Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 2 / Friday, January 3, 2025 / Notices 329 

TABLE 1—SPECIES UNDER 5-YEAR STATUS REVIEW ANIMALS—Continued 

Common name Scientific name Taxonomic 

group 

Listing 

status 

(see 

note) 

Where listed 

Final listing rule 

(Federal Register 

citation and 

publication date) 

Contact person, email, 

phone 

Contact person’s U.S. 

mail address 

Plants 

Houghton’s goldenrod.Solidago houghtonii ..... Plant ........... T MI, NY .............. 53 FR 27134; July 

18, 1988.

Diana Digges, diana_

digges@fws.gov, 

517–351–5244.

USFWS, 2651 Coolidge Road, Suite 

101, East Lansing, 

MI 48823. 

Eastern prairie 

fringed orchid.

Platanthera leucophaea Plant ........... T IL, IN, IA, ME, 

MI, MO, OH, 

VA, WI.

54 FR 39857; 

September 28, 

1989.

Cathy Pollack, cathy_

pollack@fws.gov, 

309–757–5800.

USFWS, 1511 47th Avenue, Moline, IL 

61265. 

Western prairie 

fringed orchid.

Platanthera praeclara .. Plant ........... T IA, KS, MN, 

MO, NE, ND, 

SD.

54 FR 39857; 

September 28, 

1989.

Dawn Marsh, dawn_

marsh@fws.gov, 

612–283–8054.

USFWS, 3815 American Boulevard East, 

Bloomington, MN 

55425. 

Leedy’s roseroot ....... Rhodiola integrifolia 

ssp. leedyi.

Plant ........... T MN, NY, SD ..... 57 FR 14649; April 

22, 1992.

Dawn Marsh, dawn_

marsh@fws.gov, 

612–283–8054.

USFWS, 3815 American Boulevard East, 

Bloomington, MN 

55425. 

Note: E= endangered; T= threatened. 

Request for Information 

To ensure that a 5-year review is 

complete and based on the best 

available scientific and commercial 

information, we request new 

information from all sources. See ‘‘What 

Information Do We Consider in Our 

Review?’’ for specific criteria. If you 

submit information, please support it 

with documentation such as maps, 

bibliographic references, methods used 

to gather and analyze the data, and/or 

copies of any pertinent publications, 

reports, or letters by knowledgeable 

sources. 

How do I ask questions or provide 

information? 

If you wish to provide information for 

any species listed above, please submit 

your comments and materials to the 

appropriate contact in table 1. You may 

also direct questions to those contacts. 

Public Availability of Comments 

Before including your address, phone 

number, email address, or other 

personal identifying information in your 

comment, you should be aware that 

your entire comment—including your 

personal identifying information—may 

be made publicly available at any time. 

While you can ask us in your comment 

to withhold your personal identifying 

information from public review, we 

cannot guarantee that we will be able to 

do so. 

Authority 

We publish this notice under the 

authority of the Endangered Species Act 

of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 

seq.). 

Lori Nordstrom, 

Assistant Regional Director, Ecological 

Services, Midwest Region. 

[FR Doc. 2024–31552 Filed 1–2–25; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

[FWS–R2–ES–2024–0153; FXES 

11130200000–245–FF02ENEH00] 

Application for an Enhancement of 

Survival Permit; Eagle Creek MultiSpecies Conservation Benefit 

Agreement; Greenlee and Graham 

Counties, Arizona 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of availability; request 

for comments. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, have received an 

application from Freeport Minerals, a 

subsidiary of Freeport-McMoRan Inc., 

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

survival permit supported by the 

proposed Eagle Creek Multi-Species 

Conservation Benefit Agreement (CBA) 

in Greenlee and Graham Counties, 

Arizona. With this notice, we announce 

the availability for public comment of 

the permit application, the proposed 

CBA, and the draft environmental 

assessment (EA). We invite comments 

from the public and Federal, Tribal, 

State, and local governments. 

DATES: We must receive your written 

comments on or before February 3, 

2025. 

ADDRESSES: Obtaining Documents: The 

documents this notice announces, as 

well as any comments and materials 

that we receive, will be available for 

public inspection online in Docket No. 

FWS–R2–ES–2024–0153 at https://

www.regulations.gov. 

Submitting Comments: If you wish to 

submit comments on any of the 

documents, you may do so in writing by 

one of the following methods: 

• Online: https://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments 

on Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2024–0153. 

