16324 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2010– 

0085;4500030114] 

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: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), are 

designating critical habitat for the 

Chiricahua leopard frog (Lithobates 

chiricahuensis) under the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). 

In total, we are designating 

approximately 10,346 acres (4,187 

hectares) as critical habitat for the 

Chiricahua leopard frog in Apache, 

Cochise, Gila, Graham, Greenlee, Pima, 

Santa Cruz, and Yavapai Counties, 

Arizona; and Catron, Grant, Hidalgo, 

Sierra, and Socorro Counties, New 

Mexico. In addition, because of a 

taxonomic revision of the Chiricahua 

leopard frog, we reassessed the status of 

and threats to the currently described 

species Lithobates chiricahuensis and 

are listing the currently described 

species as threatened. 

DATES: This rule is effective on April 19, 

2012. 

ADDRESSES: This final rule and the 

associated final economic analysis and 

final environmental assessment are 

available on the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Comments and 

materials received, as well as supporting 

documentation used in preparing this 

final rule, are available for public 

inspection, 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; telephone 602–242–0210; 

facsimile 602–242–2513. 

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; by telephone (602/ 

242–0210); or by 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: 

Background 

It is our intent to discuss in this final 

rule only those topics directly relevant 

to the listing and development and 

designation of critical habitat for the 

Chiricahua leopard frog under the Act 

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

information on the biology and ecology 

of the Chiricahua leopard frog refer to 

the final listing rule (67 FR 40790; June 

13, 2002) or our April 2007 final 

recovery plan, which are available from 

the Arizona Ecological Services Field 

Office (see ADDRESSES section). For 

information on Chiricahua leopard frog 

critical habitat, refer to the proposed 

rule to reassess the listing status and 

propose critical habitat for the 

Chiricahua leopard frog published in 

the Federal Register on March 15, 2011 

(76 FR 14126). Information on the 

associated draft economic analysis for 

the proposed rule to designate critical 

habitat was published in the Federal 

Register on September 21, 2011 (76 FR 

58441). 

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 Act. The special rule remains in 

place and is not affected by this final 

rule, except that we are making an 

editorial change to revise the heading of 

50 CFR 17.43(b) to reflect the currently 

described species Lithobates 

chiricahuensis. 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. 

We published a proposed rule to 

reassess the listing status and propose 

critical habitat for the Chiricahua 

leopard frog in the Federal Register on 

March 15, 2011 (76 FR 14126) with a 

request for public comments. On 

September 21, 2011, we made available 

the draft environmental assessment and 

draft economic analysis for the 

proposed designation of critical habitat 

and reopened the public comment on 

the proposed rule (76 FR 58441). 

Summary of Comments and 

Recommendations 

We requested written comments from 

the public on the reassessment of listing 

status and proposed designation of 

critical habitat for the Chiricahua 

leopard frog during two comment 

periods. The first comment period 

associated with the publication of the 

proposed rule (76 FR 14126) opened on 

March 15, 2011, and closed on May 16, 

2011. We also requested comments on 

the reassessment of listing status, 

proposed critical habitat designation, 

associated draft economic analysis, and 

associated draft environmental 

assessement during a comment period 

that opened September 21, 2011, and 

closed on October 21, 2011 (76 FR 

58441). We did not receive any requests 

for a public hearing. We also contacted 

appropriate Federal, Tribal, State, and 

local agencies; scientific organizations; 

and other interested parties and invited 

them to comment on the proposed rule, 

draft economic analysis, and draft 

environmental assessment during these 

comment periods. 

During the first comment period, we 

received 48 submissions from the 

public. During the second comment 

period, we received 14 submissions. 

Most submissions addressed the 

proposed critical habitat designation, 

the draft environmental assessment, or 

the draft economic analysis, while 

others provided no substantive 

information useful to the development 

of this final rule. All substantive 

information provided during comment 

periods has either been incorporated 

directly into this final rule or is 

addressed below. Comments we 

received were grouped into six general 

issues specifically relating to the 

proposed critical habitat designation for 

the Chiricahua leopard frog, and are 

addressed in the following summary 

and incorporated into the final rule as 

appropriate. 

Peer Review 

In accordance with our peer review 

policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 16325 

34270), we solicited expert opinions 

from four knowledgeable individuals 

with scientific expertise that included 

familiarity with the species or taxa, the 

geographic region in which the species 

occurs, and conservation biology 

principles. We received responses from 

one of the peer reviewers. 

We reviewed all comments we 

received from the peer reviewer for 

substantive issues and new information 

regarding critical habitat for the 

Chiricahua leopard frog. The peer 

reviewer generally concurred with our 

methods and conclusions, and provided 

additional suggestions to improve the 

final critical habitat rule. Peer reviewer 

comments are addressed in the 

following summary and incorporated 

into the final rule as appropriate. 

Peer Reviewer Comments 

Comment 1: The peer reviewer 

suggested we provide clarification on 

the geographic range and distribution of 

the species by defining what is meant by 

the term ‘‘major drainage’’ and how 

their current and historical distribution 

regarding ‘‘localities’’ relate to these 

areas. 

Our Response: The term ‘‘major 

drainage’’ refers to rivers that are large 

and are perennial or were historically 

perennial. Examples of major drainages 

include the upper Gila, Verde, Salt, and 

San Pedro Rivers, etc. Because habitat 

for the Chiricahua leopard frog could 

include a variety of wetted 

environments, we use the term 

‘‘localities’’ to incorporate habitat 

including stock tanks, streams, cienegas, 

and other similar areas in a general 

sense so as to avoid an unnecessarily 

inclusive description of occupied or 

formerly occupied habitat. A more 

detailed account of the species’ current 

and historical distribution can be found 

in the original listing of the species in 

2002 (67 FR 40790) and in the 2007 

recovery plan (Service 2007). 

Comment 2: The peer reviewer and 

others suggested various editorial 

changes to the final rule. 

Our Response: We evaluated all of the 

suggested editorial changes, and we 

incorporated them, as appropriate, into 

this final rule. 

Comment 3: The peer reviewer stated 

that our discussion of dispersal habitat 

focuses on protection of areas to 

facilitate movement among local 

populations and asked how longer 

distance dispersal corridors will be 

protected (e.g., among populations in 

different habitat units) to maintain the 

species throughout its range. 

Our Response: We treated dispersal 

habitat within the context of our current 

knowledge of the species’ natural 

history, and in particular, its dispersal 

capabilities. This rationale is provided 

in our discussion of the ‘‘1–3–5 rule’’ in 

the Dispersal section below. 

Comment 4: The peer reviewer stated 

that the rationale for each primary 

constituent element (PCE) is clear, but 

requiring critical habitat units to meet 

all of these relatively narrow criteria 

may be too restrictive. The peer 

reviewer also stated that other areas that 

contain most of the elements and have 

high restoration potential for ‘‘missing’’ 

elements should also be considered. 

Our Response: We used the best 

scientific information available in 

determining the PCEs for the Chiricahua 

leopard frog. The PCEs are the elements 

of physical or biological features that 

together provide for a species’ lifehistory processes and are essential to 

the conservation of the species. We 

amended the PCEs after the publication 

of the proposed rule, and included the 

amended PCEs in our September 21, 

2011, publication (76 FR 58441). In 

designating critical habitat, we based 

our evaluation of areas on those that 

contain the physical or biological 

features essential to the conservation of 

the Chiricahua leopard frog and which 

may require special management. In this 

designation, we include only areas that 

contain one or more of the PCEs, and 

note within each unit description the 

special management actions needed for 

that unit. 

Comment 5: The peer reviewer stated 

that it appeared as though the recovery 

plan formed the basis for the proposed 

critical habitat units and suggested 

making this clear in the beginning of the 

section entitled ‘‘Criteria Used To 

Identify Critical Habitat.’’ 

Our Response: In this final rule, we 

emphasize the use of the recovery plan 

in the designation of critical habitat. 

Comments From States 

Section 4(i) of the Act states, ‘‘the 

Secretary shall submit to the State 

agency a written justification for his 

failure to adopt regulations consistent 

with the agency’s comments or 

petition.’’ Comments received from the 

States regarding the proposal to 

designate critical habitat for the 

Chiricahua leopard frog are addressed 

below. 

Comment 6: In the discussion of 

climate change, it was stated that 

Chiricahua leopard frog ‘‘can often 

withstand drying of stock tanks for 30 

days or more.’’ Caution should be used 

in making this claim as it is an untested 

hypothesis. Chiricahua leopard frogs 

may appear during the rainy season at 

a site that has been dry for 30 days or 

fewer, but they may have recolonized 

the site from another occupied site 

within the metapopulation. 

Our Response: We exercised caution 

in expressing our understanding of the 

Chiricahua leopard frogs’ ability to 

withstand drought by amending this 

passage to state, ‘‘Because of their 

evolutionary history, southwestern 

leopard frogs may be able to withstand 

drying of stock tanks for a longer period 

of time than nonnative species that 

evolved in wetter climates in the eastern 

United States, which could provide 

southwestern leopard frog a selective 

advantage.’’ 

Comment 7: Under PCE 1(h), the 

absence of the organism 

Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis 

(chytrid fungus) is impossible to know 

with certainty. 

Our Response: We amended the PCEs 

after the publication of the proposed 

rule and included the amended PCEs in 

our September 21, 2011, publication (76 

FR 58441). The amended PCEs, while 

providing necessary specificity, are 

general enough to account for the 

inherent level of uncertainty that 

pertains to the presence or absence of 

Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis. PCE 

1(d) currently states, ‘‘Absence of 

chytridiomycosis, or if present, then 

environmental, physiological, and 

genetic conditions are such that allow 

persistence of Chiricahua leopard 

frogs.’’ This change applies the best 

scientific and commercial data available 

in addressing a known, serious threat to 

the Chiricahua leopard frog. 

Comment 8: We received a 

recommendation to state the level of 

uncertainty that exists regarding the 

current knowledge of how exactly the 

defined metapopulations function in 

reality, compared to how we describe 

metapopulations. 

Our Response: Our current 

understanding of metapopulations is an 

amalgamation of past field observations, 

the literature, and how unoccupied, but 

suitable, habitat can contribute to the 

metapopulation dynamic. Inevitably 

and over time, it is the species itself, in 

the wild, which will define the 

configuration of any given 

metapopulation, which may or may not 

comport with our current understanding 

of existing metapopulations. We have 

revised the language in this final rule to 

better describe our understanding of 

metapopulation function. 

Comment 9: One comment stated that 

Pen ̃ a Blanca Lake should not be 

included as critical habitat because the 

long-term persistence of Chiricahua 

leopard frogs there, in the wake of 

planned warm-water fish stockings, 

remains uncertain. Therefore, the lake is 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
16326 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

not essential to the conservation of the 

species. 

Our Response: Pen ̃ a Blanca Lake 

currently meets the definition of critical 

habitat as defined in section 3 of the Act 

because it occurs within the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species at the time it was listed, in 

accordance with the Act, and it has the 

features essential to the conservation of 

the species and which may require 

special management considerations or 

protection. Our rationale for retaining 

this unit’s designation is provided 

below in the ‘‘Final Critical Habitat 

Designation’’ section. 

Comment 10: Trail Tank in the 

Crouch, Gentry, and Cherry Creeks, and 

Parallel Canyon Unit have had a history 

of bullfrog (Lithobates catesbeianis) 

occupation and no previous records of 

Chiricahua leopard frog. It should be 

excluded from critical habitat. Bullfrog 

eradication efforts in 2010 proved 

unsuccessful. 

Our Response: We view Trail Tank as 

an important component to critical 

habitat in the Crouch, Gentry, and 

Cherry Creeks, as well as Parallel 

Canyon Unit, because of their potential 

to support a robust population of 

Chiricahua leopard frogs in a unit where 

occupied sites tend to be of small size 

with small numbers of frogs. While we 

acknowledge that May 2010 bullfrog 

removal efforts were unsuccessful at 

Trail Tank, additional removal efforts 

occurred in May of 2011, and appear to 

have been successful. Our discussion of 

Trail Tank, in our rationale for 

designating the Crouch, Gentry, and 

Cherry Creeks, and Parallel Canyon Unit 

as critical habitat, is provided below 

under ‘‘Final Critical Habitat 

Designation.’’ 

Public Comments 

General Comments Issue 1: Expansion 

of Critical Habitat 

Comment 11: Expand designation of 

critical habitat to include 8 miles of 

Cienega Creek north of the confluence of 

Cienega Creek and Empire Gulch, which 

is important flood plain habitat where 

ephemeral sinkholes and semipermanent marshes exist. 

Our Response: In the Las Cienegas 

National Conservation Area Unit, we 

designated areas where the Chiricahua 

leopard frog maintained breeding 

populations, or was suspected to, at the 

time of listing or currently. Our records 

do not indicate the recommended area 

of expansion meets these predetermined 

criteria. Furthermore, should this area 

support breeding populations in the 

future, ongoing management of the area 

should be commensurate with their 

persistence. 

Comment 12: Designate critical 

habitat in springs, and intermittent or 

perennial (or both) streams, on a more 

landscape- or watershed-level to better 

address the risk of habitat 

fragmentation, offer more connectedness 

for metapopulation dynamics, protect 

habitat, and manage against nonnatives 

to achieve the necessary landscape-level 

opportunity to recover the Chiricahua 

leopard frog. One commenter suggested 

that we designate critical habitat for all 

sites that have been occupied since 

1990. 

Our Response: 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 may require 

special management considerations or 

protection, and areas outside of the 

geographical area occupied at the time 

of listing that are essential for the 

conservation of the species. We also 

relied heavily on the recovery criteria 

formulated in collaboration and 

outlined in the 2007 recovery plan for 

the Chiricahua leopard frog. The 

suggestions identified immediately 

above were not specifically 

commensurate with these criteria and 

were therefore not used in the 

designation process. 

Comment 13: A commenter requested 

expansion of critical habitat in the 

eastern slope of the Santa Rita 

Mountains and in the vicinity of the 

proposed Rosemont Mine to include 

California Tank, East Tank, and Upper 

Enzenberg, Box, Sycamore, Sawmill, 

and Gardner Canyons, because these 

sites were either occupied at the time of 

listing, are currently occupied, or may 

be essential to the conservation of the 

species. 

Our Response: We are not aware of 

any records that document breeding of 

the Chiricahua leopard frog at these 

sites. The lack of historical records that 

document breeding in these areas may 

demonstrate that, while they may be 

important for metapopulation dynamics 

as demonstrated by intermittent 

occupation over time, they may not be 

suitable as breeding habitat and 

therefore are not essential to the 

conservation of the species. Therefore, 

these sites are not included in our 

critical habitat designation because they 

do not meet the definition of critical 

habitat under the Act for the Chiricahua 

leopard frog. 

Comment 14: Expand critical habitat 

designation in the Left Prong of Dix 

Creek Unit within the Right and Left 

Prongs of Dix Creek to include the 

following tanks: Draw Tank, Bull 

Canyon Tank, Bobby Tank, Middle 

Tank, Rattlesnake Gap Tank, 

Rattlesnake Tank No. 1, Rattlesnake 

Tank No. 2, and Buckhorn Tank. 

Connect the designations along the 

drainages between the above tanks with 

extant populations from the Rattle 

Snake Gap Complex, then continue up 

Dix Creek Left Prong proposed critical 

habitat, and continue upstream through 

Bull Canyon and unnamed drainages to 

connect occupied or seasonal habitats or 

both. It is also recommended to include 

the short segment of Dix Creek Right 

Prong/Left Prong confluence up the 

Right Prong of Dix Creek to Sycamore 

Canyon. Further, it is recommended that 

the Service designate critical habitat 

from Highway 78 southward along Coal 

Creek to include habitat where frogs 

may retreat seasonally or during periods 

of low water availability. The 

commenter noted that both lowland 

leopard frogs (Lithobates yavapaiensis) 

and Chiricahua leopard frogs were 

identified in surveys, and not all 

observations of leopard frogs in this area 

were identified to species. 

Our Response: Please see our 

response to Comments 12. 

Comment 15: Expand critical habitat 

designation into the tributary adjacent 

to and west of Three Forks near the 

Campbell Blue and Coleman Creeks 

Unit. 

Our Response: Please see our 

response to Comments 12. 

Comment 16: Expand critical habitat 

designation in the Peloncillo Mountains 

Unit on the Diamond A Ranch, Western 

Division (Canoncito Ranch) to include 

more dispersal habitat. 

Our Response: The Diamond A 

Ranch, Western Division (Canoncito 

Ranch) in the Peloncillo Mountains Unit 

is excluded as designated critical habitat 

under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. Please 

review our rationale and analysis for 

this exclusion under the section 

‘‘Exclusions’’ below. 

Comment 17: Expand critical habitat 

designation in the following units: 

Garcia Tank, Buenos Aires National 

Wildlife Refuge Central Tanks, Bonita, 

Upper Turner, and Mojonera Tanks, 

Sycamore Canyon, and Pen ̃ a Blanca 

Lake and Spring and associated tanks to 

include the California Gulch, Ruby, 

Chimney Canyon, Arivaca Lake, and 

Airvaca Cienega to protect Chiricahua 

leopard frogs against nonnative 

predators. 

Our Response: Please see our 

response to Comments 12. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 16327 

General Comments Issue 2: Exclusion or 

Reduction of Critical Habitat 

Comment 18: The High Lonesome 

Well Unit does not provide any more 

conservation benefit than a zoo and 

should not be considered critical 

habitat. 

Our Response: We reevaluated the 

High Lonesome Well Unit and have 

determined that it does not meet the 

definition of critical habitat, because it 

does not have the physical or biological 

features that are essential for the 

conservation of the species. After 

further evaluation, the unit does not 

contain the terrestrial habitat that 

provides opportunities for foraging and 

basking, and that is immediately 

adjacent to or surrounding breeding 

aquatic and riparian habitat, which is a 

component of primary constituent 

element 1. Therefore, we have removed 

the High Lonesome Well Unit from this 

final critical habitat designation. 

Comment 19: The West Fork Gila 

River Unit is within the Gila Wilderness 

Area on the Gila National Forest, and 

designating it as critical habitat provides 

no further conservation value for the 

species. In addition, this population is 

known to have chytridiomycosis, and 

the most recent surveys in 2009 failed 

to detect any Chiricahua leopard frogs, 

therefore precluding this unit from 

meeting PCE (1). 

Our Response: We carefully reviewed 

the best available scientific and 

commercial data and concluded that the 

West Fork Gila River Unit both meets 

the definition of critical habitat 

described in the ‘‘Critical Habitat’’ 

section below and meets the goals and 

objectives outlined in the final recovery 

plan for this species. In addition, the 

commenter provides no rationale to 

indicate the unit does not meet the 

definition of critical habitat or does 

meet exclusion criteria under section 

4(b)(2) of the Act. Please review our 

rationale and analysis for designating 

this unit under the section ‘‘Final 

Critical Habitat Designation’’ below. 

Comment 20: The threat of 

chytridiomycosis in the Ash and Bolton 

Springs Unit makes it unsuitable as 

critical habitat. 

Our Response: The Ash and Bolton 

Springs Unit meets the definition of 

critical habitat under the Act for the 

Chiricahua leopard frog because it was 

occupied at the time of listing and 

contains the features essential to the 

conservation of the species and requires 

special management considerations or 

protection. Not all PCEs are currently 

present, or required to be present, for a 

given unit to meet the definition of 

critical habitat under the Act. The 

commenter provides no additional 

rationale to indicate the unit does not 

meet the definition of critical habitat or 

does meet exclusion criteria under 

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

Comment 21: The proposal speaks to 

a dry section of the West Fork dividing 

the proposed segment: ‘‘the Upper West 

Fork is divided into two perennial 

segments by a 1.2-mi (2.0-km) long 

ephemeral reach between Turkeyfeather 

Creek and Whiskey Creek.’’ Whiskey 

Creek is upstream of the proposed 

segment of stream, and this statement is 

not relevant to the proposal. In addition, 

Turkeyfeather Creek was not occupied 

at time of listing, and there are no 

historic records from the ephemeral 

stream. The only intermittent part of the 

stream is at the spring itself and 

extending approximately 0.10 mi 

downstream of the spring. The outflow 

from the spring is captured in a small 

cement spring box with a 1-inch pipe 

extending out of the box as an overflow. 

The flow from the spring seldom makes 

it to Turkeyfeather Creek itself. We do 

not believe that Turkeyfeather Creek is 

suitable habitat for the frog. 

Our Response: White Creek was 

mistakenly identified as Whiskey Creek 

in our proposed rule. This has been 

corrected in this final rule. Our records 

indicate that the area within this unit as 

described was occupied at the time of 

listing and has the features essential to 

the conservation of the species and 

which may require special management 

considerations or protection to 

minimize impacts to existing threats. No 

further justification as to why the unit 

does not meet the definition of critical 

habitat or does meet exclusion criteria 

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

provided. 

Comment 22: Exclude from critical 

habitat designation all private lands 

(Ladder Ranch) in the Seco Creek, 

Cuchillo Negro Warm Springs and 

Creek, and South Fork Palomas Creek 

Units. 

Our Response: The Ladder Ranch is 

excluded from designated critical 

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

Please review our rationale and analysis 

for this exclusion under the section 

‘‘Exclusions’’ below. 

Comment 23: North Tank and 

Rosewood Tank Unit should be 

excluded from critical habitat 

designation because including them 

represents adverse effects to the grazing 

operation on the Magoffin Ranch, and is 

a disincentive to promote conservation 

of endangered and threatened species 

within the ranching community. 

Our Response: The Magoffin Ranch 

(North Tank and Rosewood Tank Unit) 

is excluded as designated critical habitat 

under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. Please 

review our rationale and analysis for 

this exclusion under the section 

‘‘Exclusions’’ below. 

Comment 24: All critical habitat 

should be excluded in Recovery Unit 1 

(Tumacacori-Atascosa-Pajarito 

Mountains, Arizona and Mexico) and 

portions of Recovery Unit 2 (Santa RitaHuachuca-Ajos Bavispe, Arizona and 

Mexico). 

Our Response: We carefully reviewed 

the best available scientific and 

commercial data and concluded that 

critical habitat we are designating 

within Recovery Units 1 and 2 both 

meets the definition of critical habitat 

described in the ‘‘Critical Habitat’’ 

section below and meets the goals and 

objectives outlined in the final recovery 

plan for this species. No further 

justification as to why these units do not 

meet the definition of critical habitat or 

do meet exclusion criteria under section 

4(b)(2) of the Act was provided. Please 

review our rationale and analysis for 

designating these units under the 

section ‘‘Final Critical Habitat 

Designation’’ below. 

Comment 25: The Concho Bill and 

Deer Creek Unit is not essential to the 

conservation of the Chiricahua leopard 

frog. 

Our Response: We carefully reviewed 

the best available scientific and 

commercial data and concluded that the 

Concho Bill and Deer Creek Unit both 

meets the definition of critical habitat 

described in ‘‘Critical Habitat’’ section 

below and meets the goals and 

objectives outlined in the final recovery 

plan for this species. In addition, the 

commenter provided no rationale to 

indicate the unit does not meet the 

definition of critical habitat or does 

meet exclusion criteria under section 

4(b)(2) of the Act. Please review our 

rationale and analysis for designating 

this unit under the section ‘‘Final 

Critical Habitat Designation’’ below. 

General Comments Issue 3: Threats 

Analysis 

Comment 26: Chiricahua leopard 

frogs are sensitive to cadmium and 

copper above certain levels according to 

Little and Calfee (2008, pp. 6–10). The 

Service should differentiate potential 

effects to the species from the footprint 

of the Rosemont Mine versus the general 

area of the mine. We are concerned that 

Eastern Slope of the Santa Rita 

Mountains and Las Cienegas National 

Conservation Area Units might be 

adversely affected by pollution from 

Rosemont Mine, once in operation. 

Our Response: We agree that 

Chiricahua leopard frogs are vulnerable 

to effects from contaminants associated 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
16328 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

with mining operations and provide 

discussion on this issue under the 

section ‘‘A. The Present or Threatened 

Destruction, Modification, or 

Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range.’’ If 

the Rosemont Mine begins operation, 

potential effects to, and legal 

protections, for the Chiricahua leopard 

frog will be evaluated, in accordance 

with applicable provisions under the 

Act, at that time, and are not 

constrained to the footprint of the 

proposed mine. 

Comment 27: In discussing chytrid 

presence in the Seco Creek Unit, it was 

stated that ‘‘no frogs have tested positive 

since then (i.e., 2001)’’. More accurately, 

in June 2007, a single sample (out of 7) 

from Artesia Well and a single sample 

(out of 9) from LM Bar Well tested 

positive for chytrid. Both of these were 

considered ‘‘weak positive’’ by the 

laboratory and may have been false 

positives. Extensive testing since then 

has failed to produce additional positive 

tests. 

Our Response: We have updated our 

analysis and discussion of this unit to 

reflect this information. 

Comment 28: The proposed rule 

stated that within the West Fork Gila 

River Unit ‘‘ * * * nonnative predators 

are present, including fish, crayfish, and 

bullfrogs. Even though a cooperative 

restoration project between the Service, 

the U.S. Forest Service, and New 

Mexico Department of Game and Fish is 

underway to restore native fish and 

remove nonnative predatory fish in this 

unit, the frog population is currently 

threatened by nonnative predators and 

chytridiomycosis (Service 2009, pp. 15– 

16).’’ This statement is incorrect; there 

are no nonnative predatory fish (Gila 

trout and speckled dace are the only fish 

present), there are no crayfish, and there 

are no bullfrogs in the unit. 

Our Response: We have updated our 

analysis and discussion of this unit to 

reflect this information. 

Comment 29: Periodic Chiricahua 

leopard frog die-offs resulting from 

chytridiomycosis have not been 

observed in the Las Cienegas National 

Conservation Area Unit. They probably 

do occur, and probably are a key factor, 

but it is also possible that other factors 

are responsible for the rarity of the 

Chiricahua leopard frog in the Cienega 

Creek bottomlands. 

Our Response: The final recovery plan 

notes the presence of chytridiomycosis 

in Cienega Creek (Service 2007, p. 61). 

We have amended our discussion of this 

unit to remove the statement regarding 

periodic die-offs. 

Comment 30: Effects of climate 

change are downplayed in the proposed 

rule, with significant effects predicted 

for winter precipitation. Warmer and 

dryer conditions will force more contact 

between Chiricahua leopard frogs and 

nonnative predators, to the detriment of 

Chiricahua leopard frogs. 

Our Response: We used the best 

available scientific and commercial data 

to inform our analysis of the effects of 

climate change on the Chiricahua 

leopard frog, including the inherent 

uncertainty that pertains to evaluating 

the effects of climate change. The effects 

of climate change are inextricably 

related to effects from other threats and 

are difficult to predict or interpret 

without more definitive data of higher 

resolution. This discussion was 

expanded upon in this final rule. Please 

review our analysis below of the 

potential effects of climate change under 

listing Factor E, ‘‘Other Natural or 

Manmade Factors Affecting Its 

Continued Existence’’ below. 

Comment 31: The Service falsely 

relied on Fleischner (1994), Belsky 

(1999), and Jones (2000) on describing 

the effects of livestock grazing on 

Chiricahua leopard frogs. These studies 

discuss uncontrolled grazing when 

grazing in endangered and threatened 

species’ habitat is controlled. 

Our Response: These studies detail 

potential effects of grazing to habitat. 

We evaluated the effects of grazing on 

the Chiricahua leopard frog both 

historically and present day. We 

appreciate the conservation actions 

undertaken by the ranching community 

and those partnerships we have formed 

in furthering the goals and objectives of 

Chiricahua leopard frog conservation 

and recovery, and we recognize the 

intrinsic value of their continued 

participation in this effort. 

