[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 50 (Tuesday, March 15, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 14126-14207]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-4997]



[[Page 14125]]

Vol. 76

Tuesday,

No. 50

March 15, 2011

Part II





Department of the Interior





-----------------------------------------------------------------------



Fish and Wildlife Service



-----------------------------------------------------------------------



50 CFR Part 17



 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing and Designation 
of Critical Habitat for the Chiricahua Leopard Frog; Proposed Rule

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

[[Page 14126]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2010-0085; MO 92210-0-0009-B4]
RIN 1018-AX12


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing and 
Designation of Critical Habitat for the Chiricahua Leopard Frog

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to 
designate critical habitat for the Chiricahua leopard frog (Lithobates 
chiricahuensis) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. 
In total, we are proposing to designate approximately 11,136 acres 
(4,510 hectares) as critical habitat for the Chiricahua leopard frog. 
The proposed critical habitat is located in Apache, Cochise, Gila, 
Graham, Greenlee, Pima, Santa Cruz, and Yavapai Counties, Arizona; and 
Catron, Hidalgo, Grant, Sierra, and Socorro Counties, New Mexico. In 
addition, because of a taxonomic revision of the Chiricahua leopard 
frog, we are reassessing the status of and threats to the currently 
described species Lithobates chiricahuensis and proposing the listing 
as threatened of the currently described species.

DATES: We will consider comments received or postmarked on or before 
May 16, 2011. We must receive requests for public hearings, in writing, 
at the address shown in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section by 
April 29, 2011.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments on Docket No. FWS-R2-
ES-2010-0085.
     U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing, 
Attn: Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2010-0085; Division of Policy and Directives 
Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, 
Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203.
    We will not accept e-mail or faxes. We will post all comments on 
the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that 
we will post any personal information you provide us (see the Public 
Comments section below for more information).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Spangle, Field Supervisor, U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona Ecological Services Field Office, 
2321 West Royal Palm Road, Suite 103, Phoenix, AZ 85021; telephone: 
602/242-0210; facsimile: 602/242-2513. If you use a telecommunications 
device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal Information Relay Service 
(FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Due to a taxonomic revision of the 
Chiricahua leopard frog, we must reassess the status of and threats to 
the currently described Lithobates chiricahuensis. Therefore, this 
document consists of: (1) A proposed rule to list the Chiricahua 
leopard frog (Lithobates chiricahuensis) as threatened; and (2) a 
proposed rule to designate critical habitat for the Chiricahua leopard 
frog.

Previous Federal Actions

    We published a proposed rule to list the Chiricahua leopard frog as 
threatened in the Federal Register on June 14, 2000 (65 FR 37343). We 
published a final rule listing the species as threatened on June 13, 
2002 (67 FR 40790). Included in the final rule was a special rule (see 
50 CFR 17.43(b)) to exempt operation and maintenance of livestock tanks 
on non-Federal lands from the section 9 take prohibitions of the 
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). 
For further information on actions associated with listing the species, 
please see the final listing rule (67 FR 40790; June 13, 2002).
    In a May 6, 2009, order from the Arizona District Court, the 
Secretary of the Interior was required to publish a critical habitat 
prudency determination for the Chiricahua leopard frog and, if found 
prudent, a proposed rule to designate critical habitat by December 8, 
2010. Because of unforeseen delays related to species taxonomic issues, 
which required an inclusion of a threats analysis, we requested a 3-
month extension to the court-ordered deadlines for both the proposed 
and final rules. On November 24, 2010, the extension was granted and 
new deadlines of March 8, 2011, for the proposed rule and March 8, 
2012, for the final rule were established for completing and submitting 
the critical habitat rules to the Federal Register. This proposed rule 
is published in accordance with the Arizona District Court's ruling.

Public Comments

    We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule 
will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and 
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request 
comments or information from other concerned governmental agencies, 
tribes, the scientific community, industry, or other interested parties 
concerning this proposed rule. We particularly seek comments 
concerning:
    (1) Information about the status of the species, especially the 
Ramsey Canyon portion of the range, including:
    (a) Genetics and taxonomy;
    (b) Historical and current range, including distribution patterns;
    (c) Historical and current population levels, and current and 
projected trends; and
    (d) Past and ongoing conservation measures for the species, its 
habitat, or both.
    (2) The factors that are the basis for making a listing 
determination for a species under section 4(a) of the Act, which are:
    (a) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of its habitat or range;
    (b) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes;
    (c) Disease or predation;
    (d) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
    (e) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued 
existence.
    (3) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning 
any threats (or lack thereof) to Chiricahua leopard frog and 
regulations that may be addressing those threats.
    (4) Additional information concerning the range, distribution, and 
population size of Chiricahua leopard frog, including the locations of 
any additional populations.
    (5) Any information on the biological or ecological requirements of 
Chiricahua leopard frog.
    (6) The reasons why we should or should not designate habitat as 
``critical habitat'' under section 4 of the Act, including whether 
there are threats to the species from human activities, how the 
designation may ameliorate or worsen those threats, and if any 
potential increase in threats outweighs the benefits of designation 
such that the designation of critical habitat may not be prudent.
    (7) Specific information on:
     The amount and distribution of the Chiricahua leopard 
frog's habitat;
     What areas occupied at the time of listing and that 
contain features essential to the conservation of the species should be 
included in the designation, and why;
     Special management considerations or protections that the 
physical and

[[Page 14127]]

biological features essential to the conservation of the Chiricahua 
leopard frog that have been identified in this proposal may require, 
including managing for the potential effects of climate change; and
     What areas not occupied at the time of listing are 
essential for the conservation of the species, and why.
    (8) Land-use designations and current or planned activities in the 
subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat.
    (9) Any probable economic, national security, or other relevant 
impacts of designating as critical habitat any area that may be 
included in the final designation. We are particularly interested in 
any impacts on small entities or families, and the benefits of 
including or excluding areas that exhibit these impacts.
    (10) Whether we could improve or modify our approach to designating 
critical habitat in any way to provide for greater public participation 
and understanding, or to better accommodate public concerns and 
comments.
    (11) Information on whether the benefits of an exclusion of any 
particular area outweigh the benefits of inclusion under section 
4(b)(2) of the Act.
    (12) Information on the projected and reasonably likely impacts of 
climate change on the Chiricahua leopard frog and the critical habitat 
areas we are proposing.
    You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed 
rule by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. We will not 
accept comments sent by e-mail or fax or to an address not listed in 
the ADDRESSES section. We will not consider hand-delivered comments 
that we do not receive, or mailed comments that are not postmarked, by 
the date specified in the DATES section.
    We will post your entire comment--including any personal 
identifying information you provide--on http://www.regulations.gov. If 
you provide personal identifying information, such as your street 
address, phone number, or e-mail address, in your written comments, you 
may request at the top of your document that we withhold this 
information from public review. However, we cannot guarantee that we 
will be able to do so.
    A draft economic analysis and draft environmental assessment for 
this action will be prepared and made available to the public for 
review. At that time, we will reopen the comment period on this 
proposed rule and concurrently solicit comments on the draft economic 
analysis and draft environmental assessment.
    Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting 
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be 
available for public inspection on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov, at Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2010-0085, or by 
appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, Arizona Ecological Services Field Office, 2321 West 
Royal Palm Road, Suite 103, Phoenix, AZ 85021.

