creek below 

Pyle Ranch (34.364391 N, 111.186742 

W), then downstream in Lewis Creek to 

its confluence with an unnamed 

drainage (34.354912 N, 111.192547 W), 

and then upstream in that unnamed 

drainage to Low Tank (34.36768 N, 

111.19347 W), an approximate distance 

of 2.52 drainage miles (4.05 kilometers) 

and 1,070 feet (326 meters) overland. 

(iv) Note: Map of Unit 25, Ellison and 

Lewis Creeks (Map 26), follows: 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP15MR11.024</GPH>
14192 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

(31) Unit 26: Concho Bill and Deer 

Creek, Apache County, Arizona. 

(i) From Concho Bill Spring 

(33.830088 N, 109.366540 W) 

downstream in Deer Creek to its 

confluence with an unnamed drainage 

(33.827115 N, 109.359495 W), an 

approximate drainage distance of 2,667 

feet (813 meters). 

(ii) Note: Map of Unit 26, Concho Bill 

and Deer Creek (Map 27), follows: 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP15MR11.025</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 14193 

(32) Unit 27: Campbell Blue and 

Coleman Creeks, Greenlee County, 

Arizona. 

(i) Campbell Blue Creek from the 

upstream boundary of Luce Ranch 

(33.735956 N, 109.127746 W) upstream 

to its confluence with Coalman Creek 

(33.738560 N, 109158679 W), an 

approximate stream distance of 2.04 

miles (3.28 kilometers). 

(ii) Coleman Creek from its 

confluence with Campbell Blue Creek 

(33.738560 N, 109158679 W) upstream 

to its confluence with Canyon Creek 

(33.750139 N, 109.168850 W), an 

approximate stream distance of 1.04 

miles (1.68 kilometers). 

(iii) Note: Map of Unit 27, Campbell 

Blue and Coleman Creeks (Map 28), 

follows: 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP15MR11.026</GPH>
14194 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

(33) Unit 28: Tularosa River, Catron 

County, New Mexico. 

(i) Tularosa River from the upper end 

of Tularosa Spring (33.903798 N, 

108.501926 W) downstream to the 

entrance to the canyon downstream of 

Hell Hole (33.762737 N, 108.681551 W), 

an approximate river distance of 19.31 

miles (31.08 kilometers). 

(ii) Note: Map of Unit 28, Tularosa 

River (Map 29), follows: 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP15MR11.027</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 14195 

(34) Unit 29: Deep Creek Divide Area, 

Catron County, New Mexico. 

(i) Long Mesa Tank (33.551664 N, 

108.686841 W). 

(ii) Cullum Tank (33.554864 N, 

108.676961 W). 

(iii) Burro Tank (33.571146 N, 

108.638682 W). 

(iv) North Fork of Negrito Creek from 

its confluence with South Fork of 

Negrito Creek (33.607082 N, 108.631340 

W) upstream to its confluence with an 

unnamed drainage (33.612529 N, 

108.614731 W), an approximate stream 

distance of 1.37 miles (2.20 kilometers). 

(v) South Fork of Negrito Creek from 

its confluence with North Fork of 

Negrito Creek (33.607082 N, 108.631340 

E) upstream to an impoundment 

(33.599047 N, 108.621300 W), including 

three other impoundments along the 

channel (33.601890 N, 108.622227 W; 

33.602845 N, 108.622764 W; and 

33.603810 N, 108.623971 W), an 

approximate stream distance of 4,821 

feet (1,469 meters). 

(vi) From Burro Tank (33.571146 N, 

108.638682 W) downstream in Burro 

Canyon to Negrito Creek (22.609589 N, 

108.638448 W), then upstream in 

Negrito Creek to the confluence of North 

and South Forks of Negrito Creeks 

(33.607082 N, 108.631340 W), an 

approximate stream distance of 3.80 

miles (6.12 kilometers). 

(vii) From Long Mesa Tank 

(33.551664 N, 108.686841 W) directly 

overland and east to Shotgun Canyon 

(33.550816 N, 108.681110 W), then 

downstream in that canyon to Cullum 

Tank (33.554864 N, 108.676961 W), an 

approximate distance of 2,003 drainage 

feet (610 meters) and 1,801 feet (549 

meters) overland. 

(viii) From Cullum Tank (33.554864 

N, 108.676961 W) downstream in 

Shotgun and Bull Basin Canyons to a 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP15MR11.028</GPH>
14196 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

confluence with an unnamed drainage 

(33.581626 N, 108.663624 W), then 

upstream in that drainage to the 

confluence with a minor drainage 

leading off Rainy Mesa from the eastnortheast (33.567121 N, 108.646776 W), 

then upstream in that drainage and 

directly east-northeast across Rainy 

Mesa to Burro Tank (33.571146 N, 

108.638682 W), an approximate 

distance of 3.88 drainage miles (6.24 

kilometers) and 1,863 feet (568 meters) 

overland. 