Comment 32: Regarding the Scotia 

Canyon, Beatty’s Guest Ranch 

(excluded), and Carr Barn Pond Units, 

the copper mine in Cananea, Sonora, 

pumps 10,000 to 12,000 acre feet of 

groundwater and then redirects surplus 

water into the Rio Sonora basin which 

flows to Hermosillo, Sonora. This 

should be discussed. 

Our Response: We understand 

(although not specifically stated) the 

implication of groundwater pumping on 

potential effects to surface flows to the 

upper San Pedro River. However, these 

units do not rely on surface flow in the 

upper San Pedro River for their water 

supply and are, therefore, unaffected by 

groundwater pumping activities in 

Mexico. 

Comment 33: The Service should 

focus on the threat of (Chiricahua 

leopard frog) surveyors spreading the 

chytrid fungus. 

Our Response: Several precautions are 

listed in the final recovery plan (Service 

2007, Appendix G), such as dedicating 

equipment, disinfecting equipment, etc., 

which are taught at annual survey 

training workshops, required as permit 

stipulations, and followed by surveyors 

to prevent the accidental spread of 

chytrid fungus. These precautions are 

also mandated as permit conditions for 

those with section 10(a)(1)(A) permits 

authorized by the Service. Whatever 

small risk may be associated with this 

form of disease transmission, it is 

countered by the important data 

collected by the surveys themselves, in 

helping meet the conservation and 

recovery goals for the species. 

Comment 34: The Service should 

clearly define what is meant by ‘‘poor’’ 

livestock management. 

Our Response: We consider poor 

livestock management to mean grazing 

conducted in a manner not in 

accordance with approved allotment 

management plans or otherwise 

considered adverse to maintaining 

natural habitat characteristics. We have 

updated this discussion below in Factor 

A, ‘‘The Present or Threatened 

Destruction, Modification, or 

Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range’’ of 

this final rule. 

Comment 35: If Chiricahua leopard 

frogs do not persist in water affected by 

livestock feces, what steps will be 

required by livestock producers with 

waters that support the species? What 

about elk feces? 

Our Response: We did not state that 

Chiricahua leopard frogs do not persist 

in water affected by livestock feces. We 

stated that Chiricahua leopard frogs 

likely do not persist in waters severely 

polluted with cattle feces (Service 2007, 

p. 34). We understand that in most 

circumstances where frogs occur in 

tanks actively used by livestock, 

livestock feces are likely present in the 

water, and frogs are not appreciably 

affected by their presence. We also 

acknowledge the potential that in tanks 

that have limited water and are 

subjected to intense livestock activity, 

adverse affects to the Chiricahua 

leopard frog are likely from 

concentrated amounts of livestock feces, 

which could limit a population’s 

persistence. We are not aware of any 

Chiricahua leopard frog populations 

that are adversely affected as a result of 

elk feces, but presume similar adverse 

effects are likely under the same 

rationale. Furthermore, we are not 

requiring ranchers to manage their 

livestock tanks specifically with this 

factor in mind, but rather prefer to 

pursue opportunities to work with the 

ranching community to meet both the 

needs of the species and the needs of 

their livestock operations. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 16329 

General Comments Issue 4: General 

Biology 

Comment 36: The Service must 

analyze whether Chiricahua leopard 

frogs along Mogollon Rim are a separate 

species. 

Our Response: We specifically discuss 

issues pertinent to Chiricahua leopard 

frog taxonomy under the ‘‘Species 

Information’’ section below. Since the 

publication of the proposed rule, 

Hekkala et al. (2011) published a 

phylogenetic analysis of the (considered 

extinct) Vegas Valley leopard frog 

(Lithobates fisheri) and other North 

American Ranidae (North American 

frogs of the same family) DNA and 

placed L. fisheri within Chiricahua 

leopard frog (Lithobates chiricahuensis) 

(using archival and contemporary 

nuclear and mitochondrial DNA). 

Hekkala et al. (2011) ascribed the 

northwestern-most populations of L. 

chiricahuensis from the Mogollon Rim 

to L. fisheri, although specific 

populations were not identified. 

Populations of L. chiricahuensis outside 

this zone were not recommended for 

taxonomic revision. Data likely support 

ascribing all known populations of L. 

chiricahuensis to L. fisheri, although 

Hekkala et al. (2011) did not make that 

recommendation. The phylogenetic tree 

in Hekkala et al. (2011; Fig. 2b.) is a 

subset of a larger phylogenetic tree that 

is still under construction by genetic 

researchers. As a subset, the resolution 

of the data is not sufficient to support 

recognizing individual populations of L. 

chiricahuensis as L. fisheri at this time. 

Completion of ongoing rangewide 

research, with sufficient genetic 

resolution, of the more comprehensive 

phylogeny of western leopard frogs is 

expected to be available in 3 to 4 years 

and will provide additional information 

for analysis necessary to make informed 

management or listing decisions. 

Comment 37: The proposed rule 

states, ‘‘ * * * the maximum distance 

moved by a telemetered Chiricahua 

leopard frog in New Mexico was 2.2 mi 

(3.5 km) in one direction along a 

drainage.’’ In a New Mexico State 

Wildlife Grant Report entitled, 

‘‘Distribution and Movement of 

Chiricahua leopard frog on the Ladder 

Ranch and adjacent National Forest 

Lands, Sierra County, New Mexico,’’ 

authored by Carter Kruse and Bruce 

Christman in 2005, it was reported that 

a single frog moved at least 3.1 mi (5 

km), one way during a 3-day rain event 

in the Seco drainage (page 18), which is 

substantially farther than discussed in 

the proposed rule. 

Our Response: We did not receive a 

copy of this report, and we therefore are 

unable to verify its findings. However, 

upon receipt of this reference, we will 

add this information to our current 

understanding of the species’ dispersal 

capabilities. However, for this final 

critical habitat rule, no changes have 

been made based on this information. 

Comment 38: Specifically, on page 

14151, the proposed rule states that 

‘‘Chiricahua leopard frogs are known to 

breed at all of the above mentioned 

wells except Sawmill and Johnson 

Wells * * * Frogs were extant at Davis 

Well, LM Bar Well, North Seco Well, 

Pague Well, and Sucker Ledge at the 

time of listing.’’ We offer two 

corrections: Chiricahua leopard frog 

reproduction has been documented at 

Johnson Well each of the last 3 years, 

and Chiricahua leopard frogs were 

extant and breeding at Fish Well, in 

addition to the other sites listed, at the 

time of listing. 

Our Response: The sites noted by the 

commenter are on the Ladder Ranch 

which is excluded as critical habitat 

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

discussed below under ‘‘Exclusions.’’ 

Comment 39: Chiricahua leopard 

frogs in the Las Cienegas National 

Conservation Area Unit are less than 6 

miles (10 km) from the nearest recently 

occupied site in the Eastern Slope of the 

Santa Rita Mountains Unit. In the 1970s, 

a key study site for the Chiricahua 

leopard frog was halfway between the 

nearest recently occupied sites. Thus, 35 

years ago or less, there were likely 

metapopulation dynamics active 

between these units. 

Our Response: While, historically, 

such a metapopulation dynamic is 

feasible, we do not possess records to 

verify such a dynamic. Therefore, we 

consider the Eastern Slope of the Santa 

Rita Mountains Unit as a disjunct 

metapopulation and the Las Cienegas 

National Conservation Area Unit as an 

isolated population because of the 

distance between the nearest occupied 

sites between units is more than 8.0 mi 

(13 km) straight-line distance away, 

which is not within a reasonable 

dispersal distance for the Chiricahua 

leopard frog. 

Comment 40: How do the 43 proposed 

units (39 designated units) correspond 

to the 85 percent reduction in occupied 

sites (in reference to statements made in 

the final listing rule and subsequent 

Service documents regarding rangewide 

reductions in occupied habitat), and 

how will the critical habitat designation 

achieve the recovery criteria in the 

recovery plan? 

Our Response: Under section 

3(5)(A)(ii) of the Act, we have authority 

to designate specific areas outside the 

geographic areas occupied by the 

species at the time it is listed in 

accordance with the provisions of 

section 4 of the Act, upon a 

determination that such areas are 

essential for the conservation of the 

species. In this final designation, we 

have identified two units that were not 

known to be occupied at the time of 

listing, but which we consider essential 

for the conservation of the species. Also, 

the recovery criteria in the final 

recovery plan (Service 2007, p. 55) for 

the Chiricahua leopard frog was an 

important factor in our methodology 

used to designate critical habitat. In 

order to meet recovery criteria outlined 

in the recovery plan, we designated 

multiple critical habitat units in each 

recovery unit. 

General Comments Issue 5: PBFs, PCEs, 

and Special Management 

Comment 41: The Service should 

reconsider whether the buffer zones 

proposed are to protect PCEs from 

effects caused by livestock grazing or 

from those posed by airborne pollution. 

Our Response: At this time, we feel 

that applying a buffer zone to protect 

against the effects of livestock grazing 

would be arbitrary, because we do not 

know how large to make the buffer to 

protect from those effects. However, in 

ponds designated as critical habitat, 

most of which are impoundments for 

watering cattle or other livestock, 

designated 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. We used this 20-ft (6.1-m) 

extension because the frogs are 

commonly found foraging and basking 

within 20 feet of the shoreline of tanks. 

In regards to effects posed by airborne 

pollution, no reasonable spatial distance 

is guaranteed to protect PCEs from 

airborne pollutants by the very nature of 

their movement vector. Therefore, we 

did not consider airborne pollution as a 

determinant in describing buffer areas. 

Comment 42: Regarding the PCE that 

requires, ‘‘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,’’ this PCE is 

not clearly essential in our experience, 

as sites with minimal vegetation cover 

can support substantial Chiricahua 

leopard frog populations. Under the PCE 

that requires, ‘‘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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
16330 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

during at least part of the year),’’ the 

temperature conditions stated are vague 

and not clearly in line with 

observations, as we have populations 

where temperatures do drop below 

these values for several months per year. 

Our Response: According to our 

review of the best available scientific 

and commercial data and the opinion of 

species experts, the importance of 

available cover (i.e., emergent and or 

submerged vegetation, root masses, 

undercut banks, fractured rock 

substrates) for the Chiricahua leopard 

frog cannot be overstated. Available 

cover is a fundamental component in 

the defensive behavior of the species, 

provides varied thermoregulation 

opportunities, is an important 

consideration in maintaining an 

invertebrate prey base, and also serves 

as substrate for egg mass deposition. In 

the presence of nonnative species, 

adequate cover becomes even more 

critical to an individual frogs’ survival. 

With respect to temperature conditions 

specified in the proposed rule, we 

eliminated temperature-specific 

conditions in an amended PCE as stated 

under the ‘‘Primary Constituent 

Elements for the Chiricahua Leopard 

Frogs’’ section below. 

Comment 43: The Service should 

focus on promoting disturbance in 

riparian habitat, such as controlled 

grazing, in order to accommodate the 

native species’ advantage to a 

disturbance regime in riparian habitat. 

Our Response: In the context of 

evaluating the response of native 

species versus nonnative species to 

disturbance regimes in riparian habitat, 

we consider, in an evolutionary context, 

disturbance from natural hydrological 

processes (such as flooding). Native 

riparian species have evolved in the 

presence of dynamic hydrologic 

processes over millions of years, and it 

is these hydrological disturbance events 

that prepare seedbeds and provide 

conditions for germination for native 

riparian species. For purposes of this 

critical habitat designation, the concept 

of promoting disturbance in riparian 

habitat via controlled grazing in order to 

accommodate native species is not 

substantially useful information. 

Comment 44: The PBFs and PCEs 

should include considerations for a 

landscape of appropriate size free from 

known or likely populations of 

nonnative species highly deleterious to 

populations of the Chiricahua leopard 

frog. 

Our Response: We considered both 

the importance of space for individual 

and population growth and for normal 

behavior, and sites for breeding, 

reproduction, or rearing (or 

development) of offspring in our 

development of the PBFs 1 through 5 

and PCEs 1 and 2. Special management 

that will result from critical habitat 

designation, such as nonnative species 

control, should promote these habitat 

characteristics on a local level, if not 

landscape level. Such landscape-level 

management against nonnatives has 

already proven successful in several 

areas within Recovery Units 1 and 2. 

Comment 45: Why did you change 

PCE (1)(a) to remove the minimum of 

6.0 foot in diameter and 20 inches in 

depth for breeding pools and ponds? 

Our Response: During periods of 

drought, or less than average rainfall, 

breeding sites may not hold water long 

enough for individuals to complete 

metamorphosis, but they would still be 

considered essential breeding habitat in 

non-drought years. Regardless of the 

effects of drought on any given breeding 

site, we are aware of pools that fall short 

of the 6.0 foot in diameter and 20 inches 

in depth criteria that have regularly 

contained breeding populations in most 

years, such as the West Prong Gentry 

Creek in Recovery Unit 5. These sites 

still provide important habitat for the 

species. 

Comment 46: If Chiricahua leopard 

frogs are to persist in Pen ̃ a Blanca Lake 

after stocking with predatory nonnative 

fish species, the vegetation should be 

controlled to prevent suitable habitat for 

bullfrogs. 

Our Response: We note that the 

designation of critical habitat for the 

Chiricahua leopard frog does not require 

this specific management, nor does any 

other critical habitat designation require 

management. Subsequent to draining 

and dredging Pen ̃ a Blanca Lake, a 

concerted effort began in 2008 to clear 

the area of bullfrogs. The effort appears 

to be successful, and Chiricahua leopard 

frogs have benefited. We agree that, if 

bullfrogs were to successfully recolonize 

Pen ̃ a Blanca Lake, shoreline habitat 

complexity would make their 

elimination difficult if not impossible 

without another draining and dredging 

effort. However, management of this 

area will continue to concentrate on 

preventing bullfrogs from recolonizing 

the area and eliminating those that do 

recolonize in habitat suitable for these 

efforts. Furthermore, in a May 2011, 

section 7 consultation for sportfish 

stocking of the lake, conservation 

measures were established that require 

shoreline habitat to be managed in a 

manner to retain its complexity, which 

will provide some level of protection to 

resident Chiricahua leopard frogs from 

potential predation from sportfish. 

General Comments Issue 6: Legal/ 

Policy/Economics 

Comment 47: Designating critical 

habitat might place a burden on 

ranching. 

Our Response: 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 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. Also, we conducted an 

economic analysis of this critical habitat 

designation, including analyzing the 

impacts to ranching. Even though there 

may be some incremental costs to 

livestock management entities, because 

of costs related to section 7 

consultations in regards to grazing on 

Forest Service lands, we have found no 

significant economic impacts are likely 

to result from this designation 

(Industrial Economics 2012, pp. ES–5, 

A–3, A–7). 

Comment 48: The Service should 

consider the cumulative impact of 

listings and critical habitat designations 

in New Mexico on private agricultural 

producers. 

Our Response: For listing actions, the 

Act requires that we make 

determinations ‘‘solely on the basis of 

the best available scientific and 

commercial data available’’ (16 U.S.C. 

1533(b)(1)(A). So, we do not conduct 

economic or environmental analyses or 

environmental assessments when 

making listing determinations. 

However, for critical habitat 

designations, including this one, we are 

required to prepare draft and final 

economic analyses and environmental 

assesessment rules. However, we are 

required and have prepared draft and 

final economic analysis and 

environmental assessment documents, 

which consider the impacts of critical 

habitat designation. Those documents 

consider impacts to private agricultural 

producers in Arizona and New Mexico 

and have generally found no significant 

economic or environmental impacts due 

to this critical habitat designation. The 

final economic analysis and final 

environmental assessment are available 

on the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 16331 

In regards to considering the 

cumulative impact of listings and 

critical habitat designations, in 2001, 

the U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals 

instructed the Service to conduct a full 

analysis of all of the economic impacts 

of proposed critical habitat, regardless 

of whether those impacts are 

attributable co-extensively to other 

causes. Since that decision, however, 

courts in other cases have held that an 

incremental analysis of impacts 

stemming solely from the critical habitat 

rulemaking is proper. Most recently, in 

2010, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of 

Appeals came to similar conclusions 

during its review of critical habitat 

designations. In order to address the 

divergent opinions of the courts and 

provide the most complete information 

to decision-makers, the economic 

analysis for this rule describes the 

baseline protections afforded the 

Chiricahua leopard frog absent critical 

habitat designation, and monetizes the 

potential incremental impacts 

precipitated specifically by the 

designation of critical habitat for the 

species. 

Comment 49: The Service should 

invite coordination with local 

governmental entities in affected 

counties relative to any further 

development of proposed rules. 

Our Response: We place a high 

priority on coordinating with local and 

State governments within the 

framework of relevant federal laws. 

However, we do not understand exactly 

what the commenter’s expectations are 

regarding coordination with local 

governmental entities in affected 

counties relative to any further 

development of proposed rules. The Act 

does not delineate a unique role of 

coordination with counties. However, 

when proposed rules are developed, we 

invite and encourage comments from 

affected counties during the open public 

comment period. 

Comment 50: Designating critical 

habitat will incentivize landowners to 

allow bullfrogs to take over stock tanks 

or allow tanks to dry up when not in use 

to alleviate regulatory burden. Instead 

the Service should not designate critical 

habitat and allow landowners to move 

frogs around to tanks suitable for 

occupation. 

Our Response: The designation of 

critical habitat does not impose a legally 

binding duty on non-Federal 

Government entities or private parties. 

See our response to comments 47 and 

53. 

Comment 51: 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. This definition of 

critical habitat, as it applies to private 

landowners, is vague and therefore 

unenforceable. 

Our Response: The designation of 

critical habitat does not impose a legally 

binding duty on non-Federal 

Government entities or private parties. 

See our response to comment 47. 

Comment 52: Please do not let critical 

habitat designation negatively affect the 

ongoing environmental education 

program at Brown Canyon Ranch. 

Our Response: One of the benefits to 

designating critical habitat is its value in 

educating the public on endangered and 

threatened species conservation. The 

designation of critical habitat in Brown 

Canyon will not impact the 

environmental education program at 

Brown Canyon Ranch. Alternatively, 

designating critical habitat may prove 

beneficial to these purposes, and the 

Service supports and promotes such 

positive endeavors. 

Comment 53: Control of nonnatives is 

difficult, if not impossible, in many 

circumstances, but working with private 

landowners could help further the goal 

if critical habitat were not designated. 

Our Response: As previously stated, 

the designation of critical habitat does 

not impose a legally binding duty on 

non-Federal Government entities or 

private parties. Also, critical habitat 

designation does not require property 

owners to undertake affirmative actions 

to promote the recovery of the species. 

However, the majority of Chiricahua 

leopard frog habitat and localities are on 

Federal lands, mostly lands managed by 

the U.S. Forest Service. We believe that 

building partnerships and promoting 

voluntary cooperation of landowners are 

essential to improving the status of 

species on non-Federal lands, and are 

necessary for implementing recovery 

actions, such as reestablishing listed 

species and restoring and protecting 

habitat. 

Comment 54: Designation of critical 

habitat could diminish private land 

value. 

Our Response: In this final critical 

habitat designation, only 26 percent of 

the lands designated as critical habitat 

are private lands, and there is no 

evidence that designation of critical 

habitat in this case will diminish land 

values (Industrial Economics 2012, 

p. 2–17). We acknowledge that public 

attitudes about the limits or restrictions 

that critical habitat may impose can 

cause real economic effects to property 

owners, regardless of whether such 

limits are likely. Thus, there may be a 

stigma effect on a property that is 

designated as critical habitat due to 

perceived limitations or restrictions, 

which may result in a lower market 

value than an identical property that is 

not within the boundaries of critical 

habitat. However, we have no evidence 

that private land values will diminish 

with this designation. In fact, we believe 

that, because this designation may 

increase protection of scenic habitat, 

there may be aesthetic values resulting 

in increased properties values 

(Industrial Economics 2012, p. 2–17). 

Comment 55: We recommend the 

Service consider working with private 

landowners proactively in conservation 

and recovery versus enforcing 

restrictions, etc. 

Our Response: The Service has a long 

history of working proactively with 

private and public land managers to 

further conservation and recovery goals 

for this species while simultaneously 

accounting for their multiple-use and/or 

commercial needs of these lands. 

Examples of such relationships are 

numerous but perhaps none are more 

pertinent that those discussed in detail 

under the section ‘‘Exclusions’’ below. 

Comment 56: The proposed rule does 

not meet Data Quality Act standards, 

because it ignores the best scientific 

information available and bases many of 

its conclusions on supposition and 

speculation about the future. 

Our Response: In accordance with 

section 4 of the Act, we are required to 

use, and we used, the best available 

scientific and commercial information 

to make this critical habitat decision. 

Further, we followed the criteria, 

established procedures, and guidance 

from 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. As such, we relied 

upon primary and original sources of 

information in this designation of 

critical habitat. 

In order to meet these ‘‘best available 

scientific and commercial information’’ 

standards, we found information from 

many different sources, including the 

recovery plan, articles in peer-reviewed 

journals, conservation plans developed 

by States and counties, scientific status 

surveys and studies, biological 

assessments, other unpublished 

materials, or experts’ opinions or 

personal knowledge. Also, in 

accordance with our peer review policy 

published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
16332 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

34270), we solicited expert opinions 

from knowledgeable individuals with 

scientific expertise that included 

familiarity with the species, the 

geographic region in which the species 

occurs, and conservation biology 

principles. Additionally, we requested 

comments or information from other 

concerned governmental agencies, 

Native American Tribes, the scientific 

community, industry, and any other 

interested parties concerning the 

proposed rule. Comments and 

information we received helped inform 

this final rule. 

In conclusion, we believe that we 

have used the best available scientific 

and commercial information for the 

listing and designation of critical habitat 

for the Chiricahua leopard frog. 

Comment 57: The Service stated that 

while Hermann et al. (2009, pp. 12–17) 

indicates that Chiricahua leopard frogs 

do not currently suffer from a lack 

genetic variability, it does not preclude 

the possibility that individual 

populations may suffer from genetic or 

demographic problems. This 

speculation is a violation of the Data 

Quality Act. 

Our Response: The statement that 

‘‘* * * it does not preclude the 

possibility that individual populations 

may suffer from genetic or demographic 

problems’’ pertains to the inherent level 

of uncertainty of how changes in the 

species’ status and threats may 

influence population genetics in the 

foreseeable future. The Service’s use of 

this information does not result in 

speculation by the Service. 

Comment 58: The Services’ 

presumption that there are ‘‘future’’ 

threats clearly fails to pass Data Quality 

Act standards, because that 

presumption is based solely on 

speculation and surmise contradicted by 

the best scientific and commercial 

information available. 

Our Response: See our response to 

comment 56. 

Comment 59: The designation of 

5,200 acres of land in Arizona may 

place an economic burden on the 

livestock and mining industries in 

Arizona and may also risk discouraging 

private partnerships that could further 

recovery of the species. 

Our Response: We discuss how the 

designation of critical habitat may or 

may not affect the responsibilities of 

land owners and managers under the 

‘‘Background’’ under the section 

‘‘Critical Habitat’’ heading below. We 

recommend review of this section for 

clarification of the actual, versus 

perceived, effects of critical habitat 

designation. Also, we conducted an 

economic analysis of this designation, 

and found that even though there may 

be some incremental costs to livestock 

management entities related to section 7 

consultations, no significant economic 

impacts on livestock and mining 

industries are likely to result from this 

designation (Industrial Economics 2012, 

pp. ES–5, A–3, A–7). 

Comment 60: We are concerned that 

the conservation efforts for the 

Chiricahua leopard frog will become 

another Service action where new rules 

are put in place that limit or restrict 

‘‘multiple use’’ of land and resources. 

Throughout Apache County, once 

productive private, State, or Federal 

land has become so encumbered with 

use restrictions, requirements, and 

liabilities that the natural resources they 

once provided are no longer 

economically available or contributing 

to the local economy. 

Our Response: 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 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. 

Comment 61: The Apache County 

Board of Supervisors requests we 

coordinate with them to discuss the 

consistencies, conflicts, opportunities 

for coordination, and coordinated 

monitoring associated with this 

rulemaking. 

Our Response: We accepted 

comments on the proposed rule, draft 

economic analysis, and draft 

environmental assessment during two 

comment periods for a total of 90 days. 

As such, we complied with all 

requirements for public participation in 

our rulemaking process, under the Act 

and the Administrative Procedures Act 

(5 U.S.C. Subchapter II). 

Economic Analysis 

Comment 62: The Service should 

provide a detailed assessment about 

who will bear the costs in ‘‘management 

changes, use reduction, or loss of 

property rights, such as depreciation of 

land values.’’ The comment also 

suggested that the Service conduct a 

takings implication assessment to 

analyze the effects of critical habitat 

designation on land and water rights 

where appropriate. 

Response: The draft economic 

analysis (DEA) discusses potential 

direct and indirect impacts of the 

Chiricahua leopard frog critical habitat 

designation in Chapters 2 and 4. In 

Chapter 2, the analysis discusses the 

possibility that the designation might 

affect property values both positively 

and negatively. Because of the extensive 

conservation efforts already in place for 

the Chiricahua leopard frog, and 

because the Service is already excluding 

portions of 10 critical habitat units (due 

to existing leopard frog protections in 

these areas), neither direct nor indirect 

property value impacts are anticipated 

to result from the designation. The 

analysis finds that any impacts to 

property value or other property rights 

would occur regardless of critical 

habitat designation and are therefore not 

attributable to the Chiricahua leopard 

frog designation. 

Comment 63: One comment noted 

that the DEA erroneously stated that the 

Chiricahua leopard frog was listed as 

endangered rather than threatened in 

2002. 

Response: This is corrected in the 

final economic analysis (FEA). 

Comment 64: The DEA states that the 

Service is considering portions of nine 

critical habitat units for exclusion, when 

in fact portions of 10 critical habitat 

units are being considered. With the 

addition of Unit 43 (Palomas) to the 

proposed rule, the Ladder Ranch lands 

within this unit are also being 

considered for exclusion (as stated in 

the draft environmental assessment). 

Response: This is corrected in the 

FEA. 

Comment 65: The DEA did not 

adequately address potential impacts on 

local businesses. The analysis also 

focused almost exclusively on the 

administrative costs to the Federal 

agencies for consultation related to the 

designation of critical habitat, and did 

not examine the potential impact to 

local economies already struggling with 

high unemployment and widespread 

poverty. Finally, the DEA must analyze, 

fully disclose, and explain how the rule 

may impact local businesses. 

Response: Appendix A of the DEA 

considers potential impacts of the 

critical habitat designation on small 

entities and the energy industry. The 

DEA considers publicly available 

information in estimating the 

incremental costs of the proposed 

critical habitat designation on small 

entities, including any information 

about potential impacts to local 

communities. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 16333 

Environmental Assessment 

Comment 66: The potential impacts of 

climate change are complicated and 

overly downplayed in the draft 

environmental assessment. 

Response: We have added a 

discussion of climate change in section 

1.8.1 of the final environmental 

assessment. 

Comment 67: A proposed open pit 

copper mine seriously threatens both 

units 8 and 9. 

Response: In September 2011, 

Coronado National Forest published a 

draft environmental impact statement 

(EIS) on the proposed mine. Using 

information from that EIS, we added 

section 3.11 Mining to the final 

environmental assessment to address 

potential impacts. 

Comment 68: One commenter felt that 

we should elevate the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) analysis to the level 

of an EIS. 

Response: The level of impacts to the 

environment from this critical habitat 

designation do not rise to the level of 

significance to trigger the requirement to 

produce an EIS. 

Comment 69: One commenter quotes 

from the Service’s Handbook on NEPA 

Policies and Responsibilities: ‘‘We 

encourage public scoping for an 

Environmental Assessment, because it 

helps satisfy NEPA’s purposes in 

section 101(b).’’ 