Proposed Threatened Status for the Chiricahua Leopard Frog

Background

    Due to a taxonomic revision of the Chiricahua leopard frog, we must 
reassess the status of and threats to the currently described species. 
It is our intent to discuss below only those topics directly relevant 
to the listing of the Chiricahua leopard frog as threatened in this 
section of the proposed rule. For more information on the Chiricahua 
leopard frog, refer to the final listing rule published in the Federal 
Register on June 13, 2002 (67 FR 40790) and the species' recovery plan 
(Service 2007).
Species Information
Description
    When we listed the Chiricahua leopard frog as a threatened species 
on June 13, 2002 (67 FR 40790), we recognized the scientific name as 
Rana chiricahuensis. Since that time, the genus name Lithobates was 
proposed by Frost et al. (2006, p. 249) and adopted by the Society for 
the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles in their most recent listing of 
scientific and standard English names of North American amphibians and 
reptiles north of Mexico (Crother 2008, p. 7). With the publication of 
this proposed rule, we officially accept the new scientific name of the 
Chiricahua leopard frog as Lithobates chiricahuensis.
    In addition, the Ramsey Canyon leopard frog (Lithobates 
subaquavocalis), found on the eastern slopes of the Huachuca Mountains, 
Cochise County, Arizona, has recently been subsumed into L. 
chiricahuensis (Crother 2008, p. 7) and was noted by the Service as 
part of the listed entity in a 90-day finding on 192 species from a 
petition to list 475 species (74 FR 66866; December 16, 2009). Goldberg 
et al. (2004, pp. 313-319) examined the relationships between the 
Ramsey Canyon leopard frog (L. subaquavocalis) and the Chiricahua 
leopard frog (L. chiricahuensis). Genetic analysis showed no evidence 
that Ramsey Canyon leopard frog was a separate species from the 
Chiricahua leopard frog (Goldberg et al. 2004, p. 315). The Society for 
the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles later adopted these leopard frogs 
as the same species, L. chiricahuensis (Crother 2008, p. 7). Therefore, 
we no longer recognize the Ramsey Canyon leopard frog (L. 
subaquavocalis) as a distinct species and consider it to be synonymous 
with the Chiricahua leopard frog (L. chiricahuensis). In this proposed 
rule, we present our analysis of the threats to the species given this 
taxonomic revision to determine if it is appropriate to list the 
Chiricahua leopard frog as threatened throughout its range (see Summary 
of Factors Affecting the Species below).
    Northern populations of the Chiricahua leopard frog in the Mogollon 
Rim region of east-central Arizona east to the eastern bajada of the 
Black Range in New Mexico are physically separated from populations to 
the south. Previous work had suggested these two separate divisions 
might be distinct species (Platz and Grudzien 1999, p. 51). Goldberg et 
al. (2004, p. 315) demonstrated that frogs from these two regions 
showed a 2.4 percent average divergence in mitochondrial DNA sequences. 
However, more recent work using both mitochondrial DNA and nuclear 
microsatellites from frog tissues throughout the range of the species 
provides no evidence of multiple taxa within what we now consider to be 
the Chiricahua leopard frog (Herrman et al. 2009, p. 18).
    The Chiricahua leopard frog is distinguished from other members of 
the leopard frog complex by a combination of characters, including a 
distinctive pattern on the rear of the thigh consisting of small, 
raised, 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).

[[Page 14128]]

Life History
    The life history of the Chiricahua leopard frog can be 
characterized as a complex life cycle, consisting of eggs and larvae 
that are entirely aquatic and adults who are primarily aquatic but may 
be terrestrial at times. Egg masses of Chiricahua leopard frogs have 
been reported in all months, but reports of egg laying (oviposition) in 
June and November through January are uncommon (Zweifel 1968, pp. 45-
46; Frost and Bagnara 1977, p. 449; Frost and Platz 1983, p. 67; Scott 
and Jennings 1985, p. 16; Sredl and Jennings 2005, p. 547). Frost and 
Platz (1983, p. 67) divided egg-laying activity into two distinct 
periods with respect to elevation. Populations at elevations below 
5,900 feet (ft) (1,798 meters (m)) tended to lay eggs from spring 
through late summer, with most activity taking place before June. 
Populations above 5,900 ft (1,798 m) bred in June, July, and August. 
Scott and Jennings (1985, p. 16) found a similar seasonal pattern of 
reproductive activity in New Mexico (February through September), as 
did Frost and Platz (1983, p. 67), although they did not note 
elevational differences. Additionally, Scott and Jennings (1985, p. 16) 
noted reduced egg laying in May and June. Zweifel (1968, p. 45) noted 
that breeding in the early part of the year appeared to be limited to 
sites where water temperatures do not get too low, such as spring-fed 
sites. Frogs at warm springs may lay eggs year-round (Scott and 
Jennings 1985, p. 16). Also, females attach spherical masses of 
fertilized eggs, ranging in number from 300 to 1,485 eggs, to submerged 
vegetation (Sredl and Jennings 2005, p. 547).
    Eggs hatch in approximately 8 to 14 days depending on temperature 
(Sredl and Jennings 2005, p. 547). After hatching, tadpoles remain in 
the water, where they feed and grow. Tadpoles turn into juvenile frogs 
in 3 to 9 months (Sredl and Jennings 2005, p. 547). Juvenile frogs are 
typically 1.4 to 1.6 in (35 to 40 millimeters (mm)) in overall body 
length. Males reach sexual maturity at 2.1 to 2.2 in (5.3 to 5.6 cm), a 
size they can attain in less than a year (Sredl and Jennings 2005, p. 
548).
    The diet of the Chiricahua leopard frog includes primarily 
invertebrates such as beetles, true bugs, and flies, but fish and 
snails are also taken (Christman and Cummer 2006, pp. 9-18). An adult 
was documented eating a hummingbird in southeastern Arizona (Field et 
al. 2003, p. 235). Chiricahua leopard frogs can be found active both 
day and night, but adults tend to be active more at night than 
juveniles (Sredl and Jennings 2005, p. 547). Chiricahua leopard frogs 
presumably experience very high mortality (greater than 90 percent) in 
the egg and early tadpole stages, high mortality when the tadpole turns 
into a juvenile frog, and then relatively low mortality when the frogs 
are adults (Zug et al. 2001, p. 303; Service 2007, pp. C10-C12). Under 
ideal conditions, Chiricahua leopard frogs may live as long as 10 years 
in the wild (Platz et al. 1997, p. 553).
Geographical Range and Distribution
    The range of the Chiricahua leopard frog includes central and 
southeastern Arizona; west-central and southwestern New Mexico; and in 
Mexico, northeastern Sonora, the Sierra Madre Occidental of 
northwestern and 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 2009 data, 
the species still occurs in most major drainages in Arizona and New 
Mexico where it occurred historically; the exception to this is the 
Little Colorado River drainage in Arizona. The species is apparently 
extirpated from the Chiricahua Mountains of Arizona, which harbored the 
type locality. In Arizona and New Mexico, the species likely occurs at 
about 14 and 16 to 19 percent of its historical localities, 
respectively (Service 2007, p. 6).
Habitat
    Within its geographical range, breeding populations of this species 
historically inhabited a variety of aquatic habitats (Service 2007, p. 
3); however, the species is now limited primarily to headwater streams 
and springs, and livestock tanks into which nonnative predators (e.g., 
sportfishes, American bullfrogs (Lithobates catesbeianus), crayfish 
(Orconectes virilis), barred tiger salamanders (Ambystoma mavortium 
mavortium)) have not yet invaded or been introduced, or where the 
numbers of nonnative predators are low and habitats are complex, 
allowing Chiricahua leopard frogs to coexist with these species 
(Service 2007, p. 15). The large valley-bottom cienegas (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.