• U.S. mail: Public Comments 

Processing; Attn: Docket No. FWS–R2– 

ES–2024–0153; U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service; MS: PRB/3W; 5275 Leesburg 

Pike; Falls Church, VA 22041–3803. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Heather Whitlaw, Field Supervisor, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Phoenix, 

Arizona, Ecological Services Office; 

telephone 602–834–7203. Individuals in 

the United States who are deaf, 

deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a 

speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, 

TDD, or TeleBraille) to access 

telecommunications relay services. 

Individuals outside the United States 

should use the relay services offered 

within their country to make 

international calls to the point-ofcontact in the United States. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We, the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), 

make available for public comment an 

application we received from Freeport 

Minerals Corporation (applicant) for an 

enhancement of survival permit (permit) 

under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 

1531 et seq.) supported by the CBA in 

Greenlee and Graham Counties, 

Arizona, and the associated draft EA. If 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1

I I 
330 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 2 / Friday, January 3, 2025 / Notices 

approved, the requested 50-year permit 

would authorize incidental take of the 

spikedace (Meda fulgida), loach 

minnow (Tiaroga cobitis), and Gila chub 

(Gila intermedia), which are federally 

listed as endangered under the ESA, and 

the narrow-headed gartersnake 

(Thamnophis rufipunctatus), which is 

federally listed as threatened under the 

ESA (hereafter collectively referred to as 

the Covered Species). 

The incidental take would be of the 

Covered Species within the Plan Area of 

the CBA that results from ongoing and 

future activities on the applicant’s 

enrolled property, as fully described in 

the draft CBA, during the permit term, 

take associated with conservation and 

management activities integral to 

meeting the CBA net conservation 

benefit standard, as well as take 

resulting from a return to baseline 

condition. As described in the CBA, 

baseline condition has been quantified 

for each species based on habitat miles 

or acreage. 

During the life of the permit, the 

applicant’s ongoing and future activities 

include improvement, replacement, 

repair, construction, operation, and 

maintenance of their facilities and 

related infrastructure on lands adjacent 

to Eagle Creek. The CBA would provide 

a net conservation benefit for the 

Covered Species through construction of 

a nonnative fish barrier that will protect 

8.4 miles (13.5 kilometers) and 

approximately 682 acres (276 hectares) 

of Eagle Creek and immediately 

surrounding habitat from nonnative 

species invasion. This mileage and 

acreage are currently unprotected, and 

the CBA will increase the suitability of 

this area for management and recovery 

of the Covered Species by preventing 

invasion by detrimental non-native 

aquatic species. Applicant also proposes 

an exotic species removal study and 

native fish monitoring in the CBA that 

will also provide a net conservation 

benefit for the Covered Species. 

The Service is the lead for the 

proposed CBA approval and permit 

issuance. The Bureau of Reclamation 

(Reclamation) is a cooperating partner 

and will design, partially fund, 

construct, and carry out necessary 

operations and maintenance on the 

proposed fish barrier. Reclamation is the 

lead agency for development of the EA 

under the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et 

seq.). The EA analyzes both Reclamation 

and the Service’s proposed actions. The 

Service is a cooperating agency for the 

NEPA analysis. 

Background 

Section 9 of the ESA and our 

implementing regulations at 50 CFR part 

17 prohibit the ‘‘take’’ of fish or wildlife 

species listed as endangered or 

threatened. Take is defined under the 

ESA as to ‘‘harass, harm, pursue, hunt, 

shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or 

collect listed animal species, or to 

attempt to engage in such conduct’’ (16 

U.S.C. 1538(19)). However, under 

section 10(a) of the ESA, we may issue 

permits to authorize incidental take of 

listed species. ‘‘Incidental take’’ is 

defined by the ESA as take that is 

incidental to, and not the purpose of, 

carrying out an otherwise lawful 

activity. Regulations governing such 

take of endangered and threatened 

species are found at 50 CFR parts 17.21– 

22 and 17.31–32, respectively. 

Proposed Action 

The proposed action involves the 

issuance of a 10(a)(1)(A) permit to the 

applicant to authorize incidental take of 

the Covered Species resulting from 

implementation of the proposed CBA 

and the applicant’s ongoing and future 

activities on their lands along Eagle 

Creek in Greenlee and Graham Counties, 

Arizona, including take resulting from 

barrier construction as well as ongoing 

management activities within the 

Covered Area but downstream of the 

proposed fish barrier, as described 

below. 

Both spikedace and loach minnow 

were listed as threatened in 1986, with 

their listing status changing to 

endangered in 2012 (February 23, 2012; 

77 FR 10810). Historically, spikedace 

was found in most rivers and streams in 

the Gila River Basin upstream of 

Phoenix, Arizona; however, much of its 

historic habitat has been destroyed as a 

result of habitat modification and by the 

introduction and spread of nonnative 

predatory and competitive species. 