Response: In the proposed rule to 

designate critical habitat, dated March 

15, 2011, and published in the Federal 

Register (76 FR 14126), we requested 

public review and comment on several 

aspects of the proposed designation, 

including a draft environmental 

assessment. Also, we conducted public 

outreach efforts, including posting 

information on the Service’s National, 

Regional, and Field Office Web sites. 

Comment 70: One commenter 

suggested that the draft environmental 

assessment did not have sufficient 

information on the impacts of the 

proposed designation, and that the 

Secretary of the Interior should defer 

making a designation of critical habitat 

until such time as this information is 

available. 

Response: The commenter does not 

suggest what necessary information is 

lacking. The Act requires us to use the 

best available scientific and commercial 

data in making decisions. We believe 

this standard was met, and we are 

finalizing the critical habitat 

designation. 

Comment 71: One commenter 

suggested that the draft environmental 

assessment does not meet the requisite 

Data Quality Act of 2000 standards. 

Instead it blatantly ignored scientific 

information and based many of its 

conclusions on supposition and 

speculation. 

Response: The commenter does not 

cite the ways the document violates the 

Data Quality Act, or the scientific 

information that has been ignored. We 

believe that the draft environmental 

assessment relied on the best available 

scientific and commercial information. 

It based its conclusions on a reasonable 

assessment of the likely frequency, 

nature, and outcomes of incremental 

section 7 consultations, and discussed 

these in chapters 3 through 5. 

Comment 72: The draft environmental 

assessment uses the term ‘‘unknown’’ 

more than 18 times, yet page 96 of the 

draft environmental assessment 

concludes that ‘‘The impacts do not 

pose any uncertain, unique, or unknown 

risks.’’ With the number of unknown 

details listed throughout the draft 

environmental assessment and the 

overly general nature of this NEPA 

document, it is clear that there are 

unknown risks that the conclusion on 

page 96 of the draft environmental 

assessment fails to recognize. 

Response: The commenter’s examples 

fall into two categories of unknowns: (1) 

The number of section 7 consultations 

likely to be conducted in the future 

affecting a given resource, agency, or 

activity (accounting for 9 of the 17 

specific instances mentioned); and (2) 

the specific details and locations of such 

projects (accounting for 8 of the 17 

specific instances mentioned). Given the 

consultation histories that are relevant 

(and cited throughout the draft 

environmental assessment), we do not 

believe that the frequency or nature of 

likely consultations will be such to 

cause significant impacts, regardless of 

whether or not the precise number and 

nature of those consultations can be 

predicted. 

Comment 73: The Service should 

correct the draft environmental 

assessment by including data that 

support analysis of the effects of 

implementing critical habitat. The 

analysis should focus on the effects of 

critical habitat on each proposed critical 

habitat unit. 

Response: The designation of critical 

habitat itself does not produce direct 

impacts on the natural environment, nor 

does it directly impose limits on land 

management activities on private 

property. Its impacts occur through 

consultations conducted with Federal 

agencies (and, rarely, non-Federal 

project proponents who request Federal 

funding or authorization) under section 

7 of the Act. For this reason, we feel it 

is appropriate to focus the impact 

discussion on the effects that critical 

habitat designation will have on the 

number, types, and outcomes (including 

conservation measures, project 

modifications, costs, or delays) of 

consultations. Please see the final 

environmental assessment for more 

information. 

Comment 74: There is a lack of actual 

environmental consequence 

determinations for each of the proposed 

critical habitat units. Per NEPA, the 

definition of effects clearly considers 

the ecological component to be the 

backbone of effects determinations. 

Response: The designation of critical 

habitat is intended to provide for the 

protection of the physical or biological 

features essential to the conservation of 

a listed species. Impacts from critical 

habitat designation occur through the 

outcomes of new, re-initiated, or 

expanded consultations under section 7 

of the Act, rather than through direct 

physical impacts on the ground. For this 

reason, we feel it is appropriate to focus 

the impact discussion in the 

environmental assessment on the effects 

critical habitat designation will have on 

the number, types, and outcomes of 

consultations. 

Comment 75: One commenter 

suggested that the Service revise the 

environmental assessment to provide 

information about how the 

implementation of the proposed critical 

habitat will change the ecosystems that 

make up the proposed critical habitat 

areas. If it is determined that there will 

be no change in the environment 

conditions of the various proposed 

critical habitat areas due to the critical 

habitat designation, or that no true 

benefits will be realized from 

designating critical habitat, then the 

Service should select the ‘‘No Action’’ 

alternative and not burden the public 

with the cost of unnecessary Federal 

actions. 

Response: We do not believe that 

ecological impacts will occur because of 

this critical habitat designation. 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. 

Summary of Changes From Proposed 

Rule 

In the March 15, 2011, proposed rule 

(76 FR 14126), we proposed to designate 

approximately 11,136 acres (4,510 

hectares) in 40 units as critical habitat 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
16334 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

for the Chiricahua leopard frog. Then, in 

September 21, 2011 (76 FR 58441), we 

proposed approximately 331 acres (133 

hectares) in three additional units, and 

amended the PCEs to provide more 

clarification by making them more 

objective and measurable. In this final 

listing rule, we are designating 

approximately 10,386 acres (4,187 

hectares) as critical habitat in 39 units 

for the Chiricahua leopard frog. 

We have fewer units in this final rule 

because we exclude the Pasture 9 Tank 

Unit, Beatty’s Guest Ranch Unit, and 

Ramsey and Brown Canyons Unit under 

the provisions of section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act (see the unit descriptions under the 

Final Critical Habitat Designation 

section and the Exclusion section, 

below). Also, we reevaluated the High 

Lonesome Well Unit, and we have 

determined that it does not meet the 

definition of critical habitat (see our 

response to comment 18, above, and the 

unit description under the Final Critical 

Habitat Designation section, below). 

Therefore, we have removed the High 

Lonesome Well Unit from this final 

critical habitat designation. 

Threatened Status for the Chiricahua 

Leopard Frog 

Background 

Due to a taxonomic revision of the 

Chiricahua leopard frog, we reassessed 

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 final 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 final 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 final 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). 

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. 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). 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)) 

tend 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. 

Chiricahua leopard frogs at warm 

springs may lay eggs year-round due to 

elevated water temperatures as 

compared to most breeding habitat 

(Scott and Jennings 1985, p. 16). 

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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 16335 

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

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 2010 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. 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 fish, bullfrogs, crayfish 

(Orconectes virilis), and 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. It should 

be noted that inevitably and over time, 

it is the species itself, in the wild, which 

will define the configuration of any 

given metapopulation. Ultimately, the 

resultant configuration of persistent 

wild metapopulations may or may not 

comport with our current understanding 

of metapopulation dynamics. We will 

continue to examine metapopulation 

dynamics of wild populations and make 

management recommendations or 

modifications as required, over time. 

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 

listing 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
16336 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

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

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. A draft 

environmental impact statement was 

prepared by the U.S. Forest Service in 

September 2011, which confirmed that 

Chiricahua leopard frogs could be 

adversely affected by direct and indirect 

impacts of the mining operation, 

including effects from mercury, 

cadmium, and selenium contamination 

(U.S. Forest Service 2011, p. 396). 

The continued threat of wildfire has 

never been more visible than that 

represented by the 2011 fire season in 

Arizona. A minimum of five wildfires 

occurred in Arizona that adversely 

affected the status of the Chiricahua 

leopard frog. The largest wildfire in 

Arizona State history, the Wallow Fire, 

started in the White Mountains on May 

28, 2011. The Wallow Fire consumed 

538,049 acres (217,741 ha), including in 

the area around Cambell Blue and 

Coleman Creeks. The Horseshoe II Fire 

started on May 8, 2011, grew to 222,954 

acres (90,226 ha), and affected the 

majority of land area in the Chiricahua 

Mountains. We are not certain how 

occupied habitat in Cave Canyon will 

respond to such a widespread fire and 

subsequent precipitation events. The 

Murphey Complex and Greaterville fires 

both occurred in the spring of 2011, 

potentially affecting designated critical 

habitat in the Santa Rita Mountains 

(Florida Canyon and Eastern Slope of 

the Santa Mountains Units) and Pajarito 

Mountains (Sycamore Canyon and Pen ̃ a 

Blanca Lake and Spring and Associated 

Tanks Units), respectively. 

On June 12, 2011, the Monument Fire 

started 4 miles east of Hereford, 

Arizona, ultimately consuming 30,526 

acres (12,353 ha) and significantly 

affecting a portion of the Huachuca 

Mountains, including the Beatty Guest 

Ranch in Miller Canyon. On June 27, 

2011, over 120 adult and larvae 

Chiricahua leopard frogs were salvaged 

from the Beatty Guest Ranch in 

anticipation of destructive floods and 

sedimentation that occurred shortly 

thereafter, filling with sediment the 

ponds that formerly contained a robust 

population of Chiricahua leopard frogs. 

Chiricahua leopard frogs persist on 

Beatty Guest Ranch but only as a small 

fraction of their former numbers in 

habitat that has been severely adversely 

affected and faces an uncertain future. 

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 

includes 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. Habitat-related 

threats to the Chiricahua leopard frog, 

while not the most important factors 

threatening the species, currently affect 

and will continue to affect the species 

in the 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, or will become 

a threat in the future. 

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 barred 

tiger salamanders) are the most 

significant 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, 

p. 26). 

Predation 

Prior to the invasion of predatory, 

nonnative species (bullfrog, crayfish, 

fish species) into perennial waters, the 

Chiricahua leopard 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 

(Service 2011, pp. 25–27). We consider 

disease, specifically chytridiomycosis, 

and predation by nonnative species to 

have significant impacts on Chiricahua 

leopard frog populations now, and we 

anticipate those impacts will continue 

in the future. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 16337 

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 

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 tiger salamanders infected 

with chytridiomycosis in Arizona bait 

shops, and tiger salamanders infected 

with ranavirus (a genus of viruses 

known to effect amphibians and 

reptiles) 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 into the wild after they 

were housed in shops with infected 

animals, despite the fact that release of 

live salamanders is prohibited by 

Arizona Revised Statute 17–371. This 

study shows how current wildlife laws 

and regulations fail to prevent the 

spread of amphibian diseases via the 

tiger salamander bait trade. Even though 

the Chiricahua leopard frog is currently 

listed under the 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 live salamanders as 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 

to the Chiricahua leopard frog now and 

in the 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 warmer and 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, and has likely affected the species 

historically. Drought conditions in the 

southwestern United States have arisen 

over time, and can range from short 

term to long term in duration. 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 nonnative species, 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. Because of their 

evolutionary history, southwestern 

leopard frogs may be able to withstand 

drying of stock tanks for a longer period 

of time than nonnative species that 

evolved in wetter climates in the eastern 

United States, which could provide 

southwestern leopard frogs a selective 

advantage. However, if stock tanks 

remain dry for extended 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 

site-specific. Chiricahua leopard frogs 

can often withstand drying of stock 

tanks for short to moderate periods of 

time, whereas fish and bullfrogs may 

not (Service 2011; p. 29). 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 occupying sites that have alternative 

supplies of water, such as wells. Even 

though drought may contribute to loss 

of site-specific populations, we do not 

consider short to moderate periods of 

drought that causes stock tanks to dry 

out to be a threat to the species or its 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
16338 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

habitat. However, we consider 

prolonged drought that appreciably 

affects habitat on a regional scale to be 

a threat to the species. 

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, it is possible that 

more populations will be able to persist 

with the disease. Thus climate change, 

particularly in the form of increased 

water temperatures, may not pose an 

impact to the Chiricahua leopard frog 

into the 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 

recent genetic study (2009, pp. 12–17), 

however, revealed no systemic lack of 

genetic diversity within Chiricahua 

leopard frog populations. Moreover, the 

effects of climate change are 

inextricably related to effects from other 

threats and are difficult to predict or 

interpret without more definitive data of 

higher resolution. Therefore, we are 

unable to conclusively state that climate 

change, in and of itself, will adversely 

affect the Chiricahua leopard frog in the 

foreseeable future. However, long-term 

periods of drought can be a factor 

affecting the species’ continued 

existence that poses significant impacts 

to the Chiricahua leopard frog’s habitat 

now and in the future. 

Listing 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), 

predation by nonnative species (Factor 

C), and drought (Factor E). According to 

the June 13, 2002, final listing rule (67 

FR 40790) and 2007 recovery plan, 

additional factors affecting the species 

include degradation and loss of habitat 

as a result of water diversions and largescale groundwater pumping, livestock 

management practices (such that grazing 

is not in accordance with approved 

allotment management plans or 

otherwise considered adverse to 

maintaining natural habitat 

characteristics), altered fire regimes due 

to fire suppression, mining, 

contaminants, agricultural development, 

and other human activities; and 

inadequate regulatory mechanisms 

regarding introduction of nonnative bait 

species (Factors A and D) (67 FR 40790, 

June 13, 2002; Sredl and Jennings 2005, 

pp. 546–549; Service 2007, pp. B1–B88). 

Since the time of listing, the species 

has made modest population gains in 

Arizona as a result of cooperative headstarting (rearing frogs in captivity from 

eggs through metamorphosis) campaigns 

and active partnerships and cooperation 

in management of occupied habitat. 

However the Chiricahua leopard frog 

continues to decline in New Mexico. 

Overall in the United States, the status 

of the Chiricahua leopard frog is 

improving. The status and trends for the 

species are unknown in Mexico. A 

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 (Service 2011, pp. 6–9). 

Although progress has been made to 

secure some existing populations and 

establish new populations (Service 

2011, pp. 6–9), 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) (Service 

2011, p. 30). 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, and 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 endangered within the 

foreseeable future throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range. 

Therefore, we determine that the 

Chiricahua leopard frog meets the 

definition of a threatened species under 

the Act. 

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). We 

are, however, making an editorial 

change to 50 CFR 17.43(b) to revise the 

paragraph’s heading to reflect to 

currently described species Lithobates 

chiricahuensis. 

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 

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 under 

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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 16339 

listed animal or to avoid jeopardizing 

the continued existence of a listed 

species. 

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 will or will 

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 listing on proposed and ongoing 

activities within the range of the listed 

species. 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 

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) Unauthorized release of nonnative 

species that compete with or prey upon 

the Chiricahua leopard frog within 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. 

(5) Unauthorized activities that result 

in the introduction or spread of the 

chytrid fungus. 

(6) Unauthorized recreational 

activities. 

(7) Unauthorized livestock grazing. 

(8) Unauthorized construction and 

maintenance of roads and utility 

corridors or various types of 

development. 

(9) Unauthorized fire suppression, 

fuels management, or use of prescribed 

fire. 

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: 

(1) 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; 

(a) Essential to the conservation of the 

species; and 

(b) Which may require special 

management considerations or 

protection; and 

(2) 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, 

law enforcement, habitat acquisition 

and maintenance, propagation, live 

trapping, and transplantation, 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
16340 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

requirement that Federal agencies 

ensure, in consultation with the Service, 

that any action they authorize, fund, or 

carry out is not likely to result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

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 lands. Such 

designation does not require 

implementation of restoration, recovery, 

or enhancement measures by nonFederal landowners. Where a landowner 

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) of the Act would apply, but even 

in the event of a destruction or adverse 

modification finding, the obligation of 

the Federal action agency and the 

landowner is not to restore or recover 

the species, but to implement 

reasonable and prudent alternatives to 

avoid destruction or adverse 

modification of critical habitat. 

Under the first prong of the Act’s 

definition of critical habitat, areas 

within the geographical area occupied 

by the species at the time it was listed 

are included in a critical habitat 

designation if they contain physical or 

biological features (1) which are 

essential to the conservation of the 

species and (2) which may require 

special management considerations or 

protection. For these areas, critical 

habitat designations identify, to the 

extent known using the best scientific 

and commercial data available, those 

physical or biological features that are 

essential to the conservation of the 

species (such as space, food, cover, and 

protected habitat). In identifying those 

physical or biological features within an 

area, we focus on the principal 

biological or physical constituent 

elements (primary constituent elements 

such as roost sites, nesting grounds, 

seasonal wetlands, water quality, tide, 

soil type) that are essential to the 

conservation of the species. Primary 

constituent elements are the elements of 

physical or biological features that 

together provide for a species’ lifehistory processes and are essential to 

the conservation of the species. 

Under the second prong of the Act’s 

definition of critical habitat, we can 

designate critical habitat in 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. For example, an area currently 

occupied by the species but that was not 

occupied at the time of listing may be 

essential to the conservation of the 

species and may be included in the 

critical habitat designation. We 

designate critical habitat in areas 

outside the geographical area occupied 

by a species only when a designation 

limited to its range 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 States and counties, scientific status 

surveys and studies, biological 

assessments, other unpublished 

materials, or experts’ opinions or 

personal knowledge. 

Habitat is dynamic, and species may 

move from one area to another over 

time. 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 needed for 

recovery of the species. Areas that are 

important to the conservation of the 

species, both inside and outside the 

critical habitat designation, will 

continue to be subject to: (1) 

Conservation actions implemented 

under section 7(a)(1) of the Act, (2) 

regulatory protections afforded by the 

requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act 

for Federal agencies to insure their 

actions are not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of any endangered 

or threatened species, and (3) the 

prohibitions of section 9 of the Act if 

actions occurring in these areas may 

affect the species. Federally funded or 

permitted projects affecting listed 

species outside their designated critical 

habitat areas may still result in jeopardy 

findings in some cases. These 

protections and conservation tools will 

continue to contribute to recovery of 

this species. 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 other species 

conservation planning efforts if new 

information available at the time of 

these planning efforts calls for a 

different outcome. 

Physical or Biological Features 

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

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

at 50 CFR 424.12, in determining which 

areas within the geographical area 

occupied by the species at the time of 

listing to designate as critical habitat, 

we consider the physical or biological 

features essential to the conservation of 

the species and which 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 physical or 

biological features (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. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 16341 

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

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

8). We have determined that Chiricahua 

leopard frogs require the physical or 

biological features described below. 

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. Based upon our 

understanding of the best available 

science, 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 Threatened Status for the 

Chiricahua Leopard Frog 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 

necessary 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 Threatened Status for 

the Chiricahua Leopard Frog 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 

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. 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 persistent 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 Chiricahua 

leopard frogs can survive, but nonnative 

predators, particularly fish, and in some 

cases, bullfrogs and barred tiger 

salamanders, may be eliminated during 

the dry period (Service 2007, p. D3). 

Water quality requirements at breeding 

sites include 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
16342 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

Land Management 1998, p. 26; Boone 

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, 

Chiricahua leopard 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 

fish, 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 

Distribution of the Chiricahua Leopard 

Frog 

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 Chiricahua leopard 

frog appears to be less susceptible to 

mortality from the disease in warmer 

waters, which may occur at lower 

elevations. The precise temperature that 

affects survivorship in the presence of 

the fungus is unknown. Survivorship in 

the presence of Bd 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 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 

such as warmer waters or lower 

elevations that allow for persistence of 

Chiricahua leopard frogs with the 

disease. 

Dispersal Habitat 

Dispersal habitat provides routes for 

connectivity and gene flow among local 

populations within a metapopulation, 

which enhances the likelihood of 

persistence and allows for 

recolonization of sites that are lost due 

to drought, disease, or other factors 

(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 (fully 

metamorphosed but not sexually 

mature) 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 Dispersal 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 

Chiricahua 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 50 acres (ac) (20 hectares (ha)) 

or more in size that are stocked with 

nonnative fish 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 (barriers 

to movement that may redirect 

individuals to preferred passageways) 

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. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 16343 

Primary Constituent Elements for the 

Chiricahua Leopard Frog 

Under the Act and its implementing 

regulations, we are required to identify 

the physical or biological features 

essential to the conservation of the 

Chiricahua leopard frog in areas 

occupied at the time of listing, focusing 

on the features’ PCEs. We consider PCEs 

to be the elements of the physical or 

biological features that provide for a 

species’ life-history processes, are 

essential to the conservation of the 

species. 

Based on our current knowledge of 

the physical or biological features and 

habitat characteristics required to 

sustain the species’ life-history 

processes, we determine that the 

primary constituent elements specific to 

the Chiricahua leopard frog are: 

(1) Aquatic breeding habitat and 

immediately adjacent uplands 

exhibiting the following characteristics: 

(a) Standing bodies of fresh water 

(with salinities less than 5 parts per 

thousand, pH greater than or equal to 

5.6, and pollutants absent or minimally 

present), including natural and 

manmade (e.g., stock) ponds, slowmoving streams or pools within streams, 

off-channel pools, and other ephemeral 

or permanent water bodies that typically 

hold water or rarely dry for more than 

a month. During periods of drought, or 

less than average rainfall, these breeding 

sites may not hold water long enough 

for individuals to complete 

metamorphosis, but they would still be 

considered essential breeding habitat in 

non-drought years. 

(b) 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. 

(c) Nonnative predators (e.g., crayfish, 

bullfrogs, nonnative fish) absent or 

occurring at levels that do not preclude 

presence of the Chiricahua leopard frog. 

(d) Absence of chytridiomycosis, or if 

present, then environmental, 

physiological, and genetic conditions 

are such that allow persistence of 

Chiricahua leopard frogs. 

(e) Upland habitats that provide 

opportunities for foraging and basking 

that are immediately adjacent to or 

surrounding breeding aquatic and 

riparian habitat. 

(2) Dispersal and nonbreeding habitat, 

consisting of areas with ephemeral 

(present for only a short time), 

intermittent, or perennial water that are 

generally not suitable for breeding, and 

associated upland or riparian habitat 

that provides corridors (overland 

movement or along wetted drainages) 

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) In overland and nonwetted 

corridors, provide some vegetation 

cover or structural features (e.g., 

boulders, rocks, organic debris such as 

downed trees or logs, small mammal 

burrows, or leaf litter) for shelter, forage, 

and protection from predators; in wetted 

corridors, provide some ephemeral, 

intermittent, or perennial aquatic 

habitat. 

(c) Are free of barriers that block 

movement by Chiricahua leopard frogs, 

including, but not limited to, urban, 

industrial, or agricultural development; 

reservoirs that are 50 acres (20 hectares) 

or more in size and contain nonnative 

predatory fish, bullfrogs, or crayfish; 

highways that do not include frog 

fencing and culverts; and walls, major 

dams, or other structures that physically 

block movement. 

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. 

With this designation of critical 

habitat, we intend to identify the 

physical or biological features essential 

to the conservation of the species, 

through the identification of the 

elements of the features, the primary 

constituent elements, that support the 

life-history processes of the species. 

Because not all life-history functions 

require both PCEs 1 and 2, not all areas 

designated as critical habitat will 

contain both PCEs. Each of the areas 

designated in this rule has been 

determined to contain one or both of the 

PCEs. 

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 designated critical habitat 

units are within the species’ historical 

geographical range in the United States 

and contain one or both PCEs to support 

life-history functions. In addition, all 

but one designated critical habitat unit, 

Carr Barn Pond, are currently occupied 

by Chiricahua leopard frogs. Carr Barn 

Pond was occupied at the time of listing 

and currently contains PCE 1 to support 

life-history functions essential for the 

conservation of the species. This unit is 

needed as a future site for frog 

colonization or reestablishment, and 

Chiricahua leopard frogs can persist in 

this unit with a reasonable level of effort 

to control nonnative predators. 

Special Management Considerations or 

Protections 

When designating critical habitat, we 

assess the physical or biological features 

within the geographical area occupied 

by the species at the time of listing that 

contain features that are essential to the 

conservation of the species and which 

may require special management 

considerations or protection. 

All areas designated 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 are still subject to review 

under section 7 of the Act if they may 

affect the Chiricahua leopard frog 

because effects to the species and its 

critical habitat must be considered 

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 or 

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 nonnative predators; 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
16344 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

introduction or spread of 

chytridiomycosis; inappropriate 

livestock grazing; water diversions and 

development; construction and 

maintenance of roads and utility 

corridors; fire suppression, fuels 

management, and prescribed fire. These 

activities have the potential to affect the 

PCEs if they are conducted within or 

adjacent to designated units. 

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 require 

special management considerations or 

protection, and specific areas outside of 

the geographical area occupied at the 

time of listing that are essential for the 

conservation of the species. We also 

relied heavily on the recovery criteria 

outlined in the 2007 recovery plan for 

the Chiricahua leopard frog (Service 

2007, pp. 31–37). 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 the final listing 

rule at 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 areas 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 areas 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 designated. 

Sites not known to be occupied at the 

time of listing in June 2002 are also 

designated as critical habitat if we have 

determined them to be 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 

occurring in each Recovery Unit and 

exhibiting long-term 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 

designated as critical habitat in this 

rule. At the time of listing, one of the 

units being designated as critical habitat 

was unoccupied, and for 10 additional 

units, their occupancy status was 

unknown (discussed below under Final 

Critical Habitat Designation). For 

purposes of this designation of critical 

habitat, the 10 units with unknown 

occupancy at the time of listing are 

being considered unoccupied at the 

time of listing. However, all 11 of these 

units are currently occupied and 

contain one or both PCEs. The specific 

areas defined by these units, which 

were unoccupied or not known to be 

occupied at the time of listing, are being 

designated as critical habitat because 

they are considered to be essential to the 

conservation of the species, will help 

meet the population goals in the 

recovery criterion discussed above, 

contain the PCEs, and currently contain 

known breeding populations of 

Chiricahua leopard frogs, which are 

relatively scarce (33 populations in 

Arizona and 20 to 23 in New Mexico). 

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 

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). As previously noted, 

the Carr Barn Pond unit is the only 

unoccupied site being designated as 

critical habitat. 

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 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 is being 

designated 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 considered to be 

either subpopulations in 

metapopulations or isolated, robust 

populations. Metapopulations were 

identified with these existing breeding 

populations at sites occupied at the time 

of listing that contain PCEs sufficient to 

support life-history functions essential 

for the conservation of the species, and 

at an unoccupied site with one or more 

PCEs or the potential to support PCEs 

with a reasonable level of restoration 

work or special management. 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 

designation are dispersal corridors 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 16345 

between sites 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. In addition, we 

considered the presence of waterfalls, 

steep slopes, and other obstacles that 

may be difficult for a frog to negotiate. 

When determining critical habitat 

boundaries within this final rule, we 

made every effort to avoid including 

developed areas such as lands covered 

by buildings, pavement, and other 

structures because such lands lack 

physical or biological features for 

Chiricahua leopard frogs. 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 final rule have been 

excluded by text in the rule and are not 

designated as critical habitat. Therefore, 

a Federal action involving these lands 

will not trigger section 7 consultation 

with respect to critical habitat and the 

requirement of no adverse modification 

unless the specific action would affect 

the physical or biological features in the 

adjacent critical habitat. 

We are designating as critical habitat 

lands that we have determined were 

occupied at the time of listing that 

require special management 

considerations or protection, and 

contain sufficient physical or biological 

features to support life-history processes 

essential for the conservation of the 

species. We are also designating lands 

outside of the geographical area 

occupied at the time of listing that we 

have determined are essential for the 

conservation of Chiricahua leopard 

frogs. 

Units are designated based on 

sufficient elements of physical or 

biological features being present to 

support Chiricahua leopard frog life 

processes. Some units contain all of the 

identified elements of physical or 

biological features and support multiple 

life processes. Some segments contain 

only some elements of the physical or 

biological features necessary to support 

the Chiricahua leopard frog’s particular 

use of that habitat. 

Final Critical Habitat Designation 

We are designating 39 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 39 units we are designating 

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. The approximate area of each 

designated critical habitat unit is shown 

in Table 2. The 39 areas designated as 

critical habitat are grouped by Recovery 

Unit. 

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

Critical habitat unit Occupied at 

time of listing? 

Currently 

occupied? 

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

Twin Tanks and Ox Frame Tank Unit ............................................................................................................... No* ................... Yes. 

Garcia Tank Unit ................................................................................................................................................ Yes ................... Yes. 

Buenos Aires NWR Central Tanks Unit ............................................................................................................ Yes ................... Yes. 