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

[[Page 14129]]

rule (65 FR 37343; June 14, 2000). Threats discussed in the previous 
listing rules are still affecting the Chiricahua leopard frog today. 
Please refer to these rules or the Chiricahua leopard frog recovery 
plan (Service 2007; pp. 18-45) for a more detailed analysis of the 
threats affecting the species. Because we no longer recognize the 
Ramsey Canyon leopard frog as a distinct species and consider it to be 
synonymous with the Chiricahua leopard frog, we reanalyzed factors 
relevant to the entire listed entity below. However, because all the 
threats from the previous rules still apply, we provide a summary of 
those below.

A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment 
of Its Habitat or Range

    The recovery plan lists the following threats to habitat or range 
of the Chiricahua leopard frog: Mining, including mining-related 
contaminants; other contaminants; dams; diversions; stream 
channelization; groundwater pumping; woodcutting; urban and 
agricultural development; road construction; grazing by livestock and 
elk; climate change; and altered fire regimes (Service 2007, pp. 31-
37). Although these threats are widespread and varied, a threats 
assessment that was accomplished as part of the recovery plan showed 
chytridiomycosis and predation by nonnative species as consistently 
more important threats than these habitat-based factors (Service 2007, 
pp. 20-27).
    Chiricahua leopard frogs are fairly tolerant of variations in water 
quality, but likely do not persist in waters severely polluted with 
cattle feces (Service 2007, p. 34), or runoff from mine tailings or 
leach ponds (Rathbun 1969, pp. 1-3; U.S. Bureau of Land Management 
1998, p. 26; Service 2007, p. 36). Furthermore, variation in pH, 
ultraviolet radiation, and temperature, as well as predation stress, 
can alter the potency of chemical effects (Akins and Wofford 1999, p. 
107; Monson et al. 1999, pp. 309-311; Reylea 2004, pp. 1081-1084). 
Chemicals may also serve as a stressor that makes frogs more 
susceptible to disease, such as chytridiomycosis (see discussion under 
Factor C below) (Parris and Baud 2004, p. 344). The effects of 
pesticides and other chemicals on amphibians can be complex because of 
indirect effects on the amphibian environment, direct lethal and 
sublethal effects on individuals, and interactions between contaminants 
and other factors associated with amphibian decline (Sparling 2003, pp. 
1101-1120; Reylea 2008, pp. 367-374).
    A copper mine (the Rosemont Mine) has been proposed in the 
northeastern portion of the Santa Rita Mountains, Pima County, Arizona 
(recovery unit 2), the footprint of which includes several sites 
recently occupied by Chiricahua leopard frogs. Recent research 
indicates that Chiricahua leopard frog tadpoles are sensitive to 
cadmium and copper above certain levels (Little and Calfee 2008, pp. 6-
10), making the introduction of copper into Chiricahua leopard frog 
habitat a possible significant threat. No analyses have been conducted 
yet to quantify how the frogs and their habitats may be affected in 
that region, which potentially includes the Bureau of Land Management's 
Las Cienegas National Riparian Conservation Area; however, a draft 
environmental impact statement will likely be published in 2011.
    The Southwest Endangered Species Act Team (2008, pp. iii-IV-5) 
published ``Chiricahua leopard frog (Lithobates [Rana] chiricahuensis) 
considerations for making effects determinations and recommendations 
for reducing and avoiding adverse effects,'' which included detailed 
descriptions of how many different types of projects, including fire 
management, construction, native fish recovery, and livestock 
management projects, may affect the frog and its habitat. This 
document, in addition to the recovery plan (Service 2007, pp. 31-37), 
can be referenced for more information about habitat-related threats 
to. Habitat-related threats to the Chiricahua leopard frog, while not 
the most important factors threatening the species, nevertheless affect 
the Chiricahua leopard frog such that the species is likely to become 
endangered within the foreseeable future.

B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 
Educational Purposes

    Even though the final listing rule (67 FR 40790; June 13, 2002) 
discussed over-collection for the pet trade as a possible threat, we 
have no information that leads us to believe that overutilization for 
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes is 
currently a threat to the Chiricahua leopard frog.

