[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 54 (Tuesday, March 20, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 16324-16424]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-5953]
[[Page 16323]]
Vol. 77
Tuesday,
No. 54
March 20, 2012
Part II
Department of the Interior
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish and Wildlife Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing and Designation
of Critical Habitat for the Chiricahua Leopard Frog; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 16324]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 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' life-history 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 Pe[ntilde]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
[[Page 16326]]
not essential to the conservation of the species.
Our Response: Pe[ntilde]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 semi-permanent 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
Pe[ntilde]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.
[[Page 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 Rita-Huachuca-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
[[Page 16328]]
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.
[[Page 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 [deg]C (68 [deg]F), pH of greater than 8
[[Page 16330]]
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
Pe[ntilde]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 Pe[ntilde]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
Pe[ntilde]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.
[[Page 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
[[Page 16332]]
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.
[[Page 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
[[Page 16334]]
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, cream-colored 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
[[Page 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 west-central 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 (mid-elevation
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
[[Page 16336]]
(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 Pe[ntilde]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.
[[Page 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 Ni[ntilde]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 Ni[ntilde]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
[[Page 16338]]
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 large-scale 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 head-starting (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
[[Page 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
[[Page 16340]]
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
non-Federal 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' life-history 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.
[[Page 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 west-central 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 well-oxygenated 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
[[Page 16342]]
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 ( [deg]C) (68 degrees
Fahrenheit ([deg]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 radio-telemetered 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
Pe[ntilde]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 stop-overs 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.
[[Page 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, slow-moving 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;
[[Page 16344]]
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 (Pinale[ntilde]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
Mountains-Upper 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
[[Page 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Occupied at time of
Critical habitat unit listing? Currently occupied?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recovery Unit 1 (Tumacacori-Atascosa-Pajarito Mountains, Arizona and
Mexico)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Twin Tanks and Ox Frame Tank No*................. Yes.
Unit.
Garcia Tank Unit............ Yes................. Yes.
Buenos Aires NWR Central Yes................. Yes.
Tanks Unit.
Bonita, Upper Turner, and Yes................. Yes.
Mojonera Tanks Unit.
Sycamore Canyon Unit........ Yes................. Yes.
Pe[ntilde]a Blanca Lake and Yes................. Yes.
Spring and Associated Unit
Tanks.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recovery Unit 2 (Santa Rita-Huachuca-Ajos Bavispe, Arizona and Mexico)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Florida Canyon Unit......... No*................. Yes.
Eastern Slope of the Santa No*................. Yes.
Rita Mountains Unit.
Las Cienegas National Yes................. Yes.
Conservation Area Unit.
Scotia Canyon Unit.......... No.................. Yes.
Carr Barn Pond Unit......... Yes................. No.
Ramsey and Brown Canyons Yes................. Yes.
Unit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 (Pi[ntilde]aleno-Galiuro-Dragoon Mountains, Arizona)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deer Creek Unit............. Yes................. Yes.
Oak Spring and Oak Creek No*................. Yes.
Unit.
Dragoon Mountains Unit...... Yes................. Yes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recovery Unit 5 (Mogollon Rim-Verde River, Arizona)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Buckskin Hills Unit......... Yes................. Yes.
Crouch, Gentry, and Cherry Yes................. Yes.
Creeks, and Parallel Canyon
Unit.
[[Page 16346]]
Ellison and Lewis Creeks No*................. Yes.
Unit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recovery Unit 6 (White Mountains-Upper Gila, Arizona and New Mexico)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Concho Bill and Deer Creek No*................. Yes.
Unit.
Campbell Blue and Coleman Yes................. Yes.
Creeks Unit.
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 No*................. Yes.
Associated Tanks Unit.
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 Yes................. Yes.
and Creek Unit.
Ash and Bolton Springs Unit. Yes................. Yes.
Mimbres River Unit.......... Yes................. Yes.
South Fork Palomas Creek Yes................. Yes.
Unit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Occupancy unknown at time of listing. However, for purposes of this
designation of critical habitat, these units are classified as
unoccupied at the time of listing.
Table 2--Critical Habitat Units for the Chiricahua Leopard Frog
[Area estimates reflect all land within critical habitat unit boundaries. Note that grazing allotments are not
considered in private ownership.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Land ownership by type acres (hectares)
Critical habitat unit --------------------------------------------------------------- Size of unit in
Federal State Private acres (hectares)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recovery Unit 1 (Tumacacori-Atascosa-Pajarito Mountains, Arizona and Mexico)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Twin Tanks and Ox Frame Tank 0 1.3 (0.5) 0.4 (0.2) 1.7 (0.7)
Unit.......................
Garcia Tank Unit............ 0.7 (0.3) 0 0 0.7 (0.3)
Buenos Aires NWR Central 1,720 (696) 0 0 1,720 (696)
Tanks Unit.................