Bonita, Upper Turner, and Mojonera Tanks Unit .............................................................................................. Yes ................... Yes. 

Sycamore Canyon Unit ...................................................................................................................................... Yes ................... Yes. 

Pen ̃a Blanca Lake and Spring and Associated Unit Tanks .............................................................................. Yes ................... Yes. 

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

Florida Canyon Unit ........................................................................................................................................... No* ................... Yes. 

Eastern Slope of the Santa Rita Mountains Unit .............................................................................................. No* .................... Yes. 

Las Cienegas National Conservation Area Unit ................................................................................................ Yes ................... Yes. 

Scotia Canyon Unit ............................................................................................................................................ No ..................... Yes. 

Carr Barn Pond Unit .......................................................................................................................................... Yes ................... No. 

Ramsey and Brown Canyons Unit .................................................................................................................... Yes ................... Yes. 

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

Peloncillo Mountains Unit .................................................................................................................................. Yes ................... Yes. 

Cave Creek Unit ................................................................................................................................................ Yes ................... Yes. 

Leslie Creek Unit ............................................................................................................................................... Yes ................... Yes. 

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

Deer Creek Unit ................................................................................................................................................. Yes ................... Yes. 

Oak Spring and Oak Creek Unit ....................................................................................................................... No* ................... Yes. 

Dragoon Mountains Unit .................................................................................................................................... Yes ................... Yes. 

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

Buckskin Hills Unit ............................................................................................................................................. Yes ................... Yes. 

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


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
16346 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

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

Critical habitat unit Occupied at 

time of listing? 

Currently 

occupied? 

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

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

Concho Bill and Deer Creek Unit ...................................................................................................................... No* ................... Yes. 

Campbell Blue and Coleman Creeks Unit ........................................................................................................ Yes ................... Yes. 

Tularosa River Unit ............................................................................................................................................ Yes ................... Yes. 

Deep Creek Divide Area Unit ............................................................................................................................ Yes ................... Yes. 

Main Diamond Creek Unit ................................................................................................................................. Yes ................... Yes. 

Beaver Creek Unit ............................................................................................................................................. No* ................... Yes. 

Kerr Canyon Unit ............................................................................................................................................... Yes ................... Yes. 

West Fork Gila River Unit .................................................................................................................................. Yes ................... Yes. 

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

Left Prong of Dix Creek Unit ............................................................................................................................. No* ................... Yes. 

Rattlesnake Pasture Tank and Associated Tanks Unit ..................................................................................... No* ................... Yes. 

Coal Creek Unit ................................................................................................................................................. No* ................... Yes. 

Blue Creek Unit ................................................................................................................................................. Yes ................... Yes. 

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

Seco Creek Unit ................................................................................................................................................ Yes ................... Yes. 

Alamosa Warm Springs Unit ............................................................................................................................. Yes ................... Yes. 

Cuchillo Negro Warm Springs and Creek Unit ................................................................................................. Yes ................... Yes. 

Ash and Bolton Springs Unit ............................................................................................................................. Yes ................... Yes. 

Mimbres River Unit ............................................................................................................................................ Yes ................... Yes. 

South Fork Palomas Creek Unit ........................................................................................................................ Yes ................... Yes. 

*Occupancy unknown at time of listing. However, for purposes of this designation of critical habitat, these units are classified as unoccupied at 

the time of listing. 

TABLE 2—CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS FOR THE CHIRICAHUA LEOPARD FROG

[Area estimates reflect all land within critical habitat unit boundaries. Note that grazing allotments are not considered in private ownership.] 

Critical habitat unit 

Land ownership by type acres 

(hectares) Size of unit in acres 

(hectares) 

Federal State Private 

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

Twin Tanks and Ox Frame Tank Unit ..................... 0 1.3 (0.5 ) 0.4 (0.2 ) 1.7 (0.7 ) 

Garcia Tank Unit ...................................................... 0.7 (0.3 ) 0 0 0.7 (0.3 ) 

Buenos Aires NWR Central Tanks Unit .................. 1,720 (696 ) 0 0 1,720 (696 ) 

Bonita, Upper Turner, and Mojonera Tanks Unit .... 201 (81 ) 0 0 201 (81 ) 

Sycamore Canyon Unit ............................................ 262 (106 ) 0 7 (3 ) 269 (109 ) 

Pen ̃a Blanca Lake and Spring and Associated 

Tanks Unit ............................................................ 202 (82 ) 0 0 202 (82 ) 

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

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

Florida Canyon Unit ................................................. 4 (2 ) 0 0 4 (2 ) 

Eastern Slope of the Santa Rita Mountains Unit .... 172 (70 ) 0 14 (6 ) 186 (76 ) 

Las Cienegas National Conservation Area Unit ...... 1,364 (552 ) 186 (75 ) 0 1,550 (627 ) 

Scotia Canyon Unit .................................................. 70 (29 ) 0 0 70 (29 ) 

Carr Barn Pond Unit ................................................ 0.6 (0.3 ) 0 0 0.6 (0.3 ) 

Ramsey and Brown Canyons Unit .......................... 58 (24 ) 0 44 (18 ) 102 (42 ) 

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

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

Peloncillo Mountains Unit ........................................ 366 (148 ) 0 0 366 (148 ) 

Cave Creek Unit ...................................................... 234 (95 ) 0 0 234 (95 ) 

Leslie Creek Unit ..................................................... 26 (11 ) 0 0 26 (11 ) 

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


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 16347 

TABLE 2—CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS FOR THE CHIRICAHUA LEOPARD FROG—Continued 

[Area estimates reflect all land within critical habitat unit boundaries. Note that grazing allotments are not considered in private ownership.] 

Critical habitat unit 

Land ownership by type acres 

(hectares) Size of unit in acres 

(hectares) 

Federal State Private 

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

Deer Creek Unit ....................................................... 17 (7 ) 69 (28 ) 34 (14 ) 120 (49 ) 

Oak Spring and Oak Creek Unit .............................. 27 (11 ) 0 0 27 (11 ) 

Dragoon Mountains Unit .......................................... 74 (30 ) 0 0 74 (30 ) 

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

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

Buckskin Hills Unit ................................................... 232 (94 ) 0 0 232 (94 ) 

Crouch, Gentry, and Cherry Creeks, and Parallel 

Canyon Unit ......................................................... 334 (135 ) 64 (26 ) 6 (3 ) 404 (164 ) 

Ellison and Lewis Creeks Unit ................................. 83 (34 ) 0 15 (6 ) 98 (40 ) 

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

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

Concho Bill and Deer Creek Unit ............................ 17 (7 ) 0 0 17 (7 ) 

Campbell Blue and Coleman Creeks Unit ............... 174 (70 ) 0 0 174 (70 ) 

Tularosa River Unit .................................................. 335 (135 ) 0 1,575 (637 ) 1,910 (772 ) 

Deep Creek Divide Area Unit .................................. 408 (165 ) 0 102 (41 ) 510 (206 ) 

Main Diamond Creek Unit ....................................... 53 (21 ) 0 0 (0 ) 53 (21 ) 

Beaver Creek Unit ................................................... 132 (54 ) 0 25 (10 ) 157 (64 ) 

Kerr Canyon Unit ..................................................... 19 (8 ) 0 6 (2 ) 25 (10 ) 

West Fork Gila River Unit ........................................ 177 (72 ) 0 0 177 (72 ) 

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

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

Left Prong of Dix Creek Unit ................................... 13 (5 ) 0 0 13 (5 ) 

Rattlesnake Pasture Tank and Associated Tanks 

Unit ....................................................................... 59 (24 ) 0 0 59 (24 ) 

Coal Creek Unit ....................................................... 7 (3 ) 0 0 7 (3 ) 

Blue Creek Unit ....................................................... 24 (10 ) 0 12 (5 ) 36 (15 ) 

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

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

Seco Creek Unit ...................................................... 66 (27 ) 0 0 66 (27 ) 

Alamosa Warm Springs Unit ................................... 0.2 (0.1 ) 25 (10 ) 54 (22 ) 79.2 (32.1 ) 

Cuchillo Negro Warm Springs and Creek Unit ........ 3 (1 ) 3 (1 ) 0 6 (2 ) 

Ash and Bolton Springs Unit ................................... 0 0 49 (20 ) 49 (20 ) 

Mimbres River Unit .................................................. 0 0 1,097 (444 ) 1,097 (444 ) 

South Fork Palomas Creek Unit .............................. 23 (9 ) 0 0 23 (9 ) 

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

Total ........................................................... 6,958 (2,816 ) 348 (141 ) 3,040 (1,230 ) 10,346 (4,187 ) 

Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding. 

We present brief descriptions of all 

units below, and reasons why they meet 

the definition of critical habitat for the 

Chiricahua leopard frog. Unless 

indicated otherwise below, the physical 

or 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 and 

recognizes that floodplains are an 

integral part of the stream ecosystem. 

Ephemeral drainages (containing 

water for only brief periods) designated 

as critical habitat for dispersal corridors 

among breeding sites in 

metapopulations will, in some cases, be 

less distinct than the stream or river 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
16348 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

reaches where Chiricahua leopard 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, designated 

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 designated as critical 

habitat, most of which are 

impoundments for watering cattle or 

other livestock, designated 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. Chiricahua 

leopard frogs are commonly found 

foraging and basking within 20 feet of 

the shoreline of tanks. In addition, 

designated critical habitat extends 

upstream from ponds from the extent of 

the boundary for 328 ft (100 m) from the 

high water line. The designated critical 

habitat extends to 328 ft (100 m) 

upstream because there is often a 

riparian drainage coming into the tank, 

and Chiricahua leopard 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 (dam) in 

livestock impoundments. 

Recovery Unit 1 (Tumacacori-AtascosaPajarito Mountains, Arizona and 

Mexico) 

Twin Tanks and Ox Frame Tank Unit 

This unit 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. 

Occupancy of these livestock tanks at 

the time of listing is unknown, as they 

were not surveyed for frogs until 2007. 

We consider this unit to have been 

unoccupied at the time of listing for the 

purpose of this critical habitat 

designation. We have determined this 

unit to be essential to the conservation 

of the species because 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. 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 from expansion of mining 

activities, creation of aerial pollutants 

that could affect water chemistry or 

quality, and possible effects to the frog’s 

prey base. Addtionally, this unit 

contains both PCEs 1 and 2. 

Both sites are also at risk of 

introduction of nonnative predators, 

such as bullfrogs and nonnative 

crayfish. Presence of chytridiomycosis 

at these tanks has not been investigated. 

Garcia Tank Unit 

This unit consists of 0.7 ac (0.3 ha) of 

Federal land located on the Buenos 

Aires National Wildlife Refuge (NWR), 

Pima County, Arizona. It is a double 

tank; the southwest or downstream 

impoundment is more dependable at 

holding water than the upstream tank. 

However, both parts of the tank are 

designated as critical habitat. Garcia 

Tank is designated as critical habitat, 

because it was occupied at the time of 

listing and currently contains PCE 1 to 

support life-history functions essential 

for the conservation of the species. 

A breeding site, Garcia Tank 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 is also 

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 and are more than 9.0 mi (14 km) 

away. Hence, this site is isolated and is 

managed as an isolated, robust 

population. The features essential to the 

conservation of the species in this unit 

may require special management 

considerations or protection to ensure 

these characteristics persist over time. 

The greatest threats needing special 

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. If necessary, in the 

wake of sustained drought, alternative 

water supplies or interim measures may 

be necessary in the form of water 

hauling or a supply well. 

Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge 

(NWR) Central Tanks Unit 

This unit, consisting of 1,720 ac (696 

ha) of Federal land within the Buenos 

Aires 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 

designated as critical habitat because it 

was occupied at the time of listing and 

currently contains the features essential 

to the conservation of the species (PCEs 

1 and 2 are present). 

Breeding sites at permanent or nearly 

permanent tanks (Carpenter, Rock, 

State, Triangle, and New Round Hill) 

support the most stable 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 take 

place at these tanks in wet cycles 

(periods marked by successional 

precipitation events). Frogs occupied 

Carpenter, Rock, and Triangle Tanks in 

2002, at or about the time of listing. 

Tanks designated for designation 

include Carpenter, Rock, State, Triangle, 

New Round Hill, Banado, Choffo, Barrel 

Cactus, Sufrido, Hito, Morley, McKay, 

and Chongo Tanks. McKay Tank is a 

cluster of three tanks, all of which are 

designated as critical habitat. Also 

designated 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. 

The features essential to the 

conservation of the species in this unit 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 16349 

may require special management 

considerations or protection to alleviate 

the threats from bullfrogs and disease. 

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 persistence. 

Bonita, Upper Turner, and Mojonera 

Tanks Unit 

This unit includes 201 ac (81 ha) of 

Federal lands in the Coronado National 

Forest in the Pajarito and Atascosa 

Mountains, Santa Cruz County, Arizona. 

This unit is designated as critical habitat 

because it was occupied at the time of 

listing and currently contains the 

features essential to the conservation of 

the species (both PCEs 1 and 2). 

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 center of 

a future metapopulation. Three 

additional waters—Sierra Tank East, 

Sierra Tank West, and Sierra Well— 

require special management to increase 

breeding potential in these areas. Frogs 

currently occupy Bonita and Mojonera 

Tanks, and Bonita Tank 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 designated 

critical habitat in this unit 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 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, special management is 

needed because 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. Special 

management is also needed because 

frogs in this region have tested positive 

for chytridiomycosis, but the disease 

appears to have little effect on 

population persistence. 

Sycamore Canyon Unit 

This unit includes 262 ac (106 ha) of 

Federal lands in the Coronado National 

Forest 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 designated 

as critical habitat because it was 

occupied at the time of listing and 

currently contains the features essential 

to the conservation of the species (PCEs 

1 and 2). 

Sycamore Canyon is the only lotic 

(flowing water) site in Recovery Unit 1 

capable of supporting breeding 

subpopulations of 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. 

Designated 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 

unit form a viable metapopulation with 

Sycamore Canyon. Designated 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. 

Special management is required in 

this unit because bullfrogs have been a 

continuing problem, 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, and they could prey on 

larval Chiricahua leopard frogs. 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 

Arizona 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 because management 

for Sonora chub conservation is 

consistent with that for Chiricahua 

leopard frogs. However, the Chiricahua 

leopard frog may require additional 

measures. 

Pen ̃ a Blanca Lake and Spring and 

Associated Tanks Unit 

This unit includes 202 ac (82 ha) of 

Federal lands in the Coronado National 

Forest, Santa Cruz County, Arizona. 

This area is designated as critical habitat 

because it was occupied at the time of 

listing and contains PCEs 1 and 2, 

which support the life-history 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. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
16350 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

These sites were all occupied in 2009. 

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 stocked 

back into the lake, and plans are 

underway to reestablish a variety of 

warm water, predatory fish (such as 

largemouth bass (Micropterus 

salmoides)) in the spring of 2012. 

Despite the stocking of rainbow trout, 

Pen ̃ a Blanca Lake now contains a robust 

breeding population of Chiricahua 

leopard frogs, one of the largest single 

populations throughout its range. In 

April 2011, surveys of the lake 

confirmed that Chiricahua leopard frogs 

remained extant. In September 2011, 

surveys of the lake estimated the 

Chiricahua leopard frog population to 

number between 300 to 500 individuals, 

which is likely a low estimate, because 

only a single night survey was 

performed, and the shoreline habitat 

was complex, making observations 

difficult. During that survey, Chiricahua 

leopard frogs were calling, indicating 

that fall breeding may have been 

occurring. 

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. Designated 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. 

Special management is required in 

this unit because nonnative predators, 

particularly bullfrogs and sportfish, 

remain a serious threat. A concerted 

effort began in 2008 to clear the area of 

bullfrogs. The effort appears to be 

successful, and Chiricahua leopard frogs 

have clearly benefited because their 

population has grown exponentially in 

Pen ̃ a Blanca Lake. However, there is a 

continuing threat of recolonization or 

purposeful introduction of bullfrogs, 

and management of this area will 

continue to concentrate on preventing 

bullfrogs from recolonizing the area and 

eliminating those that do. As discussed, 

warmwater sportfish at Pen ̃ a Blanca 

Lake are scheduled to be stocked in the 

spring of 2012, which will affect the 

suitability of the lake as Chiricahua 

leopard frog habitat. However, in a May 

2011, section 7 consultation for 

sportfish stocking of the lake, 

conservation measures were established 

that require shoreline habitat to be 

managed in a manner to retain its 

complexity, which will provide some 

level of protection to resident 

Chiricahua leopard frogs from potential 

predation from sportfish. In that 

consultation, we determined that, given 

the number of conservation measures 

(which included managing against 

bullfrogs and ensuring the persistence of 

dense shoreline vegetation), the 

proposed stocking of warmwater fish 

would not result in adverse 

modification of this critical habitat unit. 

Given the robust population of 

Chiricahua leopard frogs that currently 

occurs in the lake and protection offered 

by attributes of existing shoreline 

habitat, we recognize the value of Pen ̃ a 

Blanca Lake as essential for the 

conservation of Chiricahua leopard 

frogs, even with the presence of 

warmwater sportfish. Chiricahua 

leopard frogs in this region have tested 

positive for chytridiomycosis; however, 

the disease appears to have little effect 

on population persistence. 

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

Florida Canyon Unit 

Florida Canyon includes 4 ac (2 ha) of 

Federal lands in the Coronado National 

Forest in the Santa Rita Mountains, 

Pima County, Arizona. 

Chiricahua leopard frogs currently 

occupy this site; however, its occupancy 

status at the time of listing is unknown. 

We consider this unit to have been 

unoccupied at the time of listing for the 

purpose of this critical habitat 

designation. We have determined this 

unit to be essential to the conservation 

of the species because it can be managed 

as a breeding population to provide 

overall stability to the species’ status. 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 a 5-mi (8-km) 

straight-line distance away in Unit 8; 

hence, it will be managed as an isolated 

population). PCE 1 is present and was 

enhanced in 2010, with the addition of 

a steel tank for breeding. Included in the 

designation is approximately 1,521 ft 

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

Florida Workstation property. 

The major threat is scarcity of water, 

particularly during long periods of 

drought. Also, 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 provides 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. 

Eastern Slope of the Santa Rita 

Mountains Unit 

This unit includes 172 ac (70 ha) of 

Federal lands in the Coronado National 

Forest and 14 ac (6 ha) of private lands 

in the Greaterville area in Pima County, 

Arizona. 

Included in the critical habitat 

designation are two metal troughs in 

Louisiana Gulch, Greaterville Tank, Los 

Posos Gulch Tank, and the 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. We consider 

this unit to have been unoccupied at the 

time of listing for the purpose of this 

critical habitat designation. We have 

determined this unit to be essential to 

the conservation of the species because 

it represents one of only two known 

occupied areas that support or likely 

support breeding activity for the 

Chiricahua leopard frog in the Santa 

Rita Mountains. More than 60 

Chiricahua leopard frogs were observed 

at Los Posos Gulch Tank in 2008. It was 

once thought to be a robust breeding 

site; however, it dried, and Chiricahua 

leopard 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 also unknown. Designated critical 

habitat also includes intervening 

drainages as follows: (1) From Los Posos 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 16351 

Gulch upstream to a saddle, then 

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. Additionally, this unit has both 

PCEs 1 and 2. 

The major threat in this unit is limited 

surface water. 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. 

Las Cienegas National Conservation 

Area Unit 

This unit is in Pima County, Arizona, 

and includes 1,364 ac (552 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 designated as critical 

habitat because it was occupied at the 

time of listing and currently contains 

PCEs 1 and 2 to support life-history 

functions essential for the conservation 

of the species. Close to 60 

metamorphosed Chiricahua leopard 

frogs and 400 tadpoles were released to 

Las Cienegas Natural Conservation Area 

during the fall of 2011. 

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 

an 8.0-mi (13-km) straight-line distance) 

from the next nearest population, which 

is in Eastern Slope of the Santa Rita 

Mountains; thus, the population(s) in 

this unit currently acts as an isolated 

population(s). 

Special management is required in 

this unit to improve habitat, control 

disease, and remove nonnative species. 

A collaborative, multi-partner recovery 

program for the Chiricahua leopard frog 

is ongoing at Las Cienegas; the program 

is funded by a substantial grant from the 

National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. 

The program focuses on creating 

opportunities for Chiricahua leopard 

frog head-starting, improving habitat, 

and removing nonnative species. 

Significant progress has been made to 

eliminate bullfrogs from the area, but 

bullfrogs are still present and represent 

a persistent problem. Chiricahua 

leopard frogs suffer from 

chytridiomycosis in this unit; however, 

the Chiricahua leopard 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. 

Empire Gulch and Cienega Creek 

downstream of its confluence with 

Empire Gulch is designated critical 

habitat for the federally endangered Gila 

chub (Gila intermedia) (70 FR 66663; 

November 2, 2005). The chub and the 

federally endangered Gila topminnow 

(Poeciliopsis occidentalis) (32 FR 4001; 

March 11, 1967) occur in Cienega Creek 

adjacent to Empire Gulch. The Gila 

topminnow also occurs in Empire 

Gulch. Neither species occurs in Cinco 

Ponds. Where these federally listed 

species occur with the Chiricahua 

leopard frog, some level of protection 

may be afforded to Chiricahua leopard 

frog habitat when a Federal nexus exists 

for projects that may affect one of these 

other federally listed species. 

Pasture 9 Tank 

This was a proposed unit that 

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. For this 

final rule, we are excluding all 0.5 ac 

(0.2 ha) in this unit under section 4(b)(2) 

of the Act (see Application of Section 

4(b)(2) of the Act, below). Therefore, 

this unit is not being designated as 

critical habitat in this final rule. 

Scotia Canyon Unit 

This unit includes 70 ac (29 ha) in 

Scotia Canyon, Huachuca Mountain, 

Cochise County, Arizona, and is entirely 

on Federal lands in the Coronado 

National Forest. 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. We consider this unit to be 

essential to the conservation of the 

Chiricahua leopard frog because of its 

potential to host a stable breeding 

population of Chiricahua leopard frogs 

in the future and the effort that has been 

dedicated to the area to mitigate threats 

posed by nonnative predators. 

Additionally, this unit has both PCEs 1 

and 2. 

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. 

Currently, this site is isolated from 

other populations. Hence this site is 

managed as an isolated population, but 

there is some potential for creating 

connectivity to the metapopulation in 

Ramsey and Brown Canyons via 

population reestablishment in Garden 

Canyon at Fort Huachuca. Scotia 

Canyon, with its pond and stream 

habitats, has the potential to host a 

robust population. 

Special management is required in 

this unit to remove nonnative predators 

and disease, protect from catastrophic 

wildlife, and improve aquatic habitat. 

Scotia Canyon, and sites around it, have 

been the subject of intensive bullfrog 

eradication and habitat enhancement 

work in preparation for the 2009 

reestablishment of 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 releases. 

In addition, barred tiger salamanders 

from the Peterson Ranch Pond tested 

positive for chytridiomycosis in 2009; 

however, in 2010, the Chiricahua 

leopard frogs appeared to be persisting 

in that same pond. Arizona Game and 

Fish Department biologists and 

Coronado National Forest staff visited 

the site on April 5, 2011, and verified 

the continued presence of salamanders 

(2 mature brachiates were observed). 

Nonetheless, disease has resulted in 

extirpations elsewhere in the Huachuca 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
16352 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

Mountains, and is considered a serious 

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 critical habitat designation for the 

Chiricahua leopard frog largely overlaps 

that of critical habitat for the 

endangered Lilaeopsis schaffneriana 

var. recurva (Huachuca water-umbel). 

The occurrence of critical habitat and 

listed species provide some level of 

protection to Chiricahua leopard frog 

habitat in this unit when a Federal 

nexus exists on a project that may affect 

the endangered plant Lilaeopsis 

schaffneriana var. recurva (Huachuca 

water-umbel). However, the Chiricahua 

leopard frog may require additional 

measures to facilitate conservation and 

recovery in these areas. 

Beatty’s Guest Ranch Unit 

This was a proposed unit that 

includes 10 ac (4.0 ha) of private lands 

in Miller Canyon on the east slope of the 

Huachuca Mountains, Cochise County, 

Arizona. For this final rule, we are 

excluding all 10 ac (4.0 ha) in this unit 

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

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

below). Therefore, this unit is not being 

designated as critical habitat in this 

final rule. 

Carr Barn Pond Unit 

This unit includes 0.6 ac (0.3 ha) of 

Federal lands in the Coronado National 

Forest 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 designated as critical 

habitat because it was occupied at the 

time of listing and currently contains 

PCE 1 to support life-history functions 

essential for the conservation of the 

species. 

As with Beatty’s Guest Ranch, Ramsey 

and Brown Canyons, 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 Ramsey and 

Brown Canyons and about 3.0 mi (4.8 

km) from Beatty’s Guest Ranch 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 Scotia Canyon, and 

Ramsey and Brown Canyons (see 

discussion above), but additional habitat 

creation or enhancement and 

population reestablishment would be 

needed. 

The features essential to the 

conservation of the species in this unit 

may require special management 

considerations or protection to alleviate 

the threats from nonnative predators 

and disease. Disease is a serious threat 

that can be an impediment to viable frog 

populations. The population has been 

eliminated after chytridiomycosis dieoffs 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. 

Ramsey and Brown Canyons Unit 

This unit includes 44 ac (18 ha) of 

private lands in Ramsey Canyon and 58 

ac (24 ha) of Federal lands in the 

Coronado National Forest in Brown and 

Ramsey Canyons, Huachuca Mountains, 

Cochise County, Arizona. Ramsey 

Canyon was not occupied at the time of 

listing but Brown Canyon was; 

therefore, we treat this unit as occupied. 

The unit currently contains PCEs 1 and 

2 to support life-history functions 

essential for the conservation of the 

species. 

This unit, along with Beatty’s Guest 

Ranch and Carr Barn Pond, has been 

managed intensively for Ramsey Canyon 

(= Chiricahua) leopard frog conservation 

since 1995. This unit is managed as a 

metapopulation. Places where 

Chiricahua leopard frogs have bred and 

that still retain PCE 1 include Ramsey 

Canyon, and Trout and Meadow Ponds 

on private lands owned by The Nature 

Conservancy. These private lands are 

excluded from designation as critical 

habitat in the Ramsey Canyon Box. In 

Brown Canyon, the Wild Duck Pond, 

House Pond, and the Brown Canyon 

Box (on Coronado National Forest 

lands) are designated as critical habitat. 

In addition, this critical habitat unit 

also includes dispersal sites and 

corridors for connectivity among 

breeding ponds as follows: (1) From the 

eastern boundary of The Nature 

Conservancy’s Bledsoe Parcel in the 

Ramsey Canyon Preserve downstream to 

a dirt road crossing of Ramsey Canyon 

at the mouth of the canyon, excluding 

The Nature Conservancy’s University of 

Toronto Parcel in the Ramsey Canyon 

Preserve; (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 currently 

considered occupied. Chiricahua 

leopard frogs have bred at the Box in 

Brown Canyon, although the site is too 

small to support more than just a few 

frogs. Special management is required 

in this unit because 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 House and 

Wild Duck Ponds have also undergone 

repeated disease-related declines and 

extirpations followed by 

reestablishments. The populations tend 

to persist for months or years after 

reestablishment only to experience 

chytridiomycosis outbreaks followed by 

declines or extirpation. 

Additional special management is 

required in this unit because nonnative 

species, drying, sedimentation, and fire 

threaten the frog. Nonnative predators 

threaten populations at the House and 

Wild Duck Ponds, where bullfrogs have 

been found periodically and goldfish 

(Carassius auratus auratus) 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 latter 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 

Ramsey Canyon Preserve is also 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 16353 

enrolled in the Arizona Game and Fish 

Department’s Statewide Safe Harbor 

Agreement, effective July 2010. Under 

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

Canyon Preserve (16 ac (6.5 ha)) is being 

excluded from critical habitat 

designation (see Application of Section 

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

Recovery Unit 3 (Chiricahua MountainsMalpai Borderlands-Sierra Madre, 

Arizona, New Mexico, and Mexico) 

High Lonesome Well Unit 

This previously proposed unit 

includes 0.4 ac (0.2 ha) of privately 

owned lands in the Playas Valley, 

Hidalgo County, New Mexico. 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. 