C. Disease and Predation

    The threats assessment conducted during the preparation of the 
recovery plan (Service 2007, pp. 18-45) found that disease 
(chytridiomycosis) and predation by nonnative species (bullfrogs, 
crayfish, fish, and tiger salamanders) are the most important threats 
to the Chiricahua leopard frog.
Disease
    In some areas, Chiricahua leopard frog populations are known to be 
seriously affected by chytridiomycosis. Chytridiomycosis is an 
introduced fungal skin disease caused by the organism Batrachochytrium 
dendrobatidis or ``Bd.'' Voyles et al. (2009) hypothesized that Bd 
disrupts normal regulatory functioning of frog skin, and evidence 
suggests that electrolyte depletion and osmotic imbalance that occur in 
amphibians with severe chytridiomycosis are sufficient to cause 
mortality. This disease has been associated with numerous population 
extirpations, particularly in New Mexico, and with major die-offs in 
other populations of Chiricahua leopard frogs (Service 2007).
Predation
    Prior to the invasion of perennial waters by predatory, nonnative 
species (American bullfrog, crayfish, fish species), the frog was 
historically found in a variety of aquatic habitat types. Today, 
leopard frogs in the southwestern United States are so strongly 
impacted by harmful nonnative species, which are most prevalent in 
perennial waters, that the leopard frogs' occupied niche is 
increasingly restricted to the uncommon environments that do not 
contain these nonnative predators, and these environments now tend to 
be ephemeral and unpredictable. Witte et al. (2008, p. 378) found that 
sites with disappearances of Chiricahua leopard frogs were 2.6 times 
more likely to have introduced crayfish than were control sites. 
Unfortunately, few sites with bullfrogs were included in the Witte et 
al. (2008, pp. 375-383) study, and at many sites, there was no 
identification of the species of fish present.
Summary of Factor C
    Overall, the Chiricahua leopard frog has made modest population 
gains in Arizona in spite of disease and predation, but is apparently 
declining in New Mexico because of these threats. We consider disease, 
specifically chytridiomycosis, and predation by nonnative species to be 
threats affecting the species such that the species is likely to become 
endangered within the foreseeable future.

D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

    The Chiricahua leopard frog is currently listed as a threatened 
species (67 FR 40790; June 13, 2002) with a special rule (see 50 CFR 
17.43(b)) to exempt operation and maintenance of livestock tanks on 
non-Federal lands from the section 9 take prohibitions of

[[Page 14130]]

the Act. Even with regulatory protections of the Act currently in 
place, nonnative species used for fishing baits in Chiricahua leopard 
frog habitats pose a significant threat to the Chiricahua leopard frog; 
use of these nonnative species as fishing baits presents a vehicle for 
the distribution of these often predatory or competitive bait species 
into frog habitat and for the dissemination of deadly diseases to the 
frog. Picco and Collins (2008, pp. 1585-1587) found waterdogs (tiger 
salamanders; Ambystoma tigrinum) infected with chytridiomycosis in 
Arizona bait shops, and waterdogs infected with ranavirus in Arizona, 
New Mexico, and Colorado bait shops. Furthermore, they found that 26 to 
67 percent of anglers released tiger salamanders bought as bait into 
the waters where they fish, and 4 percent of bait shops released tiger 
salamanders back into the wild after they were housed in shops with 
infected animals, despite the fact that release of live salamanders is 
prohibited by Arizona Game and Fish Commission Orders. This study 
showed the inadequacy of current State regulations in regard to 
preventing the spread of amphibian diseases via the waterdog bait 
trade. Even though the Chiricahua leopard frog is currently listed 
under the Endangered Species Act as a threatened species, additional 
regulation or increased enforcement of existing regulations or both are 
needed to stem the spread of amphibian diseases via use of waterdogs 
for bait. Therefore, we consider the inadequacy of current regulatory 
mechanisms to prevent the spread of amphibian diseases via the bait 
trade to be a threat such that the species is likely to become 
endangered within the foreseeable future.

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence

Small Populations
    Among the potential threats in this category discussed in the 
Chiricahua leopard frog recovery plan (Service 2007, pp. i-M-17) and 
the final listing rule (67 FR 40790; June 13, 2002), are genetic and 
stochastic effects that manifest in small populations. Specifically, 
small populations are vulnerable to extirpation due to random 
variations in age structure and sex ratios, as well as from disease or 
other natural events that a larger population is more likely to 
survive. Inbreeding depression and loss of genetic diversity in small 
populations can also reduce the fitness of individuals and the ability 
of a population to adapt to change. The recent genetic study revealed 
no systemic lack of genetic diversity within the Chiricahua leopard 
frog as a species (Herrmann et al. 2009, pp. 12-17). In fact, 
populations were quite variable; up to 16 different genetic groupings 
were found. This does not preclude the possibility that individual 
populations may suffer from genetic or demographic problems, but the 
study shows the species retains good genetic variability.
Climate Change
    The Chiricahua leopard frog recovery plan (Service 2007, pp. 40-43) 
describes anticipated effects of climate change on the Chiricahua 
leopard frog. The plan cited literature indicating that temperatures 
rose in the 20th century and warming is predicted to continue over the 
21st century (Service 2007, pp. 40-43). Climate models are less certain 
about predicted trends in precipitation, but the southwestern United 
States is expected to become drier. Since the recovery plan was 
prepared, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2007, 
pp. 1-8) published a report stating that global warming is occurring 
and that precipitation patterns are being affected.
    According to the IPCC report, global mean precipitation is 
anticipated to increase, but not uniformly (IPCC 2007, p. 8). In the 
American Southwest and elsewhere in the middle latitudes, precipitation 
is expected to decrease. There is also high confidence that many semi-
arid areas like the western United States will suffer a decrease in 
water resources due to climate change, as a result of less annual mean 
precipitation and reduced length of snow season and snow depth (IPCC 
2007, p. 8). Although most climate models predict a drying trend in the 
21st century in the southwestern United States, these predictions are 
less certain than predicted warming trends. The models do not predict 
summer precipitation well, and typically at least half of precipitation 
within the range of the Chiricahua leopard frog occurs in the summer 
months (Brown 1982, pp. 58-62; Guido 2008, p. 5). Furthermore, there 
have been no trends either in summer rainfall over the last 100 years 
in Arizona (Guido 2008, pp. 3-5), or since 1955 in annual precipitation 
in the western United States (van Mantgem et al. 2009, p. 523). On the 
other hand, all severe, multi-year droughts in the southwestern United 
States and northwestern Mexico have been associated with La 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. Stock tank 
populations are particularly vulnerable to loss, because they tend to 
dry out during periods of below normal precipitation. These trends are 
likely to continue, but the situation is complicated by interactions 
with other factors. For example, the effects of drought cannot be 
separated from the effects of introduced aquatic predators, because 
drought will affect those predators as well as populations of 
Chiricahua leopard frogs. The interaction between predators and drought 
resistance of frog habitats is often a delicate balance. Stock tanks 
are likely an important habitat for Chiricahua leopard frogs in part 
because these sites dry out periodically, which rids them of most 
aquatic predators. Leopard frogs can often withstand drying of stock 
tanks for 30 days or more, whereas fish and bullfrogs may not. However, 
if stock tanks dry for longer periods of time, neither leopard frogs 
nor introduced predators may be capable of persisting. Drought will 
reduce habitats of both leopard frogs and introduced predators, but 
exactly how that will affect the Chiricahua leopard frog will probably 
be site-specific. At this time, it is difficult to predict how drought 
will impact the overall species' status, but Chiricahua leopard frog 
sites could be buffered from the effects of drought by wells or other 
anthropogenic water supplies. Even though drought may contribute to 
loss of site-specific populations, we do not consider it to be a threat 
to the species at this time or in the foreseeable future.
    Additionally, the effects of chytridiomycosis on frogs are related 
to water temperature. Sites where Chiricahua leopard frogs coexist with 
the disease are typically at lower elevations and are warmer sites 
(Service 2007, p. 26). As a result, if temperatures increase as 
predicted, perhaps more populations will be able to persist with the 
disease. Thus climate change, particularly in the form of increased 
water temperatures, does not seem to pose a significant threat to the 
Chiricahua leopard frog into the foreseeable future.
Summary of Factor E
    The Chiricahua leopard frog recovery plan (Service 2007) describes 
genetic and stochastic effects that manifest in small populations and 
the anticipated effects of climate change on the Chiricahua leopard 
frog as potential threats to the species. Herrmann et al.'s