Spikedace now remain in approximately 

10 percent or less of the species’ 

historical range. Loach minnow were 

once common throughout much of the 

Gila River Basin; however, much of its 

historic habitat has been destroyed 

through habitat modification and the 

introduction and spread of nonnative 

species. Loach minnow now remain in 

approximately 15 to 20 percent of the 

species’ historical range. 

Gila chub was listed as endangered in 

2005 (November 2, 2005; 70 FR 66664). 

Historically, Gila chub were found 

throughout the Gila River basin in 

southern Arizona, southwestern New 

Mexico, and northeastern Sonora, 

Mexico. Gila chub have been reduced in 

numbers and distribution through the 

majority of the historical range. Primary 

threats to Gila chub include predation 

and competition with nonnative species 

and habitat alteration. 

Recently, there has been a taxonomic 

revision of the fish that have historically 

been classified as Gila chub; based on 

analyses of genetic and morphological 

data, the Gila chub is no longer 

recognized as a distinct taxonomic 

entity, but rather is actually within the 

roundtail chub (Gila robusta) species 

(April 7, 2017; 82 FR 16981). However, 

at this time, the Gila chub remains listed 

under the ESA. 

The narrow-headed gartersnake was 

listed as threatened in 2014 (July 8, 

2024; 79 FR 38678). Historically, 

narrow-headed gartersnakes occupied 

perennial drainages across the Mogollon 

Rim, from northern and eastern Arizona 

into southwestern New Mexico. The 

species remains in relatively dense 

populations only in the Tularosa River 

and Middle Fork of the Gila River in 

New Mexico, and in Oak Creek and 

West Fork Oak Creek in Arizona. 

Narrow-headed gartersnakes are 

believed to persist in other locations; 

however, information on other 

populations is less certain due to a lack 

of adequate survey effort and data. The 

most significant threat to narrow-headed 

gartersnake is nonnative species. 

The proposed CBA is part of a 

management plan developed by the 

applicant in response to the Service’s 

proposed critical habitat designation for 

spikedace and loach minnow in 2011, 

which included portions of Eagle Creek 

and the San Francisco River in Arizona 

(the designation has since been 

finalized). The applicant requested that 

their private lands along Eagle Creek 

and the San Francisco River in Arizona 

be excluded from the critical habitat 

designation because of the conservation 

commitments in their proposed 

management plan. Within the 

management plan, the applicant 

committed to native fish monitoring, a 

nonnative species removal study, and 

investigation and construction of a fish 

barrier on Eagle Creek, as well as 

completion of a safe harbor agreement 

(now called a conservation benefit 

agreement, or CBA). 

The Service accepted the management 

plan in lieu of designation of the 

applicant’s lands on Eagle Creek and the 

San Francisco River. Subsequently, 

costs of barrier construction exceeded 

those included in the management plan. 

To allow for project completion, 

Reclamation entered into a cooperative 

relationship with the applicant and the 

Service to evaluate the financial and 

technical feasibility of fish barrier 

construction. Under this partnership, 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 2 / Friday, January 3, 2025 / Notices 331 

Reclamation became the project lead for 

the design, construction, operation, and 

maintenance of the barrier. 

The proposed CBA was developed in 

coordination with the Service. The 

purpose of the proposed CBA is to 

implement population restoration 

activities for spikedace, loach minnow, 

Gila chub, and narrow-headed 

gartersnake through construction of a 

nonnative fish barrier at Eagle Creek. 

The upper reach of Eagle Creek is a 

high-value stream for native fish species 

because of its lack of nonnative species 

and its favorable hydrological 

conditions, including water quality and 

quantity. However, several nonnative 

species known to be detrimental to 

native fish communities occur in 

downstream reaches of Eagle Creek and 

the Gila River, including smallmouth 

bass (Micropterus dolomieui), channel 

catfish (Ictalurus punctatus), flathead 

catfish (Pylodictis olivaris), yellow 

bullhead (Ameiurus natalis), red shiner 

(Cyprinella lutrensis), and green sunfish 

(Lepomis cyanellus). 

Under the CBA, a nonnative fish 

barrier would be constructed on lands 

belonging to the applicant to protect 

upper Eagle Creek against possible 

future incursions of nonnative aquatic 

species and allow for augmentation of 

existing populations. This area is 

currently not protected against 

nonnative species invasion. In addition, 

the applicant would implement 

conservation measures, including native 

species monitoring and a nonnative 

species removal study. Barrier 

construction will increase the suitability 

of Eagle Creek for species management 

and augmentation efforts, which are 

important to the species’ survival and 

recovery. Invasion of occupied habitats 

by nonnative species is identified as a 

primary threat for all four of the covered 

species. Construction of the barrier and 

implementation of the proposed 

conservation and management measures 

are expected to provide a net 

conservation benefit to the Covered 

Species. 