Bonita, Upper Turner, and 201 (81) 0 0 201 (81)
Mojonera Tanks Unit........
Sycamore Canyon Unit........ 262 (106) 0 7 (3) 269 (109)
Pe[ntilde]a Blanca Lake and 202 (82) 0 0 202 (82)
Spring and Associated Tanks
Unit.......................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 172 (70) 0 14 (6) 186 (76)
Rita Mountains Unit........
Las Cienegas National 1,364 (552) 186 (75) 0 1,550 (627)
Conservation Area Unit.....
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 58 (24) 0 44 (18) 102 (42)
Unit.......................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 16347]]
Recovery Unit 4 (Pi[ntilde]aleno-Galiuro-Dragoon Mountains, Arizona)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deer Creek Unit............. 17 (7) 69 (28) 34 (14) 120 (49)
Oak Spring and Oak Creek 27 (11) 0 0 27 (11)
Unit.......................
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 334 (135) 64 (26) 6 (3) 404 (164)
Creeks, and Parallel Canyon
Unit.......................
Ellison and Lewis Creeks 83 (34) 0 15 (6) 98 (40)
Unit.......................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 17 (7) 0 0 17 (7)
Unit.......................
Campbell Blue and Coleman 174 (70) 0 0 174 (70)
Creeks Unit................
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 59 (24) 0 0 59 (24)
Associated Tanks Unit......
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 3 (1) 3 (1) 0 6 (2)
and Creek Unit.............
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 23 (9) 0 0 23 (9)
Unit.......................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 16348]]
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-Atascosa-Pajarito 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
[[Page 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 Pe[ntilde]asco Canyon, then from that confluence downstream in
Pe[ntilde]asco Canyon to Sycamore Canyon; (3) from Horse Pasture Spring
downstream to Pe[ntilde]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 Pe[ntilde]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.
Pe[ntilde]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 Pe[ntilde]a Blanca
Lake, Pe[ntilde]a Blanca Spring, Summit Reservoir, Tinker Tank, Thumb
Butte Tank, and Coyote Tank.
[[Page 16350]]
These sites were all occupied in 2009. Chiricahua leopard frogs and
tadpoles were found in Pe[ntilde]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, Pe[ntilde]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
Pe[ntilde]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 Pe[ntilde]a Blanca Canyon, then
downstream in Pe[ntilde]a Blanca Canyon to Pe[ntilde]a Blanca Lake, to
include Pe[ntilde]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 Pe[ntilde]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 Pe[ntilde]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
Pe[ntilde]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-Huachuca-Ajos 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 silted-in 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
[[Page 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
[[Page 16352]]
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 die-offs
three times. Twice the population has subsequently been reestablished
through translocations. Largemouth bass have been introduced illegally
into the pond and then removed, and bullfrogs periodically invade the
site, but are promptly removed before they breed.
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
[[Page 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 Mountains-Malpai 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).
[[Page 16354]]
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 life-
history 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 (Pi[ntilde]aleno-Galiuro-Dragoon 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 straight-line distance) from the nearest aquatic sites
(Home Ranch and Clifford's Tanks) in that unit. Connectivity is further
complicated by a ridgeline between Oak Spring and Home Ranch Tank.
Hence, this 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.
[[Page 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
[[Page 16356]]
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 Mountains-Upper 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
[[Page 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 die-off.
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 life-history functions essential for the conservation
of the species.
This site currently supports a robust population. Chiricahua
leopard frogs may occur periodically or regularly at an impoundment at
Links Ranch, but that impoundment also contains bullfrogs and may have
sportfish. 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
[[Page 16358]]
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 life-history 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 life-history 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
[[Page 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 life-history
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
[[Page 16360]]
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 life-
history 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
[deg]F (25.0 to 29.3 [deg]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,
[[Page 16361]]
about 12.7 mi (20.3 km) to the south-southwest. 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 Freeport-McMoRan 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
[[Page 16362]]
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 life-
history 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
[[Page 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.
[[Page 16364]]
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 non-Federal
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
[[Page 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Area meeting the
definition of
Unit Specific area to be excluded critical habitat Exclusion in
in the unit (acres acres (hectares)
(hectares))
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pasture 9 Tank Unit.................. Entire Pasture 9 Tank Unit....... 0.5 (0.2) 0.5 (0.2)
Beatty's Guest Ranch Unit............ Entire Beatty's Guest Ranch...... 10 (4) 10 (4)
Ramsey and Brown Canyons Unit........ Ramsey Canyon Preserve........... 123 (50) 16 (6)
Peloncillo Mountains Unit............ Canoncito Ranch.................. 655 (265) 289 (117)
Cave Creek Unit...................... Southwestern Research Station.... 326 (132) 92 (37)
Rosewood and North Tanks Unit........ Entire Rosewood and North Tanks.. 97 (39) 97 (39)
Seco Creek Unit...................... Ladder Ranch..................... 676 (274) 610 (247)
Cuchillo Negro Warm Springs and Creek Ladder Ranch..................... 29 (11) 23 (9)
Unit.