[[Page 14131]]

recent genetic study (2009, pp. 12-17), however, revealed no systemic 
lack of genetic diversity within Chiricahua leopard frog populations. 
Moreover, climate change, particularly in the form of increased water 
temperatures, does not seem to pose a significant threat to the 
Chiricahua leopard frog into the foreseeable future. As such, other 
natural or manmade factors affecting the species' continued existence 
do not appear to be a threat affecting the Chiricahua leopard frog such 
that the species is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable 
future.

Proposed Determination

    We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial 
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats 
to the Chiricahua leopard frog. In summary, the most significant 
threats to the Chiricahua leopard frog include the effects of the 
disease chytridiomycosis, which has been associated with major die-offs 
in some populations of Chiricahua leopard frogs (Service 2007, pp. B8-
B88), and predation by nonnative species (Factor C). Additional factors 
affecting the species include degradation and loss of habitat as a 
result of water diversions and groundwater pumping, poor livestock 
management, altered fire regimes due to fire suppression and livestock 
grazing, mining, contaminants, development, and other human activities; 
and inadequate regulatory mechanisms regarding introduction of 
nonnative bait species (Factors A and D) (67 FR 40800-40806, June 13, 
2002; Sredl and Jennings 2005, pp. 546-549; Service 2007, pp. B1-B88).
    Evidence indicates that, since the time of listing, the species has 
probably made modest population gains in Arizona, but is apparently 
declining in New Mexico. Overall in the United States, the status of 
the Chiricahua leopard frog is either static or improving. The status 
and trends for the species are unknown in Mexico. An aggressive 
recovery program is underway in the United States, and reestablishment 
of populations, creation of refugial populations, and habitat 
enhancement and creation have helped stabilize or improve the status of 
the species in some areas. Although progress has been made to secure 
some existing populations and establish new populations, the status of 
the species continues to be affected by threats such that the species 
is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout 
all or a significant portion of its range. Due primarily to ongoing 
conservation measures and the existence of relatively robust 
populations and metapopulations, we have determined that the species is 
not in immediate danger of extinction (i.e., on the brink of 
extinction). However, because we believe that the present threats are 
likely to continue in the future (such as chytrid fungus and nonnative 
predators spreading and increasing in prevalence and range, affecting 
more populations of the leopard frog, thus increasing the threats in 
the foreseeable future), we have determined that the Chiricahua leopard 
frog is likely to become in danger of extinction throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range in the foreseeable future. Therefore, 
we determine that the Chiricahua leopard frog meets the definition of a 
threatened species under the Act.

Available Conservation Measures

    Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or 
threatened under the Act include recognition, recovery actions, 
requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain 
practices. Recognition through listing results in public awareness and 
conservation by Federal, State, and local agencies; private 
organizations; and individuals. The Act provides for possible 
cooperation with the States and requires that recovery actions be 
carried out for all listed species. The protection required of Federal 
agencies and the prohibitions against certain activities involving 
listed wildlife are discussed in Effects of Critical Habitat 
Designation and are further discussed, in part, below.
    Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies to evaluate their 
actions with respect to any species that is proposed or listed as 
endangered or threatened and with respect to its critical habitat, if 
any is being designated. Regulations implementing this interagency 
cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part 402. 
Section 7(a)(4) requires Federal agencies to confer with the Service on 
any action that is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a 
species proposed for listing or result in destruction or adverse 
modification of proposed critical habitat. If a species is listed 
subsequently, section 7(a)(2) requires Federal agencies to ensure that 
activities they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to 
jeopardize the continued existence of the species or destroy or 
adversely modify its critical habitat. If a Federal action may affect a 
listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible Federal agency 
must enter into formal consultation with the Service.
    Federal agency actions within the species' habitat that may require 
conference or consultation or both as described in the preceding 
paragraph include management and any other landscape-altering 
activities on Federal lands administered by the Department of Defense, 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Forest Service, and Bureau of Land 
Management; issuance of section 404 Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et 
seq.) permits by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; and construction and 
maintenance of roads or highways by the Federal Highway Administration.
    The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of 
general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to all endangered 
wildlife. The prohibitions, codified at 50 CFR 17.21 for endangered 
wildlife and 50 CFR 17.31 for threatened wildlife, in part, make it 
illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States 
to take (includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, 
capture, or collect; or to attempt any of these), import, export, ship 
in interstate commerce in the course of commercial activity, or sell or 
offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce any listed species. It 
is also illegal to possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship 
any such wildlife that has been taken illegally. Certain exceptions 
apply to agents of the Service and State conservation agencies.
    We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities 
involving endangered or threatened wildlife species under certain 
circumstances. Regulations governing permits are codified at 50 CFR 
17.22 for endangered species and 50 CFR 17.32 for threatened wildlife. 
You may obtain permits for scientific purposes, to enhance the 
propagation or survival of the species, and for incidental take in 
connection with otherwise lawful activities.
    It is our policy, as published in the Federal Register on July 1, 
1994 (59 FR 34272), to identify to the maximum extent practicable at 
the time a species is listed, those activities that would or would not 
constitute a violation of section 9 of the Act. The intent of this 
policy is to increase public awareness of the effect of a proposed 
listing on proposed and ongoing activities within the range of species 
proposed for listing. The following activities could potentially result 
in a violation of section 9 of the Act; this list is not comprehensive:
    (1) Unauthorized collecting, handling, possessing, selling, 
delivering, carrying, or transporting of the species, including import 
or export across State lines and