We reevaluated the High Lonesome 

Well Unit and have determined that it 

does not meet the definition of critical 

habitat, because it does not have the 

physical or biological features that are 

essential for the conservation of the 

species. The unit does not contain the 

terrestrial habitat that provides 

opportunities for foraging and basking, 

and that is immediately adjacent to or 

surrounding breeding aquatic and 

riparian habitat, which is a component 

of PCE 1. Therefore, we have removed 

the High Lonesome Well Unit from this 

final critical habitat designation. 

Peloncillo Mountains Unit 

This unit includes 366 ac (148 ha) of 

Federal lands in the Coronado National 

Forest in Hidalgo County, New Mexico. 

This unit is designated as critical habitat 

because it was occupied at the time of 

listing and currently contains PCEs 1 

and 2 to support life-history functions 

essential for the conservation of the 

species. 

Aquatic habitats in this unit include 

Geronimo, Javelina, State Line Tanks; 

Maverick Spring; and pools or ponds in 

the Cloverdale Cienega and along 

Cloverdale Creek below Canoncito 

Ranch Tank. Breeding has occurred in 

State Line Tank, and possibly other 

aquatic sites in this unit. Geronimo 

Tank was occupied at the time of listing. 

The occupancy status of the other sites 

at that time is unknown. These tanks 

and Maverick Spring have recent 

records of frogs (2007 to the present) 

and are considered currently occupied, 

with the exception of State Line Tank. 

State Line Tank was reported dry in 

2011, with no available habitat or refuge 

for Chiricahua leopard frogs and no 

frogs observed. It is not known whether 

the tank incurred damage or drought 

caused it to dry. However, because 

Chiricahua leopard frogs disperse from 

Canoncito Ranch Tank into Cloverdale 

Cienega, Cloverdale Creek, and 

surrounding tanks when water is 

present, State Line Tank still contains 

PCE 2. This unit is managed as a 

metapopulation. 

Also included in this unit are 

intervening drainages and uplands 

needed for connectivity among these 

aquatic sites, including: (1) Cloverdale 

Creek from Canoncito Ranch Tank 

downstream, including Cloverdale 

Cienega, and excluding portions of 

Cloverdale Creek and the cienega within 

private lands of Canoncito Ranch; (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. 

Special management is required in 

this unit because 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 this unit (289 ac (117 ha)) are 

excluded from the final rule for critical 

habitat (see Application of Section 

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

Cave Creek Unit 

This unit includes 234 ac (95 ha) of 

Federal lands in the Coronado National 

Forest in the Chiricahua Mountains, 

Cochise County, Arizona. This unit was 

occupied at the time of listing, is 

currently occupied, and currently 

contains both PCEs 1 and 2 to support 

life-history functions essential for the 

conservation of the species. Chiricahua 

leopard frogs and tadpoles were 

released during the fall of 2011, into a 

pond on the Southwestern Research 

Station, where they were initially reared 

in an onsite ranarium. Released frogs are 

expected to distribute themselves 

throughout Cave Canyon during ensuing 

years. 

Included in this unit is an 

approximate 4.76-mi (7.66-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. 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. This pond requires 

special management because 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. 

With restoration, this site could support 

a breeding population of 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. Chiricahua leopard frogs were 

occasionally seen in Cave Creek through 

2002. 

Special management is required in 

this unit because scarcity of water can 

occur in drought years, and 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. 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 Southwestern Research Station, 

owned by the American Museum of 

Natural History, maintains habitat 

occupied by the Chiricahua leopard 

frog, has signed a safe harbor agreement 

for the Chiricahua leopard frog, and is 

an active participant in recovery. The 

Service and Arizona Game and Fish 

Department (AGFD) are working with 

additional private landowners 

downstream of the designated 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 (92 ac (37 ha)) are 

being excluded from critical habitat 

designation (see Application of Section 

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


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
16354 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

Leslie Creek Unit 

The unit consists of 26 ac (11 ha) of 

National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) 

(Federal) lands on Leslie Canyon NWR, 

Cochise County, Arizona. This unit is 

designated as critical habitat because it 

was occupied at the time of listing and 

currently contains PCE 1 to support lifehistory functions essential for the 

conservation of the species. 

This unit is a stream system with 

intermittent pools and two small 

impoundments. The upstream boundary 

is the Leslie Canyon NWR, and its 

downstream limit is 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, to be 

part of a metapopulation. Hence it is 

managed as an isolated population. 

Special management is required in 

this unit because drought and lack of 

pools are limiting factors in this unit. 

Also, 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 plant Lilaeopsis 

schaffneriana var. recurva (Huachuca 

water-umbel), 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. While current management 

prescriptions for the Yaqui fishes will 

benefit the Chiricahua leopard frog in 

this area, additional actions may be 

necessary to conserve and recover the 

Chiricahua leopard frog in this area. 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. 

Rosewood and North Tanks Unit 

This was a proposed unit that 

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. For this final rule, we are 

excluding all 97 ac (39 ha) of this unit 

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

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

below). Therefore, this unit is not being 

designated as critical habitat in this 

final rule. 

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

Deer Creek Unit 

This unit consists of 17 ac (7 ha) of 

Federal lands in the 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 was occupied at the time of 

listing and contains the features 

essential to the conservation of the 

species (PCEs 1 and 2). 

Included in designated 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 large 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. 

Special management is required in 

this unit to alleviate periodic drought, 

which results in breeding sites drying. 

During a severe drought in 2002, all but 

one of the waters in the unit dried. 

Frogs 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 head-starting 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. 

Oak Spring and Oak Creek Unit 

This unit consists of 27 ac (11 ha) of 

Federal lands in the Coronado National 

Forestin the Galiuro Mountains, Graham 

County, Arizona. 

Occupancy status at the time of listing 

was unknown. We consider this unit to 

have been unoccupied at the time of 

listing for the purpose of this critical 

habitat designation. We have 

determined this unit to be essential to 

the conservation of the species because 

this unit contains important breeding 

sites necessary for recovery. It is just 

north of Deer Creek, but is too far (about 

1.6 mi (2.6 km)) overland (via straightline 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 unit is managed as an isolated 

population. Additionally, both PCEs 1 

and 2 are present in this unit. 

This unit is currently occupied; 

however, the site does not support 

enough Chiricahua leopard 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, typically 

contains water and supports several 

breeding Chiricahua leopard frogs. The 

stream reach designated for critical 

habitat includes the area where 

Chiricahua leopard frogs occur. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 16355 

The primary threat in this unit is 

extended periods of drought, which 

have caused all the pools to be subject 

to reduction or drying. Cattail Pool is 

spring-fed, and is likely the last pool to 

dry. Oak Spring is also used 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. 

Dragoon Mountains Unit 

This unit includes 74 ac (30 ha) of 

Federal lands in the Coronado National 

Forest in Cochise County, Arizona. This 

unit is designated as critical habitat 

because it was occupied at the time of 

listing and currently contains 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 designated 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 designated 

critical habitat is Halfmoon Tank, which 

supported a robust population of 

Chiricahua leopard frogs until 2002. It is 

unknown whether this tank supported 

Chiricahua leopard frogs at the time of 

listing. PCE 1 at Halfmoon Tank has 

been compromised by siltation and 

recent drought, which affects the 

amount and persistence of water. The 

tank is in need of renovation so that it 

may again dependably hold water and 

support breeding. 

Special management is required in 

this unit because 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 in this 

Recovery Unit is in Deer Creek). 

Also included in this critical habitat 

designation 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. 

Special management is also required 

in this unit because of 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 has been noted in 

these populations and habitats, although 

if introduced either would constitute an 

additional threat. 

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 a participant in those recovery 

activities. 

Recovery Unit 5 (Mogollon Rim-Verde 

River, Arizona) 

Buckskin Hills Unit 

This unit includes 232 ac (94 ha) of 

Federal lands in the Coconino National 

Forest in Yavapai County, Arizona. This 

unit is designated as critical habitat 

because it was occupied at the time of 

listing and has the features essential to 

the conservation of the species (PCEs 1 

and 2). 

Included in this designated 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 designation are two tanks 

occupied in 2001 that probably dried 

during a drought in 2002: Doren’s Defeat 

and Needed Tanks. The former holds 

water well in years with average 

precipitation 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 habitat for 

dispersing frogs. 

This designated 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. 

Special management is required in 

this unit because 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 

nonnative predatory fish or bullfrogs. If 

established, nonnatives could spread to 

sites designated in this rule as critical 

habitat. All of the tanks designated 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. 

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 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 

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 nonnative fish and crayfish. 

Crouch, Gentry, and Cherry Creeks, and 

Parallel Canyon Unit 

This unit includes 334 ac (135 ha) of 

Federal lands in the Tonto National 

Forest, 64 ac (26 ha) of AGFD lands, and 

6 ac (3 ha) of private lands in Gila 

County, Arizona. This unit is designated 

as critical habitat because it was 

occupied at the time of listing and 

currently contains PCEs 1 and 2 to 

support life-history functions essential 

for the conservation of the species. 

Included as designated 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
16356 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

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 follow-up 

removal of bullfrogs occurred in July 

2010 and again in May 2011, after 

bullfrog tadpoles were rediscovered in 

Trail Tank in the fall of 2010. Bullfrogs 

at the nearby ephemeral unnamed 102 

Roadside Tank were also eliminated in 

2010. Special management is required 

in this unit because of bullfrogs. 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 Chiricahua leopard frogs 

were observed in Cherry Creek in 2010. 

Special management is required in 

this unit because of predation by 

nonnative species, including bullfrogs, 

crayfish, and sportfish; 

chytridiomycosis, which was found in a 

Cherry Creek frog in 2009; and scarcity 

of water. None of the populations are 

robust due to the small size of breeding 

habitats. We believe that Trail Tank may 

provide enough aquatic habitat for a 

robust population. 

Ellison and Lewis Creeks Unit 

This unit includes 83 ac (34) of 

Federal lands in the Tonto National 

Forest and 15 ac (6 ha) of private lands 

in Gila County, Arizona. 

Occupancy status at the time of listing 

was unknown. We consider this unit to 

have been unoccupied at the time of 

listing for the purpose of this critical 

habitat designation. We have 

determined this unit to be essential to 

the conservation of the species because 

it contains important breeding habitat 

needed for recovery. Chiricahua leopard 

frogs have occasionally been found in 

Ellison Creek. In 1998, small numbers of 

frogs were observed, but were not seen 

again until 2006. Despite intensive 

surveys, no frogs were found in 2007 or 

2008. In 2009, egg masses from Crouch 

Creek were headstarted, and tadpoles 

and subadult frogs were stocked at the 

four sites listed above as potential 

breeding sites. Frogs from those releases 

appeared to be persisting at all four sites 

in 2010. Additional releases of Crouch 

Creek frogs occurred in July 2010. 

Additionally, this unit contains both 

PCEs 1 and 2. 

Included in this critical habitat 

proposal are potential breeding sites at 

Moore Saddle Tank #2, 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 designated 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 #2 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 #2 will be 

managed as an isolated and potentially 

robust population, leaving 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. 

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

Concho Bill and Deer Creek Unit 

This unit includes 17 ac (7 ha) of 

Federal lands in the Apache-Sitgreaves 

National Forest in Apache County, 

Arizona. 

Occupancy status at the time of listing 

was unknown. We consider this unit to 

have been unoccupied at the time of 

listing for the purpose of this critical 

habitat designation. We have 

determined this unit to be essential to 

the conservation of the species because 

it contains important breeding habitat 

necessary for recovery. 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 or not 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. 

Included in this critical habitat 

designation is a spring at Concho Bill 

and a meadow-ephemeral stream reach 

extending for approximately 2,667 ft 

(813 m) below the spring. Additionally, 

PCE 1 is present in this unit. 

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. 

Campbell Blue and Coleman Creeks 

Unit 

The unit includes 174 ac (70 ha) of 

Federal lands in the Apache-Sitgreaves 

National Forest in Greenlee County, 

Arizona. This unit is designated as 

critical habitat because it was occupied 

at the time of listing and currently 

contains 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 16357 

Campbell Blue Creek upstream to its 

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 the 

Concho Bill and Deer Creek Unit. Frogs 

were observed in Campbell Blue and 

Coleman Creeks in 2002, and then again 

in 2010. No more than a few frogs were 

seen during surveys (e.g., two were 

observed in 2010); however, the site is 

difficult to survey with its complex 

habitat characteristics, and frogs may 

easily elude observation. 

Special management is required in 

this unit because crayfish and rainbow 

trout are present throughout this stream 

system, which likely limit recruitment 

of frogs. In 2010, the creeks had 

numerous beaver (Castor canadensis) 

ponds and vegetation cover that are 

probably important as protection from 

predators. Off-channel pools provide 

better habitat than swiftly moving, 

shallow creeks. The presence of 

chytridiomycosis has not been 

investigated in this unit. 

Tularosa River Unit 

This unit contains 335 ac (135 ha) of 

Federal lands in the Gila National Forest 

and 1,575 ac (637 ha) of private lands 

in Catron County, New Mexico. This 

unit is designated as critical habitat 

because it was occupied at the time of 

listing and currently contains both PCEs 

1 and 2 to support life-history functions 

essential for the conservation of the 

species. 

This unit is an approximate 19.3-mi 

(31.1-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. 

Special management is required in 

this unit because 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 and rainbow 

trout are present, and bullfrogs have 

recently been found downstream of the 

Apache Creek confluence and just 

below Hell Hole. Both bullfrogs and 

crayfish are relatively recent arrivals to 

this system. Chytridiomycosis is also 

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 also 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 those areas today. 

Chytridiomycosis is considered a 

serious threat in this unit. 

The designated critical habitat 

extends just below Hell Hole, but not 

farther, because Chiricahua leopard 

frogs have not persisted below Hell Hole 

since the 1980s, likely because the area 

lacks the physical or biological features 

to support life-history functions. 

Deep Creek Divide Area Unit 

This unit consists of 408 ac (165 ha) 

of Federal lands in the Gila National 

Forest and 102 ac (41 ha) of private 

lands in Catron County, New Mexico. 

This unit is designated as critical habitat 

because it was occupied at the time of 

listing and currently contains both PCEs 

1 and 2 to support life-history functions 

essential for the conservation of the 

species. 

Included as designated 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 the South Fork of Negrito Creek, 

were occupied at the time of listing. 

Also included in this designated 

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. 

Special management is required in 

this unit because populations 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. Chiricahua leopard 

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 dieoff. 

Main Diamond Creek Unit 

This unit consists of 53 ac (21 ha) of 

Federal lands in the Gila National Forest 

and along Main Diamond Creek 

downstream of Links Ranch, Catron 

County, New Mexico. This unit is 

designated as critical habitat because it 

was occupied at the time of listing and 

currently contains PCE 1 to support lifehistory 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. This 

designated critical habitat includes an 

approximate 3,980-ft (1,213-m), 

perennial or nearly perennial reach of 

Main Diamond Creek from the 

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. As a result, it is managed 

as an isolated, robust population. 

Special management is required in 

this unit because bullfrogs at the 

impoundment likely prey upon 

Chiricahua leopard frogs. Also, 

chytridiomycosis has not been found in 

this population, but is a potential threat. 

The creek is primarily privately owned, 

and the landowner’s future plans 

regarding land management in the area 

are unknown. 

Beaver Creek Unit 

This unit consists of 132 ac (54 ha) of 

Federal lands in the 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
16358 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

downstream to its confluence with 

Taylor Creek. Below that confluence, 

the stream is known as the East Fork of 

the Gila River. 

Occupancy status at the time of listing 

was unknown. We consider this unit to 

have been unoccupied at the time of 

listing for the purpose of this critical 

habitat designation. We have 

determined this unit to be essential to 

the conservation of the species because 

Beaver Creek could support a robust 

population as it contains important 

breeding sites necessary for recovery. 

The nearest known population of 

Chiricahua leopard frogs is at Main 

Diamond Creek, 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. 

Additionally, PCE 1 is present in this 

unit. 

Chiricahua leopard frogs are currently 

present; however, the population is not 

well studied. The main threat in this 

unit is nonnative predators. Rainbow 

trout, bass (Micropterus 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. Also, if chytridiomycosis 

is present in this unit, the spring at the 

upstream end of the unit is a warm 

spring, which may help frogs survive 

with the disease (Johnson and 

Smorynski 1998, p. 45; Service 2007, 

p. 26). 

Kerr Canyon Unit 

This unit contains 19 ac (8 ha) of 

Federal lands in the Gila National Forest 

land and 6 ac (2 ha) of private land in 

Catron County, New Mexico. The 1.0-mi 

(1.6-km) reach extends from Kerr 

Spring, located on the Gila National 

Forest, through an intermittent drainage 

to Kerr Canyon Pond (sometimes 

referred to as the Kerr Canyon Trick 

Tank) to include the adjacent private 

property in Kerr Canyon. This unit is 

designated as critical habitat because it 

was occupied at the time of listing and 

currently contains PCE 1 to support lifehistory functions essential for the 

conservation of the species. 

Our records indicate that this area 

contained a robust breeding population 

of Chiricahua leopard frogs from 2002 

through 2007 (Service 2008, pp. 1–2). 

However, during surveys conducted in 

2008 and 2009, few individuals were 

observed (Service 2009a, p. 2). We 

believe the population experienced a 

mass mortality event or die-off from 

chytridiomycosis (Service 2009a, p. 2; 

Service 2009b, p. 1; Service 2009c, p. 1). 

Tiger salamanders have also recently 

been found in Kerr Canyon Pond 

(Service 2009a, p. 2); however, the 

abundance of these Chiricahua leopard 

frog predators is currently unknown. 

Partial surveys of Kerr Canyon Creek 

and Pond were conducted in 2010 and 

2011, with no Chiricahua leopard frogs 

observed; however, the area is still 

considered potentially occupied until 

more complete surveys can be 

conducted to determine whether 

Chiricahua leopard frogs persist in the 

area. 

Kerr Canyon will be managed as an 

isolated population, as it is currently 

separated from other populations in 

Tularosa Creek that are at least 6.5 mi 

(10.4 km) away. As recently as 2007, 

Kerr Canyon supported a robust 

breeding population (Service 2007a, 

p. 2). However, the current population 

status is greatly reduced from 2007 

numbers, or may possibly be extirpated. 

We suspect that observed declines in 

Chiricahua leopard frog abundance can 

be attributed to chytridiomycosis or 

predation. Because of the disease and 

competition with nonnative species, we 

find that the essential features in this 

area may require special management 

considerations or protection. 

West Fork Gila River Unit 

This unit contains 177 ac (72 ha) of 

Federal lands in the Gila National Forest 

in Catron County, New Mexico. This 

7.0-mi (11.2-km) reach runs from 

Turkeyfeather Spring, through an 

intermittent drainage to the confluence 

with the West Fork Gila River, then 

downstream in the West Fork Gila River 

to confluence with White Creek. Within 

this unit, the Upper West Fork is 

divided into two perennial segments by 

a 1.2-mi (2.0-km) long, ephemeral reach 

between Turkeyfeather Creek and White 

Creek. The area within this unit was 

occupied at the time of listing and 

currently contains PCE 1 to support lifehistory functions essential for the 

conservation of the species. 

The West Fork Gila River unit was 

occupied at the time of listing, and 

Chiricahua leopard frogs are currently 

present. The species has been observed 

in West Fork Gila River since 1995, with 

reproduction observed in 2001 (Blue 

Earth Ecological Consultants 2002, pp. 

16–17; Service 2007, pp. B–64; Service 

2009, p. 15). The population is not well 

studied; however, this section of the 

West Fork Gila River is long enough that 

it could support a robust population. 

This unit will be managed as an isolated 

population because it is likely occupied 

by low numbers of frogs and the nearest 

known, robust breeding population 

occurs in the Main Diamond Creek Unit, 

which is more than 5 mi (8 km) away 

along a perennial water course. Special 

management is required in this unit 

because there may be some potential for 

linking these populations if aquatic 

habitat between the units could be 

identified, renovated as needed, and 

populations of frogs established. 

However, potential sites and the 

presence or absence of PCE 2 in these 

connecting areas have not been 

investigated in any detail. 

Also, special management is required 

because chytridiomycosis has been 

found on Chiricahua leopard frogs 

within this unit. The Gila National 

Forest considers this unit to be free of 

nonnative predators. 

Recovery Unit 7 (Upper Gila-Blue River, 

Arizona and New Mexico) 

Left Prong of Dix Creek Unit 

This unit contains 13 ac (5 ha) of 

Federal lands in the Apache-Sitgreaves 

National Forest in Greenlee County, 

Arizona. 

Occupancy status at the time of listing 

was unknown. We consider this unit to 

have been unoccupied at the time of 

listing for the purpose of this critical 

habitat designation. We have 

determined this unit to be essential to 

the conservation of the species because 

it contains breeding habitat necessary 

for recovery. Additionally, this unit 

contains PCE 1. 

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; Chiricahua 

leopard frogs were observed again in 

2005. In 2010, the warm spring was not 

surveyed because a large boulder has 

lodged itself in the canyon, blocking 

access to the spring. 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. 

Currently, the population in the Left 

Prong is isolated. 

The next nearest known Chiricahua 

leopard frog population is at Rattlesnake 

Pasture Tank, 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 16359 

Chiricahua leopard frogs have ever been 

found in these tanks. 

This designated critical habitat 

overlaps that of critical habitat for Gila 

chub, which provides a level of 

protection for this unit. A healthy 

population of Gila chub, as well as other 

native fish, 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 fish 

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 designated critical 

habitat unit. The major related threat is 

likely sediment flowing into the stream. 

Rattlesnake Pasture Tank and 

Associated Tanks Unit 

This unit contains 59 ac (24 ha) of 

Federal lands in the Apache-Sitgreaves 

National Forest in Greenlee County, 

Arizona. 

Occupancy status at the time of listing 

was unknown. We consider this unit to 

have been unoccupied at the time of 

listing for the purpose of this critical 

habitat designation. We have 

determined this unit to be essential to 

the conservation of the species because 

it contains three tanks, along with 

dispersal corridors, that could help 

support a metapopulation. Additionally, 

both PCEs 1 and 2 are present in this 

unit. 

Included in the designated 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 extant. The 

species has not been found at 

Rattlesnake Gap or Buckhorn Tanks; 

however, all three tanks are well 

connected via drainages to allow 

movement of frogs from Rattlesnake 

Pasture Tank to the other tanks. 

Rattlesnake Gap and Buckhorn Tanks 

have historically contained water. Other 

tanks in the area, including Cold Spring 

Mountain Tank and Rattlesnake Tanks 

#1 and 2, do not hold water for a long 

enough period to support a breeding 

population of frogs, and Chiricahua 

leopard frogs have not been found at 

these other tanks. The three tanks 

designated could help support a 

metapopulation; however, habitat work 

that secures water availability will be 

needed to achieve the fourth breeding 

site of the metapopulation. 

The major threat in this unit is 

nonnative predators, such as tiger 

salamanders, that occur in all three 

tanks and likely prey upon Chiricahua 

leopard frogs. However, a healthy 

population of Chiricahua leopard frogs 

occurs with native 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. 

There is potential for bullfrogs to 

become established at Rattlesnake Gap 

Tank. These tanks are filled by rainfall, 

but Rattlesnake Pasture Tank may be 

spring-fed as well. Nonetheless, there is 

some risk that these tanks, particularly 

Buckhorn Tank, could dry during an 

extended drought. 

Coal Creek Unit 

This unit consists of 7 ac (3 ha) of 

Federal lands in the Apache-Sitgreaves 

National Forest in Greenlee County, 

Arizona. 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. 

Occupancy status at the time of listing 

was unknown. We consider this unit to 

have been unoccupied at the time of 

listing for the purpose of this critical 

habitat designation. We have 

determined this unit to be essential to 

the conservation of the species because 

it contains important breeding habitat 

necessary for recovery. This creek dries 

to isolated pools, without the effect of 

snowmelt and summer precipitation, 

where Chiricahua leopard frogs take 

refuge. However, during the spring and 

summer, Coal Creek typically carries 

water, and the Chiricahua leopard frogs 

distribute themselves throughout this 

reach. Additionally, this unit contains 

PCE 1. 

This population was discovered in 

2003, and is still considered extant. This 

unit is isolated from other Chiricahua 

leopard frog populations; the nearest is 

Rattlesnake Pasture Tank, which is 5.1 

mi (8.2 km) to the west over rugged 

terrain. 

Neither chytridiomycosis nor 

nonnative predators is known to be a 

problem in this unit. However, one 

major threat in this unit is the potential 

for wildfires that could result in ash 

flow, sedimentation, and erosion in Coal 

Creek, which would degrade or 

eliminate habitat for Chiricahua leopard 

frogs. Another primary threat is 

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. 

Blue Creek Unit 

This unit includes 24 ac (10 ha) of 

Bureau of Land Management land and 

12 ac (5 ha) of private lands in Grant 

County, New Mexico. This unit is 

designated as critical habitat because it 

was occupied at the time of listing and 

currently contains PCE 1 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 currently 

breed. Additional habitat may occur 

upstream on private or State lands. 

However, the private reach immediately 

above the designated critical habitat 

lacks breeding pools, and no Chiricahua 

leopard frogs have been observed 

(Barnitz 2010, p. 1). The lands upstream 

of the private land have not been 

surveyed. 

The nearest Chiricahua leopard frog 

population is at Coal Creek more than 

a 22 mi (35 km), straight-line distance, 

which is too great a distance to be 

considered part of a metapopulation. 

Special management is required 

because the primary limiting factors in 

this unit are lack of perennial flow and 

periodic scouring flash flooding during 

the summer that likely wash tadpoles 

downstream. In some years, the entire 

reach goes dry in June; however, in 

other years with normal to above normal 

precipitation, frogs breed throughout 

this reach. Nonnative aquatic predators 

are absent. Although a Chiricahua 

leopard frog tested positive for 

chytridiomycosis in 2009, no die-offs 

have been noted. Also, special 

management is required because 

wildfire could result in ash flow, 

sedimentation, and erosion in Blue 

Creek, which would degrade or 

eliminate habitat for Chiricahua leopard 

frogs. 

Recovery Unit 8 (Black-Mimbres-Rio 

Grande, New Mexico) 

Seco Creek Unit 

This unit includes 66 ac (27 ha) of 

Federal lands in the Gila National Forest 

in Sierra County, New Mexico. This area 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
16360 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

was occupied at the time of listing and 

currently contains both PCEs 1 and 2 to 

support life-history functions essential 

for the conservation of the species. 

The designated critical habitat 

includes the North Fork of Seco Creek 

from Sawmill Well downstream to its 

confluence with Middle Seco Creek, to 

include Sucker Ledge, but excludes the 

portion of North Seco Creek on private 

lands. This amounts to an approximate 

drainage distance of 3.32 miles (5.34 

km). 

Breeding of Chiricahua leopard frogs 

has not been observed at Sawmill or 

Sucker Ledge, but has been observed at 

Davis Well. At the time of listing, 

Chiricahua leopard frogs were extant at 

Sucker Ledge and Davis Well, and the 

status at Sawmill Well at that time was 

unknown. The North Fork of Seco 

Creek, including Sawmill Well, Sucker 

Ledge, and Davis Well, is currently 

occupied. PCEs 1 and 2 are present in 

the unit. 