Given the current status of the 

Covered Species in Eagle Creek and 

below the fish barrier site, we anticipate 

incidental take is unlikely to occur. 

However, if the Covered Species are 

present, they could be incidentally 

taken during fish barrier construction 

and as a consequence of the Permittee’s 

management actions and land and water 

use activities within the Covered Area. 

However, the Permittee has agreed to 

leaving the barrier in place, even should 

the CBA be discontinued, resulting in 

continued protection of the area most 

likely to be occupied by the Covered 

Species, which will provide long-term 

protection for the Covered species. The 

likelihood of incidental take may 

increase if populations of the Covered 

Species increase above the fish barrier 

or if Covered Species are reintroduced 

and re-establish above the fish barrier in 

Eagle Creek or in tributaries such as East 

Eagle Creek. If this reintroduction or reestablishment were to occur, this would 

create the possibility that individuals of 

the Covered Species may move or be 

washed downstream into areas within 

the Covered Area where the Permittee’s 

facilities and other infrastructure exist. 

In that event, individuals of the Covered 

Species could become entrained in the 

Permittee’s water diversion and 

pumping facilities, resulting in deaths 

or injuries. We anticipate this type of 

incidental take, should it occur, will 

involve small number of individuals, 

and that the larger number of 

individuals occupying those portions of 

Eagle Creek above the barrier will result 

in a net conservation benefit for the 

species. 

Alternatives 

We are considering one alternative to 

the proposed action as part of this 

process, the No Action Alternative. 

Under No Action Alternative, the 

Service would not issue the permit, the 

CBA would not be implemented, and 

the applicant would continue the 

existing operation and maintenance 

activities on their properties. The 

applicant would continue to implement 

conservation actions within the 

management plan. 

Next Steps 

We will evaluate the permit 

application, CBA, draft EA, and 

comments we receive to determine 

whether the CBA application meets the 

requirements of the ESA, NEPA, and 

implementing regulations. If we 

determine that all requirements are met, 

we will approve the CBA and issue the 

permit under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the 

ESA to the applicant, in accordance 

with the terms of the CBA and specific 

terms and conditions of the authorizing 

permit. We will not make our final 

decision until after the 30-day comment 

period ends and we have fully 

considered all comments received 

during the public comment period. 

Public Availability of Comments 

All comments we receive become part 

of the public record associated with this 

action. If you submit a comment at 

https://www.regulations.gov, your entire 

comment, including any personal 

identifying information, will be posted 

on the website. If you submit a comment 

that includes personal identifying 

information, such as your address, 

phone number, or email address, you 

should be aware that your entire 

comment, including your personal 

identifying information, may be made 

publicly available at any time. While 

you can ask us in your comment to 

withhold your personal identifying 

information from public review, we 

cannot guarantee that we will be able to 

do so. Moreover, all submissions from 

organizations or businesses, and from 

individuals identifying themselves as 

representatives or officials of 

organizations or businesses, will be 

made available for public disclosure in 

their entirety. 

Authority 

We provide this notice under the 

authority of section 10(c) of the ESA and 

its implementing regulations (50 CFR 

17.22 and 17.32) and NEPA (42 U.S.C. 

4321 et seq.) and its implementing 

regulations (40 CFR parts 1500 through 

1508 and 43 CFR part 46). 

Amy Lueders, 

Regional Director, Southwest Region, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 2024–31519 Filed 1–2–25; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Land Management 

[BLM_AZ_FRN; AZAZ106197256] 

Notice of Application for Withdrawal 

Extension and Opportunity for Public 

Meeting; Diamond Rim Quartz Crystal 

Interpretative Area, Arizona 

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: On behalf of the United States 

Department of Agriculture, the United 

States Forest Service (USFS) has filed an 

application with the Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) requesting that the 

Secretary of the Interior extend the 

withdrawal created by Public Land 

Order (PLO) No. 7664, for an additional 

20-year term. PLO No. 7664, which will 

currently expire on Jun 11, 2026, 

withdrew 990 acres of National Forest 

System (NFS) lands located within the 

Tonto National Forest from location and 

entry under the U.S. mining laws, 

subject to valid existing rights, to 

protect the Diamond Rim Quartz Crystal 

Interpretative Area, located in Gila 

County, Arizona, from potential adverse 

impacts from mining. This notice 

provides for the public to comment and 

request a public meeting for the 20-year 

withdrawal extension application. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1