[[Page 14132]]

international boundaries, except for properly documented antique 
specimens of these taxa at least 100 years old, as defined by section 
10(h)(1) of the Act.
    (2) Introduction of nonnative species that compete with or prey 
upon the Chiricahua leopard frog, such as the introduction of 
competing, nonnative crayfish to the States of Arizona or New Mexico.
    (3) The unauthorized release of biological control agents that 
attack any life stage of this species.
    (4) Unauthorized modification of the channel or water flow of any 
stream or water body in which the Chiricahua leopard frog is known to 
occur.
    Questions regarding whether specific activities would constitute a 
violation of section 9 of the Act should be directed to the Arizona 
Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 
Requests for copies of the regulations concerning listed animals and 
general inquiries regarding prohibitions and permits may be addressed 
to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered Species Permits, P.O. 
Box 1306, Albuquerque, NM 87103; telephone: 505-248-6633; facsimile: 
505-248-6788.

Critical Habitat

Background

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

[[Page 14133]]

other species conservation planning efforts if new information 
available at the time of these planning efforts calls for a different 
outcome.

Prudency Determination

    Section 4 of the Act, as amended, and implementing regulations (50 
CFR 424.12), require that, to the maximum extent prudent and 
determinable, the Secretary designate critical habitat at the time the 
species is determined to be endangered or threatened. Our regulations 
at 50 CFR 424.12(a)(1) state that the designation of critical habitat 
is not prudent when one or both of the following situations exist: (1) 
The species is threatened by taking or other activity and the 
identification of critical habitat can be expected to increase the 
degree of threat to the species; or (2) the designation of critical 
habitat would not be beneficial to the species.
    There is no documentation that the Chiricahua leopard frog is 
significantly threatened by collection. Although human visitation to 
Chiricahua leopard frog habitat carries with it the possibility of 
introducing infectious disease and potentially increasing other threats 
where the frogs occur, the locations of important recovery areas are 
already accessible to the public through Web sites, reports, online 
databases, and other easily accessible venues. Therefore, identifying 
and mapping critical habitat is unlikely to increase threats to the 
species or its habitat. In the absence of finding that the designation 
of critical habitat would increase threats to a species, if there are 
any benefits to a critical habitat designation, then a prudent finding 
is warranted. The potential benefits of critical habitat to the 
Chiricahua leopard frog include: (1) Triggering consultation under 
section 7 of the Act, in new areas for actions in which there may be a 
Federal nexus where it would not otherwise occur because, for example, 
it is or has become unoccupied or the occupancy is in question; (2) 
focusing conservation activities on the most essential features and 
areas; (3) providing educational benefits to State or county 
governments or private entities; and (4) preventing people from causing 
inadvertent harm to the species. Therefore, because we have determined 
that the designation of critical habitat will not likely increase the 
degree of threat to the species and may provide some measure of 
benefit, we find that designation of critical habitat is prudent for 
the Chiricahua leopard frog.

Proposed Critical Habitat Designation for Chiricahua Leopard Frog

Background

    It is our intent to discuss only those topics directly relevant to 
the designation of critical habitat for the Chiricahua leopard frog in 
this section of the proposed rule.
Physical and Biological Features
    In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) and 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act and 
the regulations at 50 CFR 424.12, in determining which areas to propose 
as critical habitat within the geographical area occupied at the time 
of listing, we consider the physical and biological features (PBFs) 
essential to the conservation of the species that may require special 
management considerations or protection. These include, but are not 
limited to:
    (1) Space for individual and population growth and for normal 
behavior;
    (2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or 
physiological requirements;
    (3) Cover or shelter;
    (4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, or rearing (or development) 
of offspring; and
    (5) Habitats that are protected from disturbance or are 
representative of the historical, geographical, and ecological 
distributions of a species.
    We derived the specific PBFs required for the Chiricahua leopard 
frog from the studies of this species' habitat, ecology, and life 
history as described below. These needs are identified in the species' 
recovery plan (Service 2007), particularly in the Habitat 
Characteristics and Ecosystems section of Part 1: Background (pp. 15-
18); in the Recovery Strategy in Part 11: Recovery (pp. 49-51); in 
Appendix C--Population and Habitat Viability Analysis (pp. C8-C35); and 
in Appendix D--Guidelines for Establishing and Augmenting Chiricahua 
Leopard Frog Populations, and for Refugia and Holding Facilities (pp. 
D2-D5). Additional insight is provided by Degenhardt et al. (1996, pp. 
85-87), Sredl and Jennings (2005, pp. 546-549), and Witte et al. (2008, 
pp. 5-8).
Space for Individual and Population Growth and for Normal Behavior
    Generally, Chiricahua leopard frogs need aquatic breeding and 
overwintering sites, both in the context of metapopulations and as 
isolated populations. For this species, a metapopulation should consist 
of at least four local populations that exhibit regular recruitment, 
three of which are continually in existence. Local populations should 
be arranged in geographical space in such a way that no local 
population will be greater than 5.0 mi (8.0 km) from at least one other 
local population during some part of the year unless facilitated 
dispersal is planned (Service 2007, p. K-3). Movement of frogs among 
local populations is reasonably certain to occur if those populations 
are separated by no more than 1.0 mi (1.6 km) overland, 3.0 mi (4.8 km) 
along ephemeral or intermittent drainages, 5.0 mi (8.0 km) along 
perennial water courses, or some combination thereof not to exceed 5.0 
mi (8.0 km) (the ``1-3-5 rule'' of dispersal, see ``Dispersal'' in the 
Background section above). Metapopulations should include at least one 
large, healthy subpopulation (e.g., at least 100 adults) in order to 
achieve an acceptable level of viability as a larger unit. If aquatic 
habitats can be managed for persistence through drought periods (e.g., 
supplying water via a pipeline or a well, lining a pond), overall 
metapopulation viability may be achievable with a smaller number of 
individuals per subpopulation (e.g., 40 to 50 adults) (Service 2007, p. 
K-3).
    Isolated breeding populations are also essential for the 
conservation of the frog because they buffer against disease and 
disease organisms that can spread rapidly through a metapopulation as 
infected individuals move among aquatic sites. An isolated, but robust, 
breeding population should be beyond the reasonable dispersal distance 
(see ``Dispersal'' in the Background section) from other Chiricahua 
leopard frog populations, contain at least 60 adults, and exhibit a 
diverse age class distribution that is relatively stable over time. A 
population of 40 to 50 adults can also be robust or strong if it 
resides in a drought-resistant habitat (Service 2007, p. K-5). At least 
two metapopulations and one isolated robust population are needed in 
each recovery unit to meet the recovery criteria in the recovery plan 
(Service 2007, p. 53).
Food, Water, Air, Light, Minerals, or Other Nutritional or 
Physiological Requirements
    Chiricahua leopard frogs are fairly tolerant of variations in water 
quality, but likely do not persist in waters severely polluted with 
cattle feces (Service 2007, p. 34) or runoff from mine tailings or 
leach ponds (Rathbun 1969, pp. 1-3; U.S. Bureau of Land Management 
1998, p. 26; Service 2007, p. 36). Furthermore, variation in pH, 
ultraviolet radiation, and temperature, as well as predation stress, 
can alter the