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. Decision-makers 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 mining-
related 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.
[[Page 16366]]
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-to-
government 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 non-
Federal 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 non-Federal 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 year-round 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
[[Page 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 Federal-private
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.
[[Page 16368]]
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
site-specific 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
[[Page 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 Federal-private
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
[[Page 16370]]
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 long-term
management of lands that meet the definition of critical habitat for
the Chiricahua leopard frog through site-specific 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, off-ranch;
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 propagation-
headstarting-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
[[Page 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
[[Page 16372]]
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 site-specific 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
[[Page 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, energy-related 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:
[[Page 16374]]
(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 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. 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 case-by-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
[[Page 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]
0
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.
0
2. Amend Sec. 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:
Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Vertebrate
-------------------------------------------------------- population where Critical Special
Historic range endangered or Status When listed habitat rules
Common name Scientific name threatened
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Amphibians
* * * * * * *
Frog, Chiricahua leopard......... Lithobates U.S.A (AZ, NM), Entire............. T 726 17.95(d) 17.43(b)
chiricahuensis. Mexico.
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 17.43-[Amended]
0
3. Amend Sec. 17.43(b) by removing the word ``Rana'' in the paragraph
heading and adding in its place the word ``Lithobates''.
0
4. In Sec. 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 Sec.
17.11(h), to read as follows:
Sec. 17.95 Critical habitat--fish and wildlife.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
Chiricahua Leopard Frog (Lithobates chiricahuensis)
[[Page 16376]]
(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, slow-moving 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
[[Page 16377]]
(5) Note: Index,map of critical habitat units for the Chiricahua
leopard frog follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20MR12.000
[[Page 16378]]
(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:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20MR12.001
[[Page 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:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20MR12.002
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
[[Page 16380]]
(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:
[[Page 16381]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20MR12.003
[[Page 16382]]
(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:
[[Page 16383]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20MR12.004
[[Page 16384]]
(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 Pe[ntilde]asco Canyon (31.402594
N, 111.186647 W), then from that confluence downstream in
Pe[ntilde]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 Pe[ntilde]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 Pe[ntilde]asco Canyon (31.399519 N, 111.177701
W), then downstream in Pe[ntilde]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:
[[Page 16385]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20MR12.005
[[Page 16386]]
(11) Pe[ntilde]a Blanca Lake and Spring and Associated Tanks Unit,
Santa Cruz County, Arizona.
(i) Pe[ntilde]a Blanca Lake (31.409091 N, 111.084971 W at the dam).
(ii) Pe[ntilde]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
Pe[ntilde]a Blanca Canyon (31.388301 N, 111.093728 W), then downstream
in Pe[ntilde]a Blanca Canyon to Pe[ntilde]a Blanca Lake (31.409091 N,
111.084971 W at the dam) to include Pe[ntilde]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 Pe[ntilde]a Blanca Lake and Spring and Associated
Tanks Unit follows:
[[Page 16387]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20MR12.006
[[Page 16388]]
(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:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20MR12.007
[[Page 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:
[[Page 16390]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20MR12.008
[[Page 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:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20MR12.009
[[Page 16392]]
(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:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20MR12.010
[[Page 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:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20MR12.011
[[Page 16394]]
(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:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20MR12.012
[[Page 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:
[[Page 16396]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20MR12.013
[[Page 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:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20MR12.014
[[Page 16398]]
(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:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20MR12.015
[[Page 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:
[[Page 16400]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20MR12.016
[[Page 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:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20MR12.017
[[Page 16402]]
(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:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20MR12.018
(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).
[[Page 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:
[[Page 16404]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20MR12.019
(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
[[Page 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:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20MR12.020
(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,
[[Page 16406]]
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:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20MR12.021
[[Page 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:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20MR12.022
[[Page 16408]]
(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:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20MR12.023
[[Page 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:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20MR12.024
[[Page 16410]]
(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:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20MR12.025
(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
[[Page 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 east-
northeast (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:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20MR12.026
[[Page 16412]]
(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:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20MR12.027
[[Page 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:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20MR12.028
[[Page 16414]]
(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:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20MR12.029
[[Page 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:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20MR12.030
[[Page 16416]]
(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:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20MR12.031
[[Page 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:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20MR12.032
[[Page 16418]]
(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:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20MR12.033
[[Page 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:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20MR12.034
[[Page 16420]]
(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:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20MR12.035
[[Page 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:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20MR12.036
[[Page 16422]]
(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:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20MR12.037
[[Page 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:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20MR12.038
[[Page 16424]]
(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:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20MR12.039
* * * * *
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