This unit contributes to a 

metapopulation, and Chiricahua leopard 

frogs move among these sites and sites 

on the Ladder Ranch using the 

intervening creeks. This unit with the 

areas on the Ladder Ranch comprises 

the most stable metapopulation in New 

Mexico. 

Special management is required in 

this unit because chytridiomycosis has 

caused extirpations in this region, and 

in 2001, four tadpoles from Seco Creek 

appeared to show signs of the disease. 

In June 2007, a single sample (out of 

seven samples) from Artesia Well and a 

single sample (out of nine samples) from 

LM Bar Well tested positive for 

chytridiomycosis. Both of these were 

considered ‘‘weak positive’’ by the 

laboratory and may have been false 

positives. Extensive testing since then 

has failed to produce additional positive 

tests. Bullfrogs have been found 

occasionally on adjacent private lands, 

but the Ladder Ranch has made efforts 

to remove and control them to the best 

of their ability. Barred tiger salamanders 

occur in most waters in the area and 

likely prey upon Chiricahua leopard 

frog tadpoles and small adults, but do 

not appear to threaten the Chiricahua 

leopard frog population as a whole. 

Turner Endangered Species Fund, 

Turner Enterprises, and the Ladder 

Ranch have over a 10-year record of 

implementing recovery and 

conservation measures for the 

Chiricahua leopard frog on the Ladder 

Ranch. 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). Recovery actions for 

the Chiricahua leopard frog have 

included fencing some of the waters 

from the bison, monitoring and 

researching Chiricahua leopard frog 

populations and habitat, maintaining 

perennial water for frogs, improving 

habitat for Chiricahua leopard frogs, 

removing and controlling bullfrogs, 

using steel rim tanks for refugia 

populations, and most recently 

constructing a captive breeding facility 

to rear Chiricahua leopard frogs for 

population augmentation and 

reestablishment to contribute to the 

range-wide recovery of the Chiricahua 

leopard frog. 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. Under 

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

on the Ladder Ranch in this unit (310 

ac (247 ha)) are excluded from critical 

habitat designation (see Application of 

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

Alamosa Warm Springs Unit 

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 

designated as critical habitat because it 

was occupied at the time of listing and 

currently contains PCE 1 to support lifehistory functions essential for the 

conservation of the species. 

Designated 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 as recent as 2006 

(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, but the Chiricahua leopard 

frogs persist, presumably aided by the 

warm waters. 

This is a robust breeding population, 

but it is too far removed from other 

Chiricahua leopard frogs to be part of a 

metapopulation. The nearest population 

is 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. This site is 

drought-resistant because of perennial 

spring flow. Nonnative aquatic 

predators are unknown at this site, but 

if introduced, they could pose a serious 

threat to the population. Special 

management is required in this unit 

because heavy livestock grazing on the 

site and 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. 

Cuchillo Negro Warm Springs and Creek 

Unit 

This unit consists of 3 ac (1 ha) of 

Bureau of Land Management and 3 ac (1 

ha) of New Mexico State lands in Sierra 

County, New Mexico. This unit was 

occupied at the time of listing and 

currently contains both PCEs 1 and 2 to 

support life-history functions essential 

for the conservation of the species. 

Two springs on Bureau of Land 

Management land are the source of 

stream that runs for about 6.0 mi (9.6 

km) down Cuchillo Negro Creek; 

however, Chiricahua leopard frogs are 

rarely found more than 1.2 mi (2.0 km) 

downstream of the warm springs 

(Christman 2006a, p. 8). 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 snorth, excluding the portion of 

Cuchillo Negro Creek on privately 

owned lands, for an approximate stream 

distance of 2,518 feet (768 meters). 

Special management is required in 

this unit because chytridiomycosis is 

present in this population, and it is 

likely that Chiricahua leopard 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 Seco Creek, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 16361 

about 12.7 mi (20.3 km) to the 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. 

Plains leopard frogs, however, probably 

do not threaten the Chiricahua leopard 

frog. Bullfrogs have been recorded in 

Cuchillo Negro Creek, but only rarely, 

and do not appear to breed or persist in 

the reach with the leopard frogs 

(Christman 2006a, p. 9). 

Special management is required in 

this unit because the primary threats in 

this unit are cleaning out of the channel 

by the Cuchillo Acequia Association, 

periodic flooding that flushes tadpoles 

downstream and results in silts 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, although 

that flow resulted in extensive damage 

to the springs, stream, and riparian 

vegetation (67 FR 40802; June 13, 2002). 

The private landowner downstream is 

the Ladder Ranch, and as described 

above, the ranch is an active participant 

in Chiricahua leopard frog recovery. 

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

private lands in this unit (23 ac (9 ha)) 

are excluded from critical habitat 

designation (see Application of Section 

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

Ash and Bolton Springs Unit 

This unit consists of 49 ac (20 ha) of 

private lands east of Hurley in Grant 

County, New Mexico. This unit was 

occupied at the time of listing and 

currently contains both PCEs 1 and 2 to 

support life-history functions essential 

for the conservation of the species. 

Included in this unit are Ash and 

Bolton Springs, and 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 of Chiricahua leopard 

frogs at Ash and Bolton Springs were 

present at the time of listing and 

currently persist. These sites were once 

part of a metapopulation, but all other 

sites have been extirpated. 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 designated for critical 

habitat, and Freeport-McMoRan and its 

predecessor, Phelps-Dodge, have been 

cooperative in conservation of the 

Chiricahua leopard frog. 

Special management is required in 

this unit because chytridiomycosis is a 

threat. Large 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. 

Mimbres River Unit 

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

of private lands in Grant County, New 

Mexico. The unit was occupied at the 

time of listing and currently contains 

PCE 1 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. 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 in the Ash and Bolton 

Springs Unit, more than 10 mi (16 km) 

away from the lower Mimbres River 

reach across rugged terrain. 

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) 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 critical habitat 

reaches are largely perennial, although 

portions of the river dry out during 

drought. Chiricahua leopard frogs are 

currently present in both reaches of the 

Mimbres River. 

The best breeding site in the upper 

reach is Moreno Spring, which harbors 

a relatively stable population of 

Chiricahua leopard frogs. In the upper 

reach, Chiricahua leopard frogs have 

been observed to breed in the river and 

at off-channel pools on nearby private 

property. Breeding occurs in the lower 

river reach as well, where an additional 

robust population is present near San 

Juan. 

Special management is required in 

this unit because 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. Special 

management is also required in this unit 

because agricultural and rural 

development, water diversions, 

groundwater pumping, and leveeing and 

bankline work to protect properties from 

flooding are threats. Periodic flooding 

probably washes some tadpoles out of 

the system and results in silts in pools 

used for breeding. No bullfrogs or 

crayfish have been found in this unit; if 

introduced, they could pose a 

significant threat. 

The threatened Chihuahua chub (Gila 

nigrescens) occurs in the upper reach, 

and rainbow trout, a nonnative species, 

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), and rainbow trout 

(Johnson and Smorynski 1998, p. 132). 

These species may escape from the 

reservoir periodically into the Mimbres 

River. 

Presence of the Chihuahua chub 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 (510 ac (206 

ha)) (not including Moreno Spring or 

Milagros Ranch (formerly known as 

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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
16362 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

frog, and other riparian and aquatic 

resources, although no formal 

conservation plan has been developed 

for this area or its resources. Therefore, 

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

lands owned by The Nature 

Conservancy in this unit (510 ac (206 

ha)) are not excluded from critical 

habitat designation (see Application of 

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

South Fork Palomas Creek Unit 

This unit consists of 23 ac (9 ha) of 

Federal lands in the Gila National Forest 

land in Sierra County, New Mexico. 

This 4.5-mi (7.3-km) reach of South 

Fork Palomas Creek runs downstream 

from Wagonbed Canyon to the boundary 

with the Ladder Ranch. This unit was 

occupied at the time of listing, is 

currently occupied, and contains both 

PCEs 1 and 2 to support life-history 

functions essential for the conservation 

of the species. Special management is 

required in this unit to control bullfrogs. 

Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, 106 

ac (43 ha) of private lands in this unit, 

which are part of the Ladder Ranch, are 

excluded from critical habitat 

designation (see Application of Section 

4(b)(2) of the Act, below). Management 

for the Chiricahua leopard frog on the 

Ladder Ranch included fencing the 

ranch’s waters from bison that graze the 

area, reestablishing of populations using 

wild-to-wild translocations, maintaining 

of wells and tanks, and controlling 

bullfrogs. The Ladder Ranch also 

monitors the Chiricahua leopard frogs 

and habitats, and has recently initiated 

a captive-breeding facility and program 

to rear frogs for population 

augmentation and reestablishment. 

Effects of Critical Habitat Designation 

Section 7 Consultation 

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

Federal agencies, including the Service, 

to ensure that any action they fund, 

authorize, or carry out is not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of 

any endangered species or threatened 

species or result in the destruction or 

adverse modification of designated 

critical habitat of such species. In 

addition, section 7(a)(4) of the Act 

requires Federal agencies to confer with 

the Service on any agency action which 

is likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of any species proposed to be 

listed under the Act or result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

proposed critical habitat. 

Decisions by the 5th and 9th Circuit 

Courts of Appeals have invalidated our 

regulatory 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 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 continue to serve its intended 

conservation role for the species. 

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. Examples of actions that are 

subject to the section 7 consultation 

process are actions on State, Tribal, 

local, or private lands that require 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 the 

Service under section 10 of the Act) or 

that involve some other Federal action 

(such as funding from the Federal 

Highway Administration, Federal 

Aviation Administration, or the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency). 

Federal actions not affecting listed 

species or critical habitat, and actions 

on State, Tribal, local, or private lands 

that are not federally funded or 

authorized, do not require section 7 

consultation. 

As a result of section 7 consultation, 

we document compliance with the 

requirements of section 7(a)(2) through 

our issuance of: 

(1) A concurrence letter for Federal 

actions that 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, or 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 and/or destroy or 

adversely modify critical habitat, we 

provide reasonable and prudent 

alternatives to the project, if any are 

identifiable, that would avoid the 

likelihood of jeopardy and/or 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat. We define ‘‘reasonable 

and prudent alternatives’’ (at 50 CFR 

402.02) as alternative actions identified 

during consultation that: 

(1) Can be implemented in a manner 

consistent with the intended purpose of 

the action, 

(2) Can be implemented consistent 

with the scope of the Federal agency’s 

legal authority and jurisdiction, 

(3) Are economically and 

technologically feasible, and 

(4) Would, in the Director’s opinion, 

avoid the likelihood of jeopardizing the 

continued existence of the listed species 

and/or avoid the likelihood of 

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 

retained discretionary involvement or 

control over the action (or the agency’s 

discretionary involvement or control is 

authorized by law). Consequently, 

Federal agencies sometimes may 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. 

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. Activities that may destroy or 

adversely modify critical habitat are 

those that alter the physical or 

biological features to an extent that 

appreciably reduces the conservation 

value of critical habitat for Chiricahua 

leopard frogs. As discussed above, the 

role of critical habitat is to support lifehistory needs of the species and provide 

for the conservation of the species. 

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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 16363 

for the Chiricahua leopard frog include, 

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 grazing; 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, Primary Constituent 

Elements for the Chiricahua Leopard 

Frog). 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 (non-point 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 1 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 Chiricahua leopard frogs 

that is robust enough to be viable over 

time. Similarly, ephemeral, intermittent, 

or perennial ponds can be important 

stop-over points for Chiricahua leopard 

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 

fish, bullfrogs, tiger salamanders, 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 fish, 

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 move 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 

chytridiomycosis 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 

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

stocked with predatory fish, bullfrogs, 

or crayfish; 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 

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: 

(1) An assessment of the ecological 

needs on the installation, including the 

need to provide for the conservation of 

listed species; 

(2) A statement of goals and priorities; 

(3) A detailed description of 

management actions to be implemented 

to provide for these ecological needs; 

and 

(4) A monitoring and adaptive 

management plan. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
16364 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

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 with a completed INRMP within 

the critical habitat designation. 

Therefore, we are not exempting lands 

from this final designation of critical 

habitat for the Chiricahua leopard frog 

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. 

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 the analysis 

indicates that the benefits of exclusion 

outweigh the benefits of inclusion, the 

Secretary may exercise his discretion to 

exclude the area only if such exclusion 

would not result in the extinction of the 

species. 

When identifying 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 identifying 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 

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. 

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 an 

HCP in southeastern Arizona and 

southwestern New Mexico. 

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 or 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 that area 

from the designation. 

Based on the information provided by 

entities seeking exclusion, as well as 

any additional public comments we 

received, we evaluated whether certain 

lands in the proposed critical habitat 

were appropriate for exclusion from this 

final designation under section 4(b)(2) 

of the Act. We are excluding the 

following areas from critical habitat 

designation for the Chiricahua leopard 

frog. Table 3 below provides 

approximate areas (ac, ha) of lands that 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 16365 

meet the definition of critical habitat but 

are being excluded under section 4(b)(2) 

of the Act from the final critical habitat 

rule. 

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

Unit Specific area to be excluded 

Area meeting the 

definition of critical 

habitat in the unit 

(acres (hectares)) 

Exclusion 

in acres 

(hectares) 

Pasture 9 Tank Unit .............................................. Entire Pasture 9 Tank Unit .................................. 0.5 (0.2) 0.5 (0.2) 

Beatty’s Guest Ranch Unit ................................... Entire Beatty’s Guest Ranch ................................ 10 (4) 10 (4) 

Ramsey and Brown Canyons Unit ....................... Ramsey Canyon Preserve ................................... 123 (50) 16 (6) 

Peloncillo Mountains Unit ..................................... Canoncito Ranch .................................................. 655 (265) 289 (117) 

Cave Creek Unit ................................................... Southwestern Research Station .......................... 326 (132) 92 (37) 

Rosewood and North Tanks Unit ......................... Entire Rosewood and North Tanks ...................... 97 (39) 97 (39) 

Seco Creek Unit .................................................... Ladder Ranch ....................................................... 676 (274) 610 (247) 

Cuchillo Negro Warm Springs and Creek Unit ..... Ladder Ranch ....................................................... 29 (11) 23 (9) 

South Fork Palomas Creek Unit ........................... Ladder Ranch ....................................................... 129 (52) 106 (43) 

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

We are excluding these areas because 

we believe that: 

(1) Their value for conservation will 

be preserved for the foreseeable future 

by existing protective actions, or 

(2) They are appropriate for exclusion 

under the ‘‘other relevant factor’’ 

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

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 prepared a draft economic 

analysis of the proposed critical habitat 

designation and related factors 

(Industrial Economics 2011). The draft 

analysis, dated September 15, 2011, was 

made available for public review and 

comment from September 21, 2011, 

through October 21, 2011 (76 FR 58441). 

Following the close of the comment 

period, a final analysis (dated December 

9, 2011) of the potential economic 

effects of the designation was developed 

taking into consideration the public 

comments and any new information 

(Industrial Economics 2011). 

The intent of the final economic 

analysis (FEA) is to quantify the 

economic impacts of all potential 

conservation efforts for the Chiricahua 

leopard frog; some of these costs will 

likely be incurred regardless of whether 

or not we designate critical habitat 

(baseline). The economic impact of the 

final critical habitat designation is 

analyzed by comparing scenarios both 

‘‘with critical habitat’’ and ‘‘without 

critical habitat.’’ The ‘‘without critical 

habitat’’ scenario represents the baseline 

for the analysis, considering protections 

already in place for the species (e.g., 

under the Federal listing and other 

Federal, State, and local regulations). 

The baseline, therefore, represents the 

costs incurred regardless of whether or 

not critical habitat is designated. The 

‘‘with critical habitat’’ scenario 

describes the incremental impacts 

associated specifically with the 

designation of critical habitat for the 

species. The incremental conservation 

efforts and associated impacts are those 

not expected to occur absent the 

designation of critical habitat for the 

species. In other words, the incremental 

costs are those attributable solely to the 

designation of critical habitat above and 

beyond the baseline costs; these are the 

costs we consider in the final 

designation of critical habitat. The 

analysis looks retrospectively at 

baseline impacts incurred since the 

species was listed, and forecasts both 

baseline and incremental impacts likely 

to occur with the designation of critical 

habitat. 

The FEA also addresses how potential 

economic impacts are likely to be 

distributed, including an assessment of 

any local or regional impacts of habitat 

conservation and the potential effects of 

conservation activities on government 

agencies, private businesses, and 

individuals. The FEA measures lost 

economic efficiency associated with 

residential and commercial 

development and public projects and 

activities, such as economic impacts on 

water management and transportation 

projects, Federal lands, small entities, 

and the energy industry. Decisionmakers can use this information to 

assess whether the effects of the 

designation might unduly burden a 

particular group or economic sector. 

Finally, the FEA considers economic 

impacts to activities from 2012 

(expected year of final critical habitat 

designation) through 2031 (Industrial 

Economics 2011, p. 2–18). The FEA 

quantifies economic impacts of 

Chiricahua leopard frog conservation 

efforts associated with the following 

categories of activity: 

(1) Livestock grazing: Includes 

draining stock tanks, damage to 

shoreline habitat, disease transmission, 

and changes to water quality due to 

intense livestock use. 

(2) Mining: Includes mining 

operations and associated miningrelated contaminants and runoff. 

(3) Water diversion and management: 

Includes groundwater pumping 

(lowering of the water table), 

agricultural development, and 

operations of dams and diversions. 

(4) Residential and commercial 

development and transportation: 

Includes sedimentation and runoff 

associated with construction, as well as 

stream channelization and loss of 

riparian or wetland vegetation. 

(5) Fires and fire suppression 

activities: Includes ash flow and fire 

retardants from fires and fire 

suppression activities. 

(6) Nonnative native species 

introductions and disease: Includes 

saltcedar control, stocking of nonnative 

fish, bullfrogs, or crayfish; and disease 

transmission. 

The FEA estimates that no significant 

economic impacts are likely to result 

from the designation of critical habitat. 

Incremental costs are limited to 

administrative efforts of new and 

reinitiated consultations to consider 

adverse modification of critical habitat 

for the Chiricahua leopard frog. A 

significant level of baseline protection 

exists for the Chiricahua leopard frog, 

addressing a broad range of habitat 

threats. Nearly all units have some level 

of conservation, with 59 percent of 

proposed critical habitat on federally 

owned land and a number of 

conservation easements and safe harbor 

agreements on privately owned land. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
16366 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

However, the FEA does foresee 

additional administrative costs 

associated with the designation of 

critical habitat. In total, incremental 

administrative efforts are estimated at 

$1,300,000, or $115,000 on an 

annualized basis (discounted at 7 

percent). 

In conclusion, no significant 

economic impacts are likely to result 

from the designation of critical habitat, 

and incremental costs are limited to 

administrative efforts of new and 

reinitiated consultations to consider 

adverse modification of critical habitat. 

As a result, no areas are being excluded 

from the final designation based on a 

disproportionate economic impact to 

any entity or sector. A copy of the FEA 

with supporting documents may be 

obtained by contacting the Arizona 

Ecological Services Field Office (see 

ADDRESSES) or by downloading from the 

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

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 

rule, we have determined that the lands 

within the 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 excluding 

any lands 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. 

Land and Resource Management Plans, 

Conservation Plans, or Agreements 

Based on Conservation Partnerships 

We consider a current plan or 

agreement to provide adequate 

management or protection if it meets the 

following criteria: 

(1) The plan is finalized, 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 effective 

and implemented for the foreseeable 

future, based on past practices, written 

guidance, or regulations; 

(3) The plan provides conservation 

strategies and measures consistent with 

currently accepted principles of 

conservation biology that provide for 

the conservation of the essential 

physical or biological features of habitat; 

and 

(4) 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. 

We believe that the Malpai 

Borderlands HCP, Malpai Borderlands 

Safe Harbor Agreement, AGFD Safe 

Harbor Agreement, and our partnership 

with the Laddder Ranch fulfill the above 

criteria, and we are excluding nonFederal lands managed in accordance 

with these tenants that provide for the 

conservation of the Chiricahua leopard 

frog. 

Two umbrella safe harbor agreements, 

the Malpai Borderlands Safe Harbor 

Agreement and the AGFD Safe Harbor 

Agreement, 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 assessed the appropriateness of 

exclusions from critical habitat for nonFederal lands in designated critical 

habitat units that are enrolled under 

either the AGFD Safe Harbor Agreement 

or the Malpai Borderlands Safe Harbor 

Agreement. We believe that these 

agreements fulfill the above criteria, and 

are excluding non-Federal lands 

managed in accordance with these 

tenants that provide for the conservation 

of the Chiricahua leopard frog. We also 

considered 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 excluded 

from this critical habitat designation are 

discussed and described below. 

Malpai Borderlands Safe Harbor 

Agreement 

The Malpai Borderlands Safe Harbor 

Agreement specifies the primary 

biological objective of establishing and 

managing metapopulations of 

Chiricahua leopard frogs on enrolled 

properties that currently include 289 ac 

(117 ha) of lands on the Canoncito 

Ranch and 97 ac (39 ha) on the Magoffin 

Ranch in southeastern Arizona and 

southwestern New Mexico. The Malpai 

Borderlands Safe Harbor Agreement 

provides for management for existing 

populations of Chiricahua leopard frogs 

and establishment of new populations 

through reestablishment and 

translocations, which are expected to 

increase the distribution and numbers of 

Chiricahua leopard frogs on private 

lands. The metapopulations created and 

managed under the Malpai Borderlands 

Safe Harbor Agreement will be based on 

‘‘primary sites’’ (sites that reliably hold 

surface water or retain moisture yearround in all years) and ‘‘secondary 

sites’’ that facilitate the metapopulation 

dynamic, but may dry one out of every 

2 years on average. The Malpai 

Borderlands Safe Harbor Agreement also 

calls for special management of regional 

dispersal habitat between potentially 

occupied habitats on neighboring land, 

such as the San Bernardino National 

Wildlife Refuge. 

There are several management actions 

that provide direct or indirect 

conservation benefit to Chiricahau 

leopard frogs under the Malpai 

Borderlands Safe Harbor Agreement. 

Examples include: (1) Specific 

considerations for stock tank 

construction and maintainance that 

benefit the Chiricahua leopard frog 

(construction of double-tanks, refugia 

sites at single tank systems, fencing, 

deepening, well drilling, installing 

pipelines, etc.); (2) managing livestock 

operations in a manner that specifically 

minimizes potential adverse effects to 

Chiricahua leopard frog populations to 

the maximum extent practicable; (3) 

avoiding intentional or accidental 

release of nonnative species to enrolled 

lands, as well as maintaining vigilance 

against third parties releasing 

nonnatives, reporting observations of 

nonnatives, and controlling nonnatives; 

and (4) implementing measures to 

ensure that prescribed fire, herbicide 

treatments, and other land treatments 

are conducted in a manner that 

promotes the long-term maintenance of 

habitat characteristics essential to 

Chiricahua leopard frog populations. 

For specific details of conservation 

activities implemented under the 

Malpai Borderlands Safe Harbor 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 16367 

Agreement, please see Malpai 

Borderlands Group (2004, pp. 10–24). 

Benefits of Inclusion—Malpai 

Borderlands Safe Harbor Agreement 

The principle benefit of including an 

area in a critical habitat designation is 

the requirement of Federal agencies to 

ensure that actions that they fund, 

authorize, or carry out are not likely to 

result in the destruction or adverse 

modification of any designated critical 

habitat, which is the regulatory standard 

of section 7(a)(2) of the Act under which 

consultation is completed. Federal 

agencies must consult with the Service 

on actions that may affect critical 

habitat and must avoid destroying, or 

adversely modifying, critical habitat. 

Federal agencies must also consult with 

us on 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 (including the Chiricahua 

leopard frog), and in some locations, the 

outcome of these analyses will be 

similar, because effects to habitat will 

often also result in effects to the species. 

However, the regulatory standard is 

different, as the jeopardy analysis 

investigates the action’s impact to 

survival and recovery of the species, 

while the adverse modification analysis 

investigates the action’s effects to the 

designated habitat’s contribution to 

conservation. This will, in many 

instances, lead to different results and 

different regulatory requirements. Thus, 

critical habitat designations may 

provide greater benefits to the recovery 

of a species than would listing alone. 

Critical habitat may provide a regulatory 

benefit for the Chiricahua leopard frog 

when there is a Federal nexus present 

for a project that might adversely 

modify critical habitat. 

The consultation provisions under 

section 7(a) of the Act constitute the 

regulatory benefits of designating lands 

as critical habitat. As discussed above, 

Federal agencies must consult with us 

on actions that may affect critical 

habitat and must avoid destroying or 

adversely modifying critical habitat. 

Critical habitat may provide a regulatory 

benefit for the Chiricahua leopard frog 

when there is a Federal nexus present 

for a project that might adversely 

modify critical habitat. With respect to 

the Malpai Borderlands Safe Harbor 

Agreement, we expect any projects that 

occur on private lands, and that have a 

Federal nexus and may affect critical 

habitat, would undergo consultation. 

Such a project might be a section 404 

permit under the Clean Water Act from 

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, for 

example. In such instances, critical 

habitat designation on these private 

lands would provide an additional 

regulatory benefit to the conservation of 

the Chiricahua leopard frog by 

prohibiting adverse modification of 

habitat essential for the conservation of 

this species. 

Another possible benefit of including 

lands in critical habitat is public 

education regarding the potential 

conservation value of an area that may 

help focus conservation efforts on areas 

of high conservation value for certain 

species. Any information about the 

Chiricahua leopard frog and its habitat 

that reaches a wide audience, including 

parties engaged in conservation 

activities, is valuable. The inclusion of 

lands in the Chiricahua leopard frog 

critical habitat designation that are 

managed under the tenets of the Malpai 

Borderlands Safe Harbor Agreement 

could be beneficial to the species 

because the critical habitat designation 

specifically identifies lands essential to 

the conservation of the species and 

special management considerations or 

protection. The process of proposing 

critical habitat provided an opportunity 

for peer review and public comment on 

habitat we determined meets the 

definition of critical habitat. This 

process is valuable to landowners and 

managers in prioritizing conservation 

and management of identified areas. 

Information on the Chiricahua leopard 

frog and its habitat has also been 

provided to the public in the past 

through meetings; educational materials 

and outreach provided by the local, 

State, and Federal jurisdictions; and 

general partnerships, coordination, and 

collaboration with stakeholders in 

implementing Chiricahua leopard frog 

recovery programs. In general, we 

believe the designation of critical 

habitat for the Chiricahua leopard frog 

will provide additional information for 

the public concerning the importance of 

essential habitat that has not already 

been available. 

In summary, we believe that 

educational benefits are likely realized 

when any information about the 

Chiricahua leopard frog and its habitat 

reaches a wide audience. The 

educational benefits of critical habitat 

designation on lands managed under the 

tenets of the Malpai Borderlands Safe 

Harbor Agreement may not be 

significant due to extensive past 

outreach, ongoing conservation efforts, 

the listing of Chiricahua leopard frog as 

threatened in 2002, the development 

and implementation of the final 

recovery plan in 2007, and other 

interactions concerning Chiricahua 

leopard frog conservation and recovery. 

Benefits of Exclusion—Malpai 

Borderlands Safe Harbor Agreement 

We believe the following benefits 

would be realized by forgoing 

designation of critical habitat for the 

Chiricahua leopard frog on lands 

managed under the tenets of the Malpai 

Borderlands Safe Harbor Agreement. 

These benefits chiefly include allowing 

for continued meaningful collaboration 

and effective working partnerships with 

private landowners to promote 

conservation of the Chiricahua leopard 

frog and its habitat. 

We have detailed above a history of 

proactive collaboration and partnerships 

in the conservation and recovery of the 

Chiricahua leopard frog with numerous 

private partners since the species’ 

listing in 2002, and in some examples, 

several years prior. These partners 

include the Nature Conservancy, the 

Ladder Ranch, the Magoffin Ranch, the 

Beatty Guest Ranch, the Southwestern 

Research Station, the San Rafael Ranch, 

and the Canoncito Ranch. These 

partners have demonstrated, as 

evidenced by a detailed list of specific 

activities above, a commitment to 

Chiricahua leopard frog conservation 

and recovery on their private lands. 