[[Page 14134]]

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

Dispersal Habitat

    Dispersal habitat provides routes for connectivity and gene flow 
among local populations within a metapopulation, which enhances the 
likelihood of metapopulation persistence and allows for recolonization 
of sites that are lost due to drought, disease, or other factors

[[Page 14135]]

(Hanski and Gilpin 1991, pp. 4-6; Service 2007, p. 50). Detailed 
studies of dispersal and metapopulation dynamics of Chiricahua leopard 
frogs have not been conducted; however, Jennings and Scott (1991, pp. 
1-43) noted that maintenance of corridors used by dispersing juveniles 
and adults that connect separate populations may be critical to 
conserving populations of frogs. As a group, leopard frogs are 
surprisingly good at dispersal. In Michigan, young northern leopard 
frogs (Lithobates pipiens) commonly move up to 0.5 mi (0.8 km) from 
their birthplace, and three young males established residency up to 3.2 
mi (5.2 km) away from where they were born (Dole 1971, p. 221). 
Movement may occur via dispersal of frogs or passive transport of 
tadpoles along stream courses. The maximum distance moved by a 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 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 
Background section above, Chiricahua leopard frogs are reasonably 
likely to disperse 1.0 mi (1.6 km) overland, 3.0 mi (4.8 km) along 
ephemeral or intermittent drainages, 5.0 mi (8.0 km) along perennial 
(continuous) water courses, or some combination thereof not to exceed 
5.0 mi (8.0 km). Dispersal habitat must provide corridors through which 
leopard frogs can move among aquatic breeding sites in metapopulations. 
These dispersal habitats will often be drainages connecting aquatic 
breeding sites, and may include ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial 
waters that are not suitable for breeding. The most likely dispersal 
routes may include combinations of ephemeral, intermittent, and 
perennial drainages, as well as uplands. Some vegetation cover for 
protection from predators, and aquatic sites that can serve as buffers 
against desiccation (drying) and 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 20 acres (ac) (50 
hectares (ha)) or more in size that are stocked with sportfishes or 
other nonnative predators, highways, major dams, walls, or other 
structures that physically block movement (Andrews et al. 2008, pp. 
124-132; Eigenbrod et al. 2009, pp. 32-40; 75 FR 12818, March 17, 
2010). The effects of highways on frog dispersal can be mitigated with 
frog fencing and culverts (Service 2007, pp. I7-I8). Unlike some other 
species of leopard frogs, Chiricahua leopard frogs have only rarely 
been found in association with agricultural fields; hence, agriculture 
may also serve as a barrier to movement.
Primary Constituent Elements for the Chiricahua Leopard Frog
    Under the Act and its implementing regulations, we are required to 
identify the physical and biological features essential to the 
conservation of the Chiricahua leopard frog in areas occupied at the 
time of listing, focusing on the features' primary constituent elements 
(PCEs). We consider primary constituent elements to be the elements of 
physical and biological features that, when laid out in the appropriate 
quantity and spatial arrangement to provide for a species' life-history 
processes, are essential to the conservation of the species.
    Based on the above needs and our current knowledge of the life 
history, biology, and ecology of the species, and the habitat 
requirements for sustaining the essential life-history functions of the 
species, we have determined that the PCEs essential to the conservation 
of the Chiricahua leopard frog are:
    (1) Aquatic breeding habitat and immediately adjacent uplands 
exhibiting the following characteristics:
    (a) Perennial (water present during all seasons of the year) or 
nearly perennial pools or ponds at least 6.0 ft (1.8 m) in diameter and 
20 in (0.5 m) in depth;
    (b) Wet in most years, and do not or only very rarely dry for more 
than a month;
    (c) pH greater than or equal to 5.6;
    (d) Salinity less than 5 parts per thousand;
    (e) Pollutants absent or minimally present at low enough levels 
that they are barely detectable;
    (f) Emergent and or submerged vegetation, root masses, undercut 
banks, fractured rock substrates, or some combination thereof; but 
emergent vegetation does not completely cover the surface of water 
bodies;
    (g) Nonnative crayfish, predatory fishes, bullfrogs, barred tiger 
salamanders, and other introduced predators absent or occurring at 
levels that do not preclude presence of the Chiricahua leopard frog;
    (h) Absence of chytridiomycosis, or if chytridiomycosis is present, 
then conditions that allow persistence of Chiricahua leopard frogs with 
the disease (e.g., water temperatures that do not drop below 20 [deg]C 
(68 [deg]F), pH of greater than 8 during at least part of the year); 
and
    (i) Uplands immediately adjacent to breeding sites that Chiricahua 
leopard frogs use for foraging and basking.
    (2) Dispersal habitat, consisting of ephemeral (water present for 
only a short time), intermittent, or perennial drainages that are 
generally not suitable for breeding, and associated uplands that 
provide overland movement corridors for frogs among breeding sites in a 
metapopulation with the following characteristics:
    (a) Are not more than 1.0 mi (1.6 km) overland, 3.0 mi (4.8 km) 
along ephemeral or intermittent drainages, 5.0 mi (8.0 km) along 
perennial drainages, or some combination thereof not to exceed 5.0 mi 
(8.0 km);
    (b) Provide some vegetation cover for protection from predators, 
and in drainages, some ephemeral, intermittent, or perennial aquatic 
sites; and
    (c) Are free of barriers that block movement by Chiricahua leopard 
frogs, including urban, industrial, or agricultural development; 
reservoirs that are 50 ac (20 ha) or more in size and stocked with 
predatory fishes, bullfrogs, or crayfish; highways that do not include 
frog fencing and culverts; and walls, major dams, or other structures 
that physically block movement.
    With this proposed designation of critical habitat, we intend to 
conserve the PCEs essential to the conservation of the species through 
the identification of the appropriate quantity and spatial