(ix) Note: Map of Unit 29, Deep Creek 

Divide Area (Map 30), follows: 

(35) Unit 30: Main Diamond Creek, 

Catron County, New Mexico. 

(i) Main Diamond Creek, from the 

downstream boundary of Links Ranch 

(33.269512 N, 108.105542 W) 

downstream to the confluence with an 

unnamed drainage that comes in from 

the south, which is also where Main 

Diamond Creek enters a canyon 

(33.264514 N, 108.116019 W), an 

approximate stream distance of 3,980 

feet (1,213 meters). 

(ii) Note: Map of Unit 30, Main 

Diamond Creek (Map 31), follows: 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP15MR11.029</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 14197 

(36) Unit 31: Beaver Creek, Catron 

County, New Mexico. 

(i) Beaver Creek from an unnamed 

warm spring (33.380952 N, 108.111761 

W) downstream to its confluence with 

Taylor Creek (33.334694 N, 108.101543 

W), an approximate stream distance of 

5.59 miles (8.89 kilometers). 

(ii) Note: Map of Unit 31, Beaver 

Creek (Map 32), follows: 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP15MR11.030</GPH>
14198 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

(37) Unit 32: Left Prong of Dix Creek, 

Greenlee County, Arizona. 

(i) Left prong of Dix Creek from an 

unnamed warm spring (33.179413 N, 

109.149176 W) above ‘‘The Hole’’ 

downstream to its confluence with the 

right prong of Dix Creek (33.186657 N, 

109.157754 W), an approximate stream 

distance of 4,248 feet (1,295 meters). 

(ii) Note: Map of Unit 32, Left Prong 

of Dix Creek (Map 33), follows: 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP15MR11.031</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 14199 

(38) Unit 33: Rattlesnake Pasture Tank 

and Associated Tanks, Greenlee County, 

Arizona. 

(i) Rattlesnake Pasture Tank 

(33.093987 N, 109.151714 W). 

(ii) Rattlesnake Gap Tank (33.098497 

N, 109.162152 W). 

(iii) Buckhorn Tank (33.105613 N, 

109.155506 W). 

(iv) From Rattlesnake Pasture Tank 

(33.093987 N, 109.151714 W) 

downstream in an unnamed drainage to 

its confluence with Red Tank Canyon 

(33.109603 N, 109.155549 W), to 

include Buckhorn Tank (33.105613 N, 

109.155506 W); then upstream in Red 

Tank Canyon to Rattlesnake Gap Tank 

(33.098497 N, 109.162152 W), an 

approximate drainage distance of 2.27 

miles (3.65 kilometers). 

(v) From Rattlesnake Gap Tank 

(33.098497 N, 109.162152 W) upstream 

in an unnamed drainage to its 

confluence with a minor drainage 

(33.090898 N, 109.155386 W), then 

directly upslope to a saddle (33.091771 

N, 109.152380), and across that saddle 

and directly downslope to Rattlesnake 

Pasture Tank (33.093987 N, 109.151714 

W), an approximate distance of 3,722 

drainage feet (1,134 meters) and 1,645 

feet (501 meters) overland. 

(vi) Note: Map of Unit 33, Rattlesnake 

Pasture Tank and Associated Tanks 

(Map 34), follows: 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP15MR11.032</GPH>
14200 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

(39) Unit 34: Coal Creek, Greenlee 

County, Arizona. 

(i) Coal Creek from the Highway 78 

crossing (33.103667 N, 109.062458 W) 

downstream to the confluence with an 

unnamed drainage (33.110025 N, 

109.065847 W), an approximate stream 

distance of 3,447 feet (1,051 meters). 

(ii) Note: Map of Unit 34, Coal Creek 

(Map 35), follows: 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP15MR11.033</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 14201 

(40) Unit 35: Blue Creek, Grant 

County, New Mexico. 

(i) Blue Creek from just east of a corral 

on private lands (32.848702 N, 

108.835761 W) downstream to its 

confluence with an unnamed drainage 

that comes in from the east (32.825785 

N, 108.824742 W), an approximate 

stream distance of 2.37 miles (3.81 

kilometers). 

(ii) Note: Map of Unit 35, Blue Creek 

(Map 36), follows: 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP15MR11.034</GPH>
14202 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

(41) Unit 36: Seco Creek, Sierra 

County, New Mexico. 

(i) North Seco Creek from Sawmill 

Well (33.112052 N, 107.760165 W) 

downstream to its confluence with 

South Seco Creek (33.097239 N, 

107.624649 W), to include Sucker Ledge 

(33.113545 N, 107.747370 W), Davis 

Well (33.112421 N 107.728650 W), 

North Seco Well (33.114416 N, 

107.689934 W), Pauge Well (33.109714 

N, 107.657965 W), and LM Bar Well 

(33.097906 N, 107.629301 W), an 

approximate drainage distance of 8.93 

miles (14.39 kilometers). 