Indirectly and in addition, these private 

landowners serve as ambassadors for 

Chiricahua leopard frog conservation 

and recovery in their respective 

communities or areas, a valuable asset 

in today’s often controversial challenge 

of listed species conservation and 

recovery. 

Therefore, excluding these lands from 

critical habitat provides the significant 

benefit of maintaining and 

strengthening our existing conservation 

partnership and fostering new Federalprivate partnerships. Through 

management under the Malpai 

Borderlands Safe Harbor Agreement, 

private landowners who are enrolled are 

committed to management and provide 

specific protection for the Chiricahua 

leopard frog and for the physical or 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of the species. In most 

respects, these management 

prescriptions are equal to or better than 

what the designation of critical habitat 

would provide. Exclusion of these 

private lands from critical habitat will 

help preserve these important 

partnerships and will also foster future 

partnerships and conservation of the 

Chiricahua leopard frog. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
16368 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the 

Benefits of Inclusion—Malpai 

Borderlands Safe Harbor Agreement 

The benefits of excluding these 

private lands from critical habitat 

outweigh the benefits of inclusion, 

based on the conservation-based 

management tenets under the Malpai 

Borderlands Safe Harbor Agreement, 

which have facilitated the specific 

projects summarized above. Activities 

on these lands will follow the mitigation 

strategy or promote site-specific 

conservation goals and objectives 

(whichever is applicable) and will be 

managed into the future for the benefit 

of the Chiricahua leopard frog. 

We reviewed and evaluated the 

benefits of inclusion and the benefits of 

exclusion of lands identified for 

exclusion that are managed under the 

tenets of the Malpai Borderlands Safe 

Harbor Agreement as critical habitat for 

the Chiricahua leopard frog. Including 

these private lands in the critical habitat 

designation for the Chiricahua leopard 

frog will provide little additional 

regulatory protection under section 7(a) 

of the Act when there is a Federal 

nexus, and educational benefits of 

designation will be redundant with 

those achieved through listing and our 

cooperative efforts working with these 

private landowners to conserve the 

Chiricahua leopard frog and the 

physical or biological features essential 

to the conservation of the species. We 

recognize there may be some ancillary 

benefit from other laws such as NEPA 

(42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)resulting from 

designating these areas as critical 

habitat; however, we consider these 

possible benefits to be marginal 

considering the potential adverse 

impact that critical habitat designation 

could have on our partnership with 

these private landowners. We believe 

past and future coordination with these 

private landowners will continue to 

provide sufficient education regarding 

the Chiricahua leopard frog habitat 

conservation needs on their lands, and 

therefore educational benefits for these 

areas are small. 

The benefits of excluding these 

private lands from critical habitat are 

significant. Exclusion of these lands 

from critical habitat will help preserve 

the partnership we have developed and 

reinforce those we are building with 

other private landowners, and foster 

future partnerships and development of 

management plans. We received 

numerous comments during the public 

comment period emphasizing that 

designation of critical habitat on these 

lands should not occur. We are 

committed to fostering working 

relationships with the conservation 

community, including these private 

landowners, to further the conservation 

of the Chiricahua leopard frog and other 

endangered and threatened species. 

Therefore, in consideration of the 

relevant impact to our relationship with 

these private landowners and other 

current and future conservation 

partnerships, we determined the 

benefits of exclusion outweigh the 

benefits of inclusion in critical habitat 

designation for these lands. 

Exclusion Will Not Result in Extinction 

of the Species—Malpai Borderlands 

Safe Harbor Agreement 

We determined that the exclusion of 

approximately 386 ac (156 ha) of habitat 

from this final designation of critical 

habitat for the Chiricahua leopard frog 

under the Malpai Borderlands Safe 

Harbor Agreement will not result in 

extinction of the species. Lands 

managed under the tenets of the Malpai 

Borderlands Safe Harbor Agreement 

provide protection and long-term 

management of lands that meet the 

definition of critical habitat for the 

Chiricahua leopard frog through sitespecific habitat management and 

improvement projects. Additionally, the 

jeopardy standard of section 7 of the Act 

for the Chiricahua leopard frog provides 

assurances that the species will not go 

extinct as a result of exclusion from 

critical habitat designation. The 

consultation requirements of section 

7(a)(2) and the attendant requirement to 

avoid jeopardy to the Chiricahua 

leopard frog for projects with a Federal 

nexus will provide significant 

protection to the species. Therefore, 

based on the above discussion, the 

Secretary is exercising his discretion to 

exclude approximately 289 ac (117 ha) 

of habitat in the Peloncillo Mountains 

Unit and the entire 97 ac (39 ha) in the 

Rosewood and North Tanks Unit from 

this final critical habitat designation. 

AGFD Safe Harbor Agreement 

The AGFD (Statewide) Safe Harbor 

Agreement was finalized in 2006. The 

purpose of the AGFD’s Safe Harbor 

Agreement is to (1) to establish a 

program for the conservation of the 

Chiricahua leopard frog (Rana 

chiricahuensis) on private and other 

non-Federal lands in Arizona; (2) to 

provide regulatory assurances to 

voluntary participants that their 

conservation efforts will not result in 

required or imposed additional 

conservation measures or additional 

land, water or resource use restrictions 

beyond those agreed to at the time of 

enrollment and in the original 

Agreement; and (3) to provide similar 

assurances to landowners who do not 

participate directly in the conservation 

program established under this 

Agreement, but may desire regulatory 

assurances due to their proximity to 

program participants or other lands 

harboring Chiricahua leopard frogs 

(AGFD 2006, p. 1). The Pasture 9 Tank, 

Beatty’s Guest Ranch, Ramsey and 

Brown Canyons, and Cave Creek Units 

discussed in the proposed rule (76 FR 

14126) are all managed under AGFD 

Safe Harbor Agreement. 

The AGFD Safe harbor Agreement 

requires several required conservation 

measures for enrollees, including 

special instructions and precautions for: 

(1) Constructing or maintaining stock 

tanks; (2) managing livestock operations 

in a manner that specifically minimizes 

potential adverse effects to Chiricahua 

leopard frog populations to the 

maximum extent practicable; (3) 

committing to avoid intentionally or 

accidentally releasing nonnative species 

to enrolled lands, as well as maintaining 

vigilance against third parties releasing 

nonnatives, reporting observations of 

nonnatives, and controlling nonnatives; 

and (4) implementing measures to 

ensure that prescribed fire, herbicide 

treatments, and other land treatments 

are conducted in a manner that 

promotes the long-term maintenance of 

habitat characteristics essential to 

Chiricahua leopard frog populations 

that are extant in enrolled properties. 

Numerous conservation activities are 

suggested, although not mandatory, in 

the AGFD Safe Harbor Agreement 

including Chiricahua leopard frog 

translocation, construction of a double 

tank system, construction of small 

refugia sites at single tank systems, 

fencing, deepening of pools, well 

drilling, pipelines, removal of nonnative 

aquatic predators from otherwise 

suitable sites, maintenance of existing 

habitat conditions, enhancement of 

dispersal corridors, enhancement of 

stream and cienega habitats, and 

vegetation enhancement. For specific 

details of conservation activities 

implemented under the AGFD Safe 

Harbor Agreement, please see AGFD 

(2006, pp. 16–18, 22–24). 

Benefits of Inclusion—AGFD Safe 

Harbor Agreement 

The principle benefit of including an 

area in a critical habitat designation is 

the requirement of Federal agencies to 

ensure that actions that they fund, 

authorize, or carry out are not likely to 

result in the destruction or adverse 

modification of any designated critical 

habitat, which is the regulatory standard 

of section 7(a)(2) of the Act under which 

consultation is completed. Federal 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 16369 

agencies must consult with the Service 

on actions that may affect critical 

habitat and must avoid destroying, or 

adversely modifying, critical habitat. 

Federal agencies must also consult with 

us on 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 (including the Chiricahua 

leopard frog), and in some locations, the 

outcome of these analyses will be 

similar, because effects to habitat will 

often also result in effects to the species. 

However, the regulatory standard is 

different, as the jeopardy analysis 

investigates the action’s impact to 

survival and recovery of the species, 

while the adverse modification analysis 

investigates the action’s effects to the 

designated habitat’s contribution to 

conservation. This will, in many 

instances, lead to different results and 

different regulatory requirements. Thus, 

critical habitat designations may 

provide greater benefits to the recovery 

of a species than would listing alone. 

Critical habitat may provide a regulatory 

benefit for the Chiricahua leopard frog 

when there is a Federal nexus present 

for a project that might adversely 

modify critical habitat. 

The consultation provisions under 

section 7(a) of the Act constitute the 

regulatory benefits of designating lands 

as critical habitat. As discussed above, 

Federal agencies must consult with us 

on actions that may affect critical 

habitat and must avoid destroying or 

adversely modifying critical habitat. 

Critical habitat may provide a regulatory 

benefit for the Chiricahua leopard frog 

when there is a Federal nexus present 

for a project that might adversely 

modify critical habitat. With respect to 

the AGFD Safe Harbor Agreement, we 

expect any projects that occur on private 

lands, have a Federal nexus, and may 

affect critical habitat would undergo 

consultation. Such a project might be a 

section 404 permit under the Clean 

Water Act from the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, for example. In such 

instances, critical habitat designation on 

these private lands would provide an 

additional regulatory benefit to the 

conservation of the Chiricahua leopard 

frog by prohibiting adverse modification 

of habitat essential for the conservation 

of this species. 

Another possible benefit of including 

lands in critical habitat is public 

education regarding the potential 

conservation value of an area that may 

help focus conservation efforts on areas 

of high conservation value for certain 

species. Any information about the 

Chiricahua leopard frog and its habitat 

that reaches a wide audience, including 

parties engaged in conservation 

activities, is valuable. The inclusion of 

lands in the Chiricahua leopard frog 

critical habitat designation that are 

managed under the tenets of the AGFD 

Safe Harbor Agreement could be 

beneficial to the species because the 

critical habitat designation specifically 

identifies lands essential to the 

conservation of the species and special 

management considerations or 

protection. The process of proposing 

critical habitat provided an opportunity 

for peer review and public comment on 

habitat we determined meets the 

definition of critical habitat. This 

process is valuable to landowners and 

managers in prioritizing conservation 

and management of identified areas. 

Information on the Chiricahua leopard 

frog and its habitat has also been 

provided to the public in the past 

through meetings; educational materials 

and outreach provided by the local, 

State, and Federal jurisdictions; and 

through general partnerships, 

coordination, and collaboration with 

stakeholders in implementing 

Chiricahua leopard frog recovery 

programs. In general, we believe the 

designation of critical habitat for the 

Chiricahua leopard frog will provide 

additional information for the public 

concerning the importance of essential 

habitat that has not already been 

available. 

In summary, we believe that 

educational benefits are likely realized 

when any information about the 

Chiricahua leopard frog and its habitat 

reaches a wide audience. The 

educational benefits of critical habitat 

designation on lands managed under the 

tenets of the AGFD Safe Harbor 

Agreement may not be significant due to 

extensive past outreach, ongoing 

conservation efforts, the listing of 

Chiricahua leopard frog as threatened in 

2002, the development and 

implementation of the final recovery 

plan in 2007, and other interactions 

concerning Chiricahua leopard frog 

conservation and recovery. 

Benefits of Exclusion—AGFD Safe 

Harbor Agreement 

We believe the following benefits 

would be realized by forgoing 

designation of critical habitat for the 

Chiricahua leopard frog on lands 

managed under the tenets of the AGFD 

Safe Harbor Agreement. These benefits 

chiefly include allowing for continued 

meaningful collaboration and effective 

working partnerships with private 

landowners to promote conservation of 

the Chiricahua leopard frog and its 

habitat. 

We have detailed above a history of 

proactive collaboration and partnerships 

in the conservation and recovery of the 

Chiricahua leopard frog with numerous 

private partners since the species’ 

listing in 2002, and in some examples, 

several years prior. These partners 

include the Nature Conservancy, the 

Ladder Ranch, the Magoffin Ranch, the 

Beatty Guest Ranch, the Southwestern 

Research Station, the San Rafael Ranch, 

and the Canoncito Ranch. These 

partners have demonstrated, as 

evidenced by a detailed list of specific 

activities above, a commitment to 

Chiricahua leopard frog conservation 

and recovery on their private lands. 

Indirectly and in addition, these private 

landowners serve as ambassadors for 

Chiricahua leopard frog conservation 

and recovery in their respective 

communities or areas, a valuable asset 

in today’s often controversial challenge 

of listed species conservation and 

recovery. 

Therefore, excluding these lands from 

critical habitat provides the significant 

benefit of maintaining and 

strengthening our existing conservation 

partnership and fostering new Federalprivate partnerships. Through 

management under the AGFD Safe 

Harbor Agreement, these private 

landowners are committed to 

management that provides specific 

protection for the Chiricahua leopard 

frog and for the physical or biological 

features essential to the conservation of 

the species. In most respects, these 

management prescriptions are equal to 

or better than what the designation of 

critical habitat will provide. Exclusion 

of these private lands from critical 

habitat would help preserve these 

important partnerships and will also 

foster future partnerships and 

conservation of the Chiricahua leopard 

frog. 

Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the 

Benefits of Inclusion—AGFD Safe 

Harbor Agreement 

The benefits of excluding these 

private lands from critical habitat 

outweigh the benefits of inclusion, 

based on the conservation-based 

management tenets under the AGFD 

Safe Harbor Agreement which have 

facilitated the specific projects 

summarized above. Activities on these 

lands will follow the mitigation strategy 

or promote site-specific conservation 

goals and objectives (whichever is 

applicable) and will be managed into 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
16370 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

the future for the benefit of the 

Chiricahua leopard frog. 

We reviewed and evaluated the 

benefits of inclusion and the benefits of 

exclusion of lands identified for 

exclusion that are managed under the 

tenets of the AGFD Safe Harbor 

Agreement as critical habitat for the 

Chiricahua leopard frog. Including these 

private lands in the critical habitat 

designation for the Chiricahua leopard 

frog will provide little additional 

regulatory protection under section 7(a) 

of the Act when there is a Federal 

nexus, and educational benefits of 

designation will be redundant with 

those achieved through listing and our 

cooperative efforts working with these 

private landowners to conserve the 

Chiricahua leopard frog and the 

physical or biological features essential 

to the conservation of the species. We 

recognize there may be some ancillary 

benefit from other laws such as NEPA 

resulting from designating these areas as 

critical habitat; however, we consider 

these possible benefits to be marginal 

considering the potential adverse 

impact that critical habitat designation 

could have on our partnership with 

these private landowners. We believe 

past and future coordination with these 

private landowners will continue to 

provide sufficient education regarding 

the Chiricahua leopard frog habitat 

conservation needs on their lands, and 

therefore educational benefits for these 

areas are small. 

The benefits of excluding these 

private lands from critical habitat are 

significant. Exclusion of these lands 

from critical habitat will help preserve 

the partnership we have developed and 

reinforce those we are building with 

other private landowners, and foster 

future partnerships and development of 

management plans. We received 

numerous comments during the public 

comment period emphasizing that 

designation of critical habitat on these 

lands should not occur. We are 

committed to fostering working 

relationships with the conservation 

community, including these private 

landowners, to further the conservation 

of the Chiricahua leopard frog and other 

endangered and threatened species. 

Therefore, in consideration of the 

relevant impact to our relationship with 

these private landowners and other 

current and future conservation 

partnerships, we determined the 

benefits of exclusion outweigh the 

benefits of inclusion in critical habitat 

designation for these lands. 

Exclusion Will Not Result in Extinction 

of the Species—AGFD Safe Harbor 

Agreement 

We determined that the exclusion of 

approximately 118 ac (48 ha) of habitat 

from this final designation of critical 

habitat for the Chiricahua leopard frog 

under the AGFD Safe Harbor Agreement 

will not result in extinction of the 

species. Lands managed under the 

tenets of the AGFD Safe Harbor 

Agreement provide protection and longterm management of lands that meet the 

definition of critical habitat for the 

Chiricahua leopard frog through sitespecific habitat management and 

improvement projects. Additionally, the 

jeopardy standard of section 7 of the Act 

for the Chiricahua leopard frog provides 

assurances that the species will not go 

extinct as a result of exclusion from 

critical habitat designation. The 

consultation requirements of section 

7(a)(2) and the attendant requirement to 

avoid jeopardy to the Chiricahua 

leopard frog for projects with a Federal 

nexus will provide significant 

protection to the species. Therefore, 

based on the above discussion, the 

Secretary is exercising his discretion to 

exclude approximately 118 ac (48 ha) of 

habitat in the Pasture 9 Tank, Beatty’s 

Guest Ranch, Ramsey and Brown 

Canyons, and Cave Creek Units from 

this final critical habitat designation. 

Ladder Ranch Chiricahua Leopard Frog 

Conservation Partnership 

The Ladder Ranch Chiricahua 

Leopard Frog Conservation Partnership 

includes staff from the Turner 

Endangered Species Fund, Turner 

Ranch Properties, and the Ladder Ranch 

Biodiversity Division in partnership 

with the Service and the New Mexico 

Department of Game and Fish. The 

Ladder Ranch is a 155,553-ac (62,950- 

ha) private ranch in Sierra County, New 

Mexico, whose management 

incorporates the Seco Creek, Cuchillo 

Negro Warm Springs and Creek, and the 

South Fork Palomas Creek critical 

habitat units. The Ladder Ranch 

provides conservation for the 

Chiricahua leopard frog based on the 

tenets of the recovery plan with four 

main objectives: (1) Maintain wild 

Chiricahua leopard frog populations on 

the Ladder Ranch; (2) develop applied 

research that will inform conservation 

management; (3) maintain a captive 

refugia system for Chiricahua leopard 

frog populations located elsewhere, offranch; and (4) use captive breeding to 

contribute towards rangewide recovery 

of the species. 

The strategy underlying the Ladder 

Ranch’s conservation for the Chiricahua 

leopard frog is built on the foundation 

of a robust wild population that inhabits 

the Seco Creek drainage on the Ladder 

Ranch, which is the largest Chiricahua 

leopard frog population in New Mexico. 

This metapopulation’s persistence 

depends not only on natural 

intermittent and ephemeral stream 

habitat and steel and earthen stock tanks 

within the drainage, but also on 

dedicated water management by the 

ranch. The Ladder Ranch staff have 

implemented several conservation 

actions that have assisted in securing 

the Seco Creek metapopulation, 

including maintaining and improving 

pond habitat, erecting livestock and 

wildlife exclosure fences to prevent 

trampling and overgrazing at earthen 

ponds, and installing permanent fencing 

at Johnson, Fish, LM Bar, Pague, and 

North Seco Wells. 

The Ladder Ranch has already 

conducted much conservation work for 

the Chiricahua leopard frog, such as 

habitat improvements, securing 

permanent water sources for occupied 

habitat, captive propagationheadstarting-release, radio telemetry 

research, disease testing, and annual 

monitoring of both captive and wild 

populations. A captive facility 

(ranarium) was also built to house frogs 

from both on- and off-ranch populations 

for the purposes of captive breeding for 

augmentation and restoring offspring to 

the wild. The Ladder Ranch staff has 

modified several steel water tanks that 

are part of the stock water infrastructure 

to serve as secure captive refugia sites 

for Chiricahua leopard frogs. 

As part of the Ladder Ranch’s 

conservation strategy for the Chiricahua 

leopard frog, they hope to restore robust 

populations in unoccupied drainages 

that contain suitable habitat. To 

accomplish this goal, the Ladder Ranch 

will: (1) Protect remaining populations 

of Chiricahua leopard frogs on the 

ranch; (2) identify, protect, restore, or 

create as needed, currently unoccupied 

recovery sites necessary to support 

viable populations and metapopulations 

of Chiricahua leopard frogs; (3) establish 

new or re-establish former populations 

at selected recovery sites; (4) augment 

populations on the ranch as needed to 

increase persistence; (5) monitor 

Chiricahua leopard frog populations and 

their habitats and the implementation 

activities on-site outlined the recovery 

plan; (6) implement research needed to 

support recovery actions and adaptive 

management; (7) develop cooperative 

conservation projects, such as a Safe 

Harbor Agreement; (8) develop and 

amend management planning on the 

ranch as needed to implement recovery 

actions; and (9) practice adaptive 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 16371 

management in which recovery tasks are 

revised by the Service in coordination 

with the Chiricahua Leopard Frog 

Recovery Team as pertinent new 

information becomes available. 

Benefits of Inclusion—Ladder Ranch 

Chiricahua Leopard Frog Conservation 

Partnership 

The principle benefit of including an 

area in a critical habitat designation is 

the requirement of Federal agencies to 

ensure that actions that they fund, 

authorize, or carry out are not likely to 

result in the destruction or adverse 

modification of any designated critical 

habitat, which is the regulatory standard 

of section 7(a)(2) of the Act under which 

consultation is completed. Federal 

agencies must consult with the Service 

on actions that may affect critical 

habitat and must avoid destroying, or 

adversely modifying, critical habitat. 

Federal agencies must also consult with 

us on 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 (including the Chiricahua 

leopard frog), and in some locations, the 

outcome of these analyses will be 

similar, because effects to habitat will 

often also result in effects to the species. 

However, the regulatory standard is 

different, as the jeopardy analysis 

investigates the action’s impact to 

survival and recovery of the species, 

while the adverse modification analysis 

investigates the action’s effects to the 

designated habitat’s contribution to 

conservation. This will, in many 

instances, lead to different results and 

different regulatory requirements. Thus, 

critical habitat designations may 

provide greater benefits to the recovery 

of a species than would listing alone. 

Critical habitat may provide a regulatory 

benefit for the Chiricahua leopard frog 

when there is a Federal nexus present 

for a project that might adversely 

modify critical habitat. 

The consultation provisions under 

section 7(a) of the Act constitute the 

regulatory benefits of designating lands 

as critical habitat. As discussed above, 

Federal agencies must consult with us 

on actions that may affect critical 

habitat and must avoid destroying or 

adversely modifying critical habitat. 

Critical habitat may provide a regulatory 

benefit for the Chiricahua leopard frog 

when there is a Federal nexus present 

for a project that might adversely 

modify critical habitat. With respect to 

the Service’s partnership with the 

Ladder Ranch, we expect any projects 

that occur on the ranch that have a 

Federal nexus and may affect critical 

habitat would undergo consultation. 

Such a project might be a section 404 

permit under the Clean Water Act from 

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, for 

example. In such instances, critical 

habitat designation on the ranch would 

provide an additional regulatory benefit 

to the conservation of the Chiricahua 

leopard frog by prohibiting adverse 

modification of habitat essential for the 

conservation of this species. 

Another possible benefit of including 

lands in critical habitat is public 

education regarding the potential 

conservation value of an area that may 

help focus conservation efforts on areas 

of high conservation value for certain 

species. Any information about the 

Chiricahua leopard frog and its habitat 

that reaches a wide audience, including 

parties engaged in conservation 

activities, is valuable. The inclusion of 

lands in the Chiricahua leopard frog 

critical habitat designation that are 

managed under the Ladder Ranch could 

be beneficial to the species because the 

critical habitat designation specifically 

identifies lands essential to the 

conservation of the species and special 

management considerations or 

protection. The process of proposing 

critical habitat provided an opportunity 

for peer review and public comment on 

habitat we determined meets the 

definition of critical habitat. This 

process is valuable to landowners and 

managers in prioritizing conservation 

and management of identified areas. 

Information on the Chiricahua leopard 

frog and its habitat has also been 

provided to the public in the past 

through meetings; educational materials 

and outreach provided by the local, 

State, and Federal jurisdictions; and 

general partnerships, coordination, and 

collaboration with stakeholders in 

implementing Chiricahua leopard frog 

recovery programs. In general, we 

believe the designation of critical 

habitat for the Chiricahua leopard frog 

will provide additional information for 

the public concerning the importance of 

essential habitat that has not already 

been available. 

In summary, we believe that 

educational benefits are likely realized 

when any information about the 

Chiricahua leopard frog and its habitat 

reaches a wide audience. The 

educational benefits of critical habitat 

designation on the Ladder Ranch may 

not be significant due to extensive past 

outreach, ongoing conservation efforts 

by the ranch, the listing of Chiricahua 

leopard frog as threatened in 2002, the 

development and implementation of the 

final recovery plan in 2007, and other 

interactions concerning Chiricahua 

leopard frog conservation and recovery. 

Benefits of Exclusion—Ladder Ranch 

Chiricahua Leopard Frog Conservation 

Partnership 

We believe the following benefits 

would be realized by forgoing 

designation of critical habitat for the 

Chiricahua leopard frog on the Ladder 

Ranch. The primary benefit includes 

allowing for continued collaboration 

and effective working partnership 

between the Service and the Ladder 

Ranch to promote conservation of the 

Chiricahua leopard frog and its habitat. 

Based on our partnership with the 

Ladder Ranch and the number of 

conservation activities the ranch has 

implemented for the conservation of the 

Chiricahua leopard frog, excluding land 

on the ranch from critical habitat 

provides the significant benefit of 

maintaining and strengthening our 

existing conservation partnership and 

fostering new Federal-private 

partnerships with other landowners. 

The Ladder Ranch is committed to 

providing protection for the Chiricahua 

leopard frog. In most respects, the 

management activities conducted by the 

Ladder Ranch are equal to or better than 

what the designation of critical habitat 

would provide. Exclusion of this private 

land from critical habitat would help 

preserve this important partnership and 

will also foster future partnerships and 

conservation of the Chiricahua leopard 

frog. 

Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the 

Benefits of Inclusion—Ladder Ranch 

Chiricahua Leopard Frog Conservation 

Partnership 

The benefits of excluding lands 

owned and managed by the Ladder 

Ranch from critical habitat outweigh the 

benefits of inclusion, based on our 

conservation-based partnership with the 

ranch. Our partnership with the Ladder 

Ranch promotes site-specific 

conservation goals and objectives for the 

benefit of the Chiricahua leopard frog. 

We reviewed and evaluated the 

benefits of inclusion and the benefits of 

exclusion of lands identified for 

exclusion on the Ladder Ranch. 

Including this private land in the 

critical habitat designation for the 

Chiricahua leopard frog will provide 

little additional regulatory protection 

under section 7(a) of the Act when there 

is a Federal nexus, and educational 

benefits of designation will be 

redundant with those achieved through 

listing and our cooperative efforts 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
16372 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

working with this private landowner to 

conserve the Chiricahua leopard frog 

and the physical or biological features 

essential to the conservation of the 

species. We consider the possible 

benefits of including the Ladder Ranch 

in critical habitat designation to be 

marginal considering the potential 

adverse impact that critical habitat 

designation could have on our 

partnership with the private landowner. 

We believe past and future coordination 

with this private landowner will 

continue to provide sufficient education 

regarding the Chiricahua leopard frog 

habitat conservation needs on their 

lands, and therefore educational 

benefits for these areas are small. 

The benefits of excluding the Ladder 

Ranch from critical habitat based on our 

conservation partnership are significant. 

Exclusion of the ranch from critical 

habitat will help preserve the 

partnership we have developed and 

reinforce those we are building with 

other private landowners, and foster 

future partnerships and development of 

management plans. During the public 

comment period, we received a letter 

from the Ladder Ranch strongly 

emphasizing the ranch’s desire not to 

have critical habitat designated on their 

land. We are committed to fostering 

working relationships with the 

conservation community, including the 

Ladder Ranch, to further the 

conservation of the Chiricahua leopard 

frog and other endangered and 

threatened species. Therefore, in 

consideration of the relevant impact to 

our relationship with the Ladder Ranch 

and other potential private landowners, 

we determined the benefits of exclusion 

outweigh the benefits of inclusion in 

critical habitat designation for these 

lands. 