(ii) South Seco Creek from South Seco 

Well (33.091214 N, 107.655347 W) 

downstream to its confluence with the 

North Seco Creek (33.097239 N, 

107.624649 W), an approximate 

drainage distance of 1.87 miles (3.01 

kilometers). 

(iii) Seco Creek from the confluence 

with North and South Seco creeks 

(33.097239 N, 107.624649 W) 

downstream to its confluence with Ash 

Creek (33.066837 N, 107.519939 W), to 

include Fish Well (33.095461 N, 

107.592109 W) and Johnson Well 

(33.090439 N, 107.566035 W), an 

approximate drainage distance of 7.84 

miles (12.62 kilometers). 

(iv) Ash Creek from Artesia Well 

(33.060469 N, 107.539670 W) 

downstream to its confluence with Seco 

Creek (33.066660 N, 107.519804 W), an 

approximate drainage distance of 1.48 

miles (2.38 kilometers). 

(v) Note: Map of Unit 36, Seco Creek 

(Map 37), follows: 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP15MR11.035</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 14203 

(42) Unit 37: Alamosa Warm Springs, 

Socorro County, New Mexico. 

(i) From the confluence of Wildhorse 

Canyon and Alamosa Creek (33.570315 

N, 107.608474 W) downstream in 

Alamosa Creek to the confluence with 

an unnamed drainage that comes in 

from the north (33.569199 N, 

107.577137 W), to include Alamosa 

Warm Springs (33.572365 N, 

107.600153 W), an approximate stream 

distance of 4,974 feet (1,516 meters). 

(ii) Note: Map of Unit 37, Alamosa 

Warm Springs (Map 38), follows: 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP15MR11.036</GPH>
14204 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

(43) Unit 38: Cuchillo Negro Warm 

Springs and Creek, Sierra County, New 

Mexico. 

(i) From the upper of the two Cuchillo 

Negro Warm Springs (33.268403 N, 

107.563619 W) downstream in Cuchillo 

Negro Creek to its confluence with 

Sophio Canyon (33.268403 N, 

107.548630 W), an approximate stream 

distance of 1.58 miles (2.54 kilometers). 

(ii) Note: Map of Unit 38, Cuchillo 

Negro Warm Springs (Map 39), follows: 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP15MR11.037</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 14205 

(44) Unit 39: Ash and Bolton Springs, 

Grant County, New Mexico. 

(i) Ash Spring (32.715625 N, 

108.071980 W). 

(ii) Unnamed spring in Bolton Canyon 

locally known as Bolton Springs 

(32.713419 N, 108.099679 W). 

(iii) From the spring box at Ash 

Spring (32.715625 N, 108.071980 W) 

downstream to a dirt road crossing of 

the drainage (32.708769 N, 108.073579 

W), an approximate stream distance of 

2,830 feet (863 meters). 

(iv) From the the ruins of a house in 

the Ash Spring drainage (32.714562 N, 

108.072542 W) west to a low saddle 

(32.714373 N, 108.075263 W) and 

directly downslope into an unnamed 

drainage (32.713983 N, 108.076665 W), 

then downstream in that drainage to its 

confluence with another unnamed 

drainage (32.712829 N, 108.078131 W), 

then downstream in that unnamed 

drainage its confluence with another 

unnamed drainage (32.708210 N, 

108.086360 W), then upstream in that 

unnamed drainage to the top of that 

drainage (32.715476 N, 108.087719 W) 

and directly downslope and west to 

another unnamed drainage (32.715207 

N, 108.092094 W), then downstream in 

that unnamed drainage to its confluence 

with Bolton Canyon (32.707844 N, 

108.099267 W), and then upstream in 

Bolton Canyon to the locally known 

Bolton Springs (32.713419 N, 

108.099679 W), an approximate 

distance of 2.41 drainage miles (3.87 

kilometers) and 2,650 feet (808 meters) 

overland. 

(v) Note: Map of Unit 39, Ash and 

Bolton Springs (Map 40), follows: 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP15MR11.038</GPH>
14206 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

(45) Unit 40: Mimbres River, Grant 

County, New Mexico. 

(i) The Mimbres River from the 

upstream Nature Conservancy property 

boundary (32.912474 N, 108.004529 W) 

downstream to its confluence with Bear 

Canyon (32.883751 N, 107.988036 W), 

to include Moreno Spring (32.887107 N, 

107.989492 W) and ponds at Emory Oak 

Ranch, an approximate river distance of 

2.42 miles (3.89 kilometers). 

(ii) The Mimbres River from the 

bridge just west of San Lorenzo 

(32.808190 N, 107.924589 W) 

downstream to the downstream 

boundary of The Nature Conservancy’s 

Disert property near Faywood 

(32.743884 N, 107.880297 W), an 

approximate river distance of 5.82 miles 

(9.36 kilometers). 

(iii) Note: Map of Unit 40, Mimbres 

River (Map 41), follows: 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP15MR11.039</GPH>
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 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP15MR11.040</GPH>