Exclusion Will Not Result in Extinction 

of the Species—Ladder Ranch 

Chiricahua Leopard Frog Conservation 

Partnership 

We determined that the exclusion of 

approximately 739 ac (299 ha) of habitat 

from this final designation of critical 

habitat for the Chiricahua leopard frog 

based on our conservation partnership 

with the Ladder Ranch will not result in 

extinction of the species. Lands 

managed by the Ladder Ranch for the 

Chiricahua leopard frog provide 

protection for the frog through sitespecific habitat management and 

improvement projects. Therefore, the 

Secretary is exercising his discretion to 

exclude approximately 739 ac (299 ha) 

of habitat in the Seco Creek, Cuchillo 

Negro Warm Springs and Creek, and 

South Fork Palomas Creek Units from 

this final critical habitat designation. 

Required Determinations 

Regulatory Planning and Review— 

Executive Order 12866 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has determined that this rule is 

not significant and has not reviewed 

this rule under Executive Order 12866 

(Regulatory Planning and Review). OMB 

bases its determination upon the 

following four criteria: 

(1) 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. 

(2) Whether the rule will create 

inconsistencies with other Federal 

agencies’ actions. 

(3) Whether the rule will materially 

affect entitlements, grants, user fees, 

loan programs or the rights and 

obligations of their recipients. 

(4) Whether the rule raises novel legal 

or policy issues. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 

et seq.) 

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 (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), 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 an 

agency certifies the rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The SBREFA amended the 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. 

In this final rule, we are certifying that 

the critical habitat designation for 

Chiricahua leopard frog will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The following discussion explains our 

rationale. 

According to the Small Business 

Administration (SBA), small entities 

include small organizations, such as 

independent nonprofit organizations; 

small governmental jurisdictions, 

including school boards and city and 

town governments that serve fewer than 

50,000 residents; as well as small 

businesses. Small businesses include 

manufacturing and mining concerns 

with fewer than 500 employees, 

wholesale trade entities with fewer than 

100 employees, retail and service 

businesses with less than $5 million in 

annual sales, general and heavy 

construction businesses with less than 

$27.5 million in annual business, 

special trade contractors doing less than 

$11.5 million in annual business, and 

agricultural businesses with annual 

sales less than $750,000. To determine 

if potential economic impacts on these 

small entities are significant, we 

consider the types of activities that 

might trigger regulatory impacts under 

this rule, as well as the types of project 

modifications that may result. In 

general, the term ‘‘significant economic 

impact’’ is meant to apply to a typical 

small business firm’s business 

operations. 

To determine if the rule could 

significantly affect a substantial number 

of small entities, we consider the 

number of small entities affected within 

particular types of economic activities 

(e.g., livestock management, water 

management, transportation, and 

development). We apply the 

‘‘substantial number’’ test individually 

to each industry to determine if 

certification is appropriate. However, 

the SBREFA does not explicitly define 

‘‘substantial number’’ or ‘‘significant 

economic impact.’’ Consequently, to 

assess whether a ‘‘substantial number’’ 

of small entities is affected by this 

designation, this analysis considers the 

relative number of small entities likely 

to be impacted in an area. In some 

circumstances, especially with critical 

habitat designations of limited extent, 

we may aggregate across all industries 

and consider whether the total number 

of small entities affected is substantial. 

In estimating the number of small 

entities potentially affected, we also 

consider whether their activities have 

any Federal involvement. 

Designation of critical habitat only 

affects activities authorized, funded, or 

carried out by Federal agencies. Some 

kinds of activities are unlikely to have 

any Federal involvement and so will not 

be affected by critical habitat 

designation. In areas where the species 

is present, Federal agencies already are 

required to consult with us under 

section 7 of the Act on activities they 

authorize, fund, or carry out that may 

affect the Chiricahua leopard frog. 

Federal agencies also must consult with 

us if their activities may affect critical 

habitat. Designation of critical habitat, 

therefore, could result in an additional 

economic impact on small entities due 

to the requirement to reinitiate 

consultation for ongoing Federal 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 16373 

activities (see Application of the 

‘‘Adverse Modification’’ Standard 

section). 

In our final economic analysis of the 

critical habitat designation, we 

evaluated the potential economic effects 

on small business entities resulting from 

conservation actions related to the 

listing of the Chiricahua leopard frog 

and the designation of critical habitat. 

The analysis is based on the estimated 

impacts associated with the rulemaking 

as described in Chapters 3 through 4 

and Appendix A of the analysis and 

evaluates the potential for economic 

impacts related to livestock 

management, water management, 

transportation, and development. 

Of the four sectors identified having 

small entities, the FEA estimates that up 

to 171 small entities may be affected by 

section 7 consultations stemming from 

this rule. Annualized incremental 

economic impacts to small businesses 

range from $254 per year for 

transportation and residential and 

commercial development to $8,390 per 

year for livestock management 

(Industrial Economics 2011, pp. A–2 

—A–7). A detailed analysis of each 

sector is presented below. 

The FEA estimates that within this 

designation of critical habitat, the 

development sector has a total of 3,718 

entities, of which 3,542 are small 

entities. Of these small entities, up to 9 

may be impacted by this designation of 

critical habitat. Stated another way, 0.25 

percent of the small entities in the 

development sector may be impacted by 

this designation of critical habitat at the 

regional scale of this analysis. At the 

national scale, this percentage is much 

less. The FEA estimates total annualized 

impacts for the 9 entities to range from 

$28 to $254. Relative to the SBA’s small 

entity size standard for this sector ($7 

million or $33.5 million annual 

revenues), this forecasted impact would 

not have a significant economic impact. 

The FEA estimates that within this 

designation of critical habitat, the 

transportation sector has a total of 165 

entities, of which 154 are small entities. 

Of these small entities, up to 9 may be 

impacted by this designation of critical 

habitat. Stated another way, 

approximately 6 percent of the small 

entities may be impacted by this 

designation of critical habitat at the 

regional scale of this analysis. At the 

national scale, this percentage is much 

less. The total annualized incremental 

impact is estimated to be $254 and 

relative to the SBA’s small entity size 

standard for this sector ($33.5 million), 

this would not represent a significant 

economic impact. 

The FEA estimates that within this 

designation of critical habitat there are 

120 entities that engage in water 

management, and of these entities 104 

are small. Of these, up to 18 of these 

small entities may be impacted by this 

designation of critical habitat. Stated 

another way, 17 percent of the small 

entities engaged in water management 

may be impacted at the regional scale of 

this analysis. At the national scale, this 

percentage is much less. The total 

annualized impact is estimated to be up 

to $508 for all entities; relative to SBA’s 

small entity size standard for this sector 

($7 million), this would not represent a 

significant economic impact. 

The FEA estimates that within this 

designation of critical habitat there are 

a total of 162 entities engaged in 

livestock management activities; of 

these 135 are small entities. The FEA 

estimates that all of the small entities 

may be affected by this designation of 

critical habitat at the regional scale of 

this analysis. However, at the national 

scale, the percentage of affected small 

entities is much less. The total 

annualized incremental impact due to 

the designation of critical habiat is 

estimated to be $8,390. Although the 

highest annualized impact of $8,390 per 

year for livestock management may 

represent a significant impact if those 

costs are borne by only a few small 

ranchers with annual revenues that are 

considerably lower than the small entity 

revenue size standard of $750,000 per 

year; this is an unlikely outcome. In the 

extreme case where a single ranch 

participates in all 135 consultations, 

annualized impacts to that single entity 

would be $8,390; however, in the other 

extreme, if 135 small ranches each 

participate in a single consultation, 

annualized impacts to each entity 

would be approximately $62. If 68 small 

ranches participate (i.e., the midpoint 

between 1 and 135), the annualized 

impacts would be $123 per entity. If 

only a few did participate, it is unlikely 

that these entities would be small 

businesses. Given that the consultations 

on livestock management activities are 

projected to occur on U.S. Forest 

Service allotments and other federally 

managed areas that are spread over large 

parts of Arizona and New Mexico, it is 

unlikely that only a few ranchers would 

participate in all 135 of the projected 

consultations. The analysis does not 

have access to average annual revenues 

for small entities in the critical habitat 

units, and thus, cannot estimate 

annualized impacts as a percent of 

annual revenues. However, even though 

there is potential for 135 entities in this 

sector to be affected by this designation, 

we anticipate the limited potential 

impacts to entities in this sector will not 

be significant. Our determination is 

based on the fact that any impact to 

small businesses are indirect and that 

under the RFA we are only required to 

evaluate direct impacts resulting from 

the designation of critical habitat; and as 

such direct costs are borne by the 

Federal action agency. 

In summary, we considered whether 

this designation would result in a 

significant economic effect on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Based on the above reasoning and 

currently available information, we 

concluded that this rule will not result 

in a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Therefore, we are certifying that the 

designation of critical habitat for 

Chiricahua leopard frog will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, 

and a regulatory flexibility analysis is 

not required. 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use— 

Executive Order 13211 

Executive Order 13211 (Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use) requires agencies 

to prepare Statements of Energy Effects 

when undertaking certain actions. The 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has provided guidance for 

implementing this Executive Order that 

outlines nine outcomes that may 

constitute ‘‘a significant adverse effect’’ 

when compared to not taking the 

regulatory action under consideration. 

As none of the outcomes that may 

constitute ‘‘a significant adverse effect’’ 

are relevant to this analysis, energyrelated impacts within the critical 

habitat designation are not anticipated. 

The economic analysis finds that 

extraction, energy production, and 

distribution are not expected to be 

affected (Industrial Economics 2011, p. 

A–8). Thus, based on information in the 

economic analysis, energy-related 

impacts associated with Chiricahua 

leopard frog conservation activities 

within critical habitat are not expected. 

As such, the designation of critical 

habitat is not expected to significantly 

affect energy supplies, distribution, or 

use. Therefore, this action is not a 

significant energy action, and no 

Statement of Energy Effects is required. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 

U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) 

In accordance with the Unfunded 

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

seq.), we make the following findings: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
16374 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

(1) This rule will not produce a 

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 Tribal 

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 Tribal 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. 

(2) We do not believe that this rule 

will significantly or uniquely affect 

small governments because the 

designation of critical habitat imposes 

no obligations on State or local 

governments. By definition, Federal 

agencies are not considered small 

entities, although the activities they 

fund or permit may be proposed or 

carried out by small entities. 

Consequently, we do not believe that 

the critical habitat designation would 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

government entities. As such, a Small 

Government Agency Plan is not 

required. 

Takings—Executive Order 12630 

In accordance with Executive Order 

12630 (Government Actions and 

Interference with Constitutionally 

Protected Private Property Rights), we 

have analyzed the potential takings 

implications of designating critical 

habitat for the Chiricahua leopard frog 

in a takings implications assessment. As 

discussed above, the designation of 

critical habitat affects only Federal 

actions. Although private parties that 

receive Federal funding, assistance, or 

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. The 

economic analysis found that no 

significant ecomonic impacts are likely 

to result from the designation of critical 

habitat for the Chiricahua leopard frog. 

A significant level of baseline protection 

already exists for the frog, which 

addresses a broad range of habitat 

threats. The majority of Chiricahua 

leopard frog habitat and localities are on 

Federal lands, and a number of 

conservation easements, habitat 

conservation plans, and safe harbor 

agreements provide protections on 

privately owned lands. Based on 

information contained in the final 

economic analysis assessment and 

described within this document, it is 

not likely that economic impacts to a 

property owner would be of a sufficient 

magnitude to support a takings action. 

Therefore, the takings implications 

assessment concludes that this 

designation of critical habitat for the 

Chiricahua leopard frog does not pose 

significant takings implications for 

lands within or affected by the 

designation. 

Federalism—Executive Order 13132 

In accordance with Executive Order 

13132 (Federalism), this rule does not 

have significant Federalism effects. A 

federalism impact summary statement is 

not required. In keeping with 

Department of the Interior and 

Department of Commerce policy, we 

requested information from, and 

coordinated development of, this 

critical habitat designation with 

appropriate State resource agencies in 

Arizona and New Mexico. We received 

comments from the Arizona Game and 

Fish Department and the New Mexico 

Department of Game and Fish and have 

addressed them in the Summary of 

Comments and Recommendations 

section of this rule. The designation of 

critical habitat in areas currently 

occupied by the Chiricahua leopard frog 

may pose nominal additional 

restrictions to those currently in place 

and, therefore, may have little 

incremental impact on State and local 

governments and their activities. The 

designation may have some benefit to 

these governments in that the areas that 

contain the physical or biological 

features essential to the conservation of 

the species are more clearly defined, 

and the elements of the features of the 

habitat necessary to the conservation of 

the species are specifically identified. 

This information does not alter where 

and what federally sponsored 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) will 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—Executive Order 

12988 

In accordance with Executive Order 

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 applicable 

standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 

3(b)(2) of the Order. We are designating 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 16375 

critical habitat in accordance with the 

provisions of the Act. This final rule 

uses standard property descriptions and 

identifies the elements of physical or 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of the Chiricahua leopard 

frog within the designated areas to assist 

the public in understanding the habitat 

needs of the species. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) 

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 will 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 (42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) 

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 

pursuant to the National Environmental 

Policy Act (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 

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 prepare an environmental 

assessment. We prepared a draft 

environmental assessment for critical 

habitat designation and notified the 

public of its availability in the Federal 

Register on September 21, 2011 (76 FR 

58441). 

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), Executive 

Order 13175 (Consultation and 

Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments), 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 determined that there are no Tribal 

lands occupied by the Chiricahua 

leopard frog at the time of listing that 

contain the features essential for 

conservation of the species, and no 

Tribal lands unoccupied by the 

Chiricahua leopard frog that are 

essential for the conservation of the 

species. Therefore, we are not 

designating critical habitat for the 

Chiricahua leopard frog on Tribal lands. 

References Cited 

A complete list of all 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). 

Author 

The primary authors of this 

rulemaking 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. 

Regulation Promulgation 

Accordingly, we amend part 17, 

subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth 

below: 

PART 17—[AMENDED] 

■ 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. Amend § 17.11(h) by revising 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) 

* * * * * * * 

§ 17.43–[Amended] 

■ 3. Amend § 17.43(b) by removing the 

word ‘‘Rana’’ in the paragraph heading 

and adding in its place the word 

‘‘Lithobates’’. 

■ 4. 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) * * * 

Chiricahua Leopard Frog (Lithobates 

chiricahuensis) 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
16376 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

(1) Critical habitat units are depicted 

for Apache, Cochise, Gila, Graham, 

Greenlee, Pima, Santa Cruz, and 

Yavapai Counties, Arizona; and Catron, 

Grant, Hidalgo, Sierra, and Socorro 

Counties, New Mexico, on the maps 

below. 

(2) Within these areas, the primary 

constituent elements of the physical or 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of the Chiricahua leopard 

frog are: 

(i) Aquatic breeding habitat and 

immediately adjacent uplands 

exhibiting the following characteristics: 

(A) Standing bodies of fresh water 

(with salinities less than 5 parts per 

thousand, pH greater than or equal to 

5.6, and pollutants absent or minimally 

present), including natural and 

manmade (e.g., stock) ponds, slowmoving streams or pools within streams, 

off-channel pools, and other ephemeral 

or permanent water bodies that typically 

hold water or rarely dry for more than 

a month. During periods of drought, or 

less than average rainfall, these breeding 

sites may not hold water long enough 

for individuals to complete 

metamorphosis, but they would still be 

considered essential breeding habitat in 

non-drought years. 

(B) 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. 

(C) Nonnative predators (e.g., crayfish 

(Orconectes virilis), bullfrogs (Lithobates 

catesbeianus), nonnative predatory fish) 

absent or occurring at levels that do not 

preclude presence of the Chiricahua 

leopard frog. 

(D) Absence of chytridiomycosis, or if 

present, then environmental, 

physiological, and genetic conditions 

are such that allow persistence of 

Chiricahua leopard frogs. 

(E) Upland habitats that provide 

opportunities for foraging and basking 

that are immediately adjacent to or 

surrounding breeding aquatic and 

riparian habitat. 

(ii) Dispersal and nonbreeding habitat, 

consisting of areas with ephemeral 

(present for only a short time), 

intermittent, or perennial water that are 

generally not suitable for breeding, and 

associated upland or riparian habitat 

that provides corridors (overland 

movement or along wetted drainages) 

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) In overland and nonwetted 

corridors, provide some vegetation 

cover or structural features (e.g., 

boulders, rocks, organic debris such as 

downed trees or logs, small mammal 

burrows, or leaf litter) for shelter, forage, 

and protection from predators; in wetted 

corridors, provide some ephemeral, 

intermittent, or perennial aquatic 

habitat. 

(C) Are free of barriers that block 

movement by Chiricahua leopard frogs, 

including, but not limited to, urban, 

industrial, or agricultural development; 

reservoirs that are 50 acres (20 hectares) 

or more in size and contain predatory 

nonnative fish, 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. 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 16377 

(5) NOTE: Index,map of critical habitat 

units for the Chiricahua leopard frog 

follows: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER20MR12.000</GPH>
16378 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

(6) Twin Tanks and Ox Frame Tank 

Unit, 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 Twin Tanks and Ox 

Frame Tank Unit follows: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER20MR12.001</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 16379 

(7) Garcia Tank Unit, Pima County, 

Arizona. 

(i) Garcia Tank (31.477060 N, 

111.454114 W). 

(ii) NOTE: Map of Garcia Tank Unit 

follows: 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER20MR12.002</GPH>
16380 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

(8) Buenos Aires National Wildlife 

Refuge Central Tanks Unit, 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). 

(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 innamed 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 Buenos Aires 

NWR Central Tanks Unit follows: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 16381 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER20MR12.003</GPH>
16382 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

(9) Bonita, Upper Turner, and 

Mojonera Tanks Unit, 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. 

(vi) NOTE: Map of Bonita, Upper 

Turner, and Mojonera Tanks Unit 

follows: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 16383 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER20MR12.004</GPH>
16384 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

(10) Sycamore Canyon Unit, 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 

(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 Sycamore Canyon 

Unit follows: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 16385 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER20MR12.005</GPH>
16386 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

(11) Pen ̃ a Blanca Lake and Spring and 

Associated Tanks Unit, 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 Pen ̃ a Blanca Lake 

and Spring and Associated Tanks Unit 

follows: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 16387 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER20MR12.006</GPH>
16388 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

(12) Florida Canyon Unit, 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 Florida Canyon Unit 

follows: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER20MR12.007</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 16389 

(13) Eastern Slope of the Santa Rita 

Mountains Unit, 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 

Gulch (31.762953 N, 110.749329 W), 

then upstream in Ophir Gulch to the 

confluence with an unnamed drainage 

(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 Eastern Slope of 

the Santa Rita Mountains Unit follows: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
16390 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER20MR12.008</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 16391 

(14) Las Cienegas National 

Conservation Area Unit, 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 

(31.808988 N, 110.589795 W), a 

distance of approximately 5.08 stream 

miles (8.18 kilometers). 

(ii) Cienega Creek from the Empire 

Gulch confluence (31.808988 N, 

110.589795 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 Las Cienegas 

National Conservation Area Unit 

follows: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER20MR12.009</GPH>
16392 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

(15) Scotia Canyon Unit, 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 Scotia Canyon Unit 

follows: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER20MR12.010</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 16393 

(16) Carr Barn Pond Unit, Cochise 

County, Arizona. 

(i) Carr Barn Pond (31.452461 N, 

110.250355 W). 

(ii) NOTE: Map of Carr Barn Pond Unit 

follows: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER20MR12.011</GPH>
16394 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

(17) Ramsey and Brown Canyons 

Unit, Cochise County, Arizona. 

(i) Ramsey Canyon from the eastern 

boundary of The Nature Conservancy’s 

Bledsoe Parcel in the Ramsey Canyon 

Preserve (31.448160 N, 110.306993 W) 

downstream to a dirt road crossing at 

the mouth of Ramsey Canyon 

(31.462315 N, 110.291248 W), excluding 

The Nature Conservancy’s University of 

Toronto Parcel in the Ramsey Canyon 

Preserve, an approximate stream 

distance of 1.29 miles (2.08 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 Ramsey and Brown 

Canyons Unit follows: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER20MR12.012</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 16395 

(18) Peloncillo Mountains Tanks Unit, 

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, excluding 

portions of Cloverdale Creek and the 

cienega within private lands of 

Canoncito Ranch, an approximate 

stream distance of 3,711 feet (1,131 

meters). 

(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 

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), and 

excluding portions of Cloverdale Creek 

within private lands of Canoncito 

Ranch, an approximate stream distance 

of 3.12 miles (5.02 kilometers). 

(x) NOTE: Map of Peloncillo 

Mountains Unit follows: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
16396 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER20MR12.013</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 16397 

(19) Cave Creek Unit, 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) 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), an approximate 

stream distance of 4.76 miles (7.67 

kilometers). 

(iv) NOTE: Map of Cave Creek Unit 

follows: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER20MR12.014</GPH>
16398 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

(20) Leslie Creek Unit, 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 Leslie Creek Unit 

follows: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER20MR12.015</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 16399 

(21) Deer Creek Unit, 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. 

(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 Deer Creek Unit 

follows: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
16400 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER20MR12.016</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 16401 

(22) Oak Spring and Oak Creek Unit, 

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 Oak Spring and Oak 

Creek Unit follows: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER20MR12.017</GPH>
16402 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

(23) Dragoon Mountains Unit, 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: Map of Dragoon Mountains 

Unit follows: 

(24) Buckskin Hills Unit, 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). 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER20MR12.018</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 16403 

(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. 

(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 Buckskin Hills 

Unit follows: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
16404 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

(25) Crouch, Gentry, and Cherry 

Creeks, and Parallel Canyon Unit, Gila 

County, Arizona. 

(i) Trail Tank (34.176747 N, 

110.812383 W). 

(ii) HY Tank (34.148580 N, 

110.831331 W). 

(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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER20MR12.019</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 16405 

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 Crouch, Gentry, and 

Cherry Creeks, and Parallel Canyon Unit 

follows: 

(26) Ellison and Lewis Creeks Unit, 

Gila County, Arizona. 

(i) Moore Saddle Tank #2 (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, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER20MR12.020</GPH>
16406 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

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 Ellison and Lewis 

Creeks Unit follows: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER20MR12.021</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 16407 

(27) Concho Bill and Deer Creek Unit, 

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 Concho Bill and 

Deer Creek Unit follows: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER20MR12.022</GPH>
16408 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

(28) Campbell Blue and Coleman 

Creeks Unit, 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 Campbell Blue and 

Coleman Creeks Unit follows: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER20MR12.023</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 16409 

(29) Kerr Canyon Unit, Catron County, 

New Mexico. 

(i) From Kerr Spring (33.900561 N, 

108.664732 W) downstream in unnamed 

drainage in Kerr Canyon to Kerr Canyon 

Pond (33.649088 N, 108.517011 W), a 

distance of approximately 0.98 drainage 

miles (1.58 km). 

(ii) NOTE: Map of Kerr Canyon Unit 

follows: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER20MR12.024</GPH>
16410 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

(30) Tularosa River Unit, 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 Tularosa River Unit 

follows: 

(31) Deep Creek Divide Area Unit, 

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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER20MR12.025</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 16411 

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 

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 Deep Creek Divide 

Area Unit follows: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER20MR12.026</GPH>
16412 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

(32) West Fork Gila River Unit, Catron 

County, New Mexico. 

(i) From Turkeyfeather Spring 

(33.337486 N, 108.528607 W) 

downstream in Turkeyfeather Creek to 

its confluence with West Fork Gila River 

(33.32593 N, 108.517011 W), then 

downstream and southeast in West Fork 

Gila River to its confluence with White 

Creek (33.3274675 N, 108.4925 W), a 

distance of approximately 6.97 drainage 

miles (11.22 km). 

(ii) NOTE: Map of West Fork Gila River 

Unit follows: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER20MR12.027</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 16413 

(33) Main Diamond Creek Unit, 

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 Main Diamond 

Creek Unit follows: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER20MR12.028</GPH>
16414 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

(34) Beaver Creek Unit, 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 Beaver Creek Unit 

follows: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER20MR12.029</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 16415 

(35) Left Prong of Dix Creek Unit, 

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 Left Prong of Dix 

Creek Unit follows: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER20MR12.030</GPH>
16416 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

(36) Rattlesnake Pasture Tank and 

Associated Tanks Unit, 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 Rattlesnake Pasture 

Tank and Associated Tanks Unit 

follows: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER20MR12.031</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 16417 

(37) Coal Creek Unit, 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 Coal Creek Unit 

follows: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER20MR12.032</GPH>
16418 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

(38) Blue Creek Unit, 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 Blue Creek Unit 

follows: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER20MR12.033</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 16419 

(39) South Fork Palomas Creek Unit, 

Sierra County, New Mexico. 

(i) From the confluence of an 

unnamed tributary in Wagonbed 

Canyon and South Fork Palomas Creek 

(33.164592 N, 107.723155 W), 

downstream in South Fork Palomas 

Creek to its confluence with an 

unnamed tributary in Dark Canyon 

(33.167074 N, 107.68853 W), excluding 

the portions of South Fork Palomas 

Creek on privately owned lands of the 

Ladder Ranch, a distance of 

approximately 2.32 drainage miles (3.73 

km). 

(ii) NOTE: Map of South Fork Palomas 

Creek Unit follows: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER20MR12.034</GPH>
16420 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

(40) Seco Creek Unit, Sierra County, 

New Mexico. 

(i) North Seco Creek from Sawmill 

Well (33.112052 N, 107.760165 W) 

downstream to the private land 

boundary of the Ladder Ranch 

(33.112689 N, 107.709554 W), to 

include Sawmill Well (33.112052 N, 

107.760165 W), Sucker Ledge 

(33.113545 N, 107.747370 W), and Davis 

Well (33.112421 N 107.728650 W), an 

approximate drainage distance of 3.32 

miles (5.35 kilometers). 

(ii) NOTE: Map of Seco Creek Unit 

follows: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER20MR12.035</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 16421 

(41) Alamosa Warm Springs Unit, 

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 Alamosa Warm 

Springs Unit follows: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER20MR12.036</GPH>
16422 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

(42) Cuchillo Negro Warm Springs 

and Creek Unit, 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 an 

unnamed drainage that comes in from 

the north (33.271386 N, 107.557843 W), 

excluding the portions of Cuchillo 

Negro Creek on privately owned lands, 

an approximate stream distance of 2,518 

feet (768 meters). 

(ii) NOTE: Map of Cuchillo Negro 

Warm Springs and Creek Unit follows: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER20MR12.037</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 16423 

(43) Ash and Bolton Springs Unit, 

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 to 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 Ash and Bolton 

Springs Unit follows: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER20MR12.038</GPH>
16424 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

(44) Mimbres River Unit, Grant 

County, New Mexico. 

(i) The Mimbres River from the 

northern boundary of The Nature 

Conservancy’s Mimbres River Preserve 

property (32.912474 N, 108.004529 W) 

downstream to its confluence with Bear 

Canyon (32.883926 N, 107.988252 W), 

to include Moreno Spring (32.887107 N, 

107.989492 W) and ponds at Milagros 

Ranch, an approximate river distance of 

2.42 miles (3.89 kilometers). 

(ii) The Mimbres River from the 

bridge just west of the town of San 

Lorenzo (32.808190 N, 107.924589 W) 

downstream to its intersection with the 

southern 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 Mimbres River Unit 

follows: 

* * * * * Dated: March 5, 2012. 

Rachel Jacobson, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and 

Wildlife and Parks. 

[FR Doc. 2012–5953 Filed 3–19–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER20MR12.039</GPH>