[[Page 14136]]

arrangement of the PCEs sufficient to support the life-history 
functions of the species. Because not all life-history functions 
require both PCEs 1 and 2, not all areas proposed as critical habitat 
will contain both PCEs. Each of the areas proposed in this rule has 
been determined to contain sufficient PCEs, or, with reasonable effort, 
PCEs can be restored, to provide for one or more of the life-history 
functions of the Chiricahua leopard frog.
    Under our regulations, we are required to identify the PCEs within 
the geographical area occupied by the Chiricahua leopard frog at the 
time of listing that are essential to the conservation of the species 
and which may require special management considerations or protections. 
The PCEs are laid out in a specific spatial arrangement and quantity 
determined to be essential to the conservation of the species. All 
proposed critical habitat units are within the species' historical 
geographical range in the United States and contain sufficient PCEs to 
support at least one life-history function. In addition, all but two 
proposed critical habitat units, units 13 and 17, are currently 
occupied by Chiricahua leopard frogs. Units 13 and 17 were occupied at 
the time of listing and currently contain sufficient PCEs to support 
life-history functions essential for the conservation of the species. 
These units are needed as future sites for frog colonization or 
reestablishment and could be restored (e.g., control of nonnative 
predators) to allow Chiricahua leopard frog persistence with a 
reasonable level of effort.

Special Management Considerations or Protection

    When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the specific 
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time 
of listing contain features that are essential to the conservation of 
the species and that may require special management considerations or 
protection.
    All areas proposed for designation as critical habitat will require 
some level of management to address the current and future threats to 
the Chiricahua leopard frog and to maintain or restore the PCEs. 
Special management in aquatic breeding sites will be needed to ensure 
that these sites provide water quantity, quality, and permanence or 
near permanence; cover; and absence of extraordinary predation and 
disease that can affect population persistence. In dispersal habitat, 
special management will be needed to ensure frogs can move through 
those sites with reasonable success. The designation of critical 
habitat does not imply that lands outside of critical habitat do not 
play an important role in the conservation of the Chiricahua leopard 
frog. Federal activities that may affect areas outside of critical 
habitat, such as construction of water diversions, permitting livestock 
grazing, sportfish stocking, channelization, levee construction, energy 
development, fire and fuels management, and road construction, are 
still subject to review under section 7 of the Act if they may affect 
the Chiricahua leopard frog because Federal agencies must consider both 
effects to the frog and effects to critical habitat independently. The 
prohibitions of section 9 of the Act also continue to apply both inside 
and outside of designated critical habitat.
    A detailed discussion of activities influencing the Chiricahua 
leopard frog and its habitat can be found in the final listing rule (67 
FR 40790; June 13, 2002) and the recovery plan (Service 2007, pp. 18-
45). The recovery plan also contains recovery-unit-specific threat 
assessments (Service 2007, pp. B1-B88). Activities that may warrant 
special management of the physical and biological features that define 
essential habitat (appropriate quantity and distribution of PCEs) for 
the Chiricahua leopard frog include, but are not limited to, 
introduction of predators, such as bullfrogs, crayfish, sportfishes, 
and barred tiger salamanders; introduction or spread of 
chytridiomycosis; recreational activities; livestock grazing; water 
diversions and development; construction and maintenance of roads and 
utility corridors; fire suppression, fuels management, and prescribed 
fire; and various types of development. These activities have the 
potential to affect critical habitat and PCEs if they are conducted 
within designated units or upstream and in some cases downstream in the 
floodplains of those units; however, some of these activities, when 
conducted appropriately, may be compatible with maintenance of adequate 
PCEs.

Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat

    As required by section 4(b) of the Act, we used the best scientific 
and commercial data available in determining areas within the 
geographical area occupied at the time of listing that contain the 
features essential to the conservation of the Chiricahua leopard frog, 
and areas outside of the geographical area occupied at the time of 
listing that are essential for the conservation of the species. Areas 
occupied at the time of listing are identified and described in 
Rorabaugh (2010, pp. 7-17) and information cited therein for Arizona, 
and for New Mexico in Jennings (1995, pp. 10-21), Painter (2000, pp. 
10-21), and 67 FR 40793 (June 13, 2002). We have also reviewed 
available information that pertains to the habitat requirements of this 
species. The following were particularly useful: Degenhardt et al. 
(1996, pp. 85-87), Sredl and Jennings (2005, pp. 546-549), Service 
(2007, pp. 15-18, 47-48), and Witte et al. (2008, pp. 5-8).
    Units occupied at the time of listing include the specific sites 
occupied by Chiricahua leopard frogs in June 2002 that contain 
sufficient PCEs to support life-history functions essential for the 
conservation of the species. Included are sites where the species was 
breeding as well as localities where dispersing individuals were 
present, and other sites for which the breeding status was unknown. If 
metapopulation structure was known or suspected, dispersal habitats 
connecting breeding populations within metapopulations are also 
proposed.
    Sites not known to be occupied at the time of listing in June 2002 
are also proposed as critical habitat if they are essential to the 
conservation of the species. Specifically, we assessed whether they are 
needed to meet the following recovery criterion from the recovery plan: 
At least two metapopulations located in different drainages (defined 
here as USGS 10-digit Hydrologic Units) plus at least one isolated and 
robust population occur in each recovery unit and exhibit 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 proposed for critical habitat herein. At the 
time of listing, 3 of the units being proposed for critical habitat 
were unoccupied, and for 10 additional units, their occupancy status 
was unknown (see Table 1). However, all 13 of these units are currently 
occupied and possess one or both PCEs, or have the ability to develop 
the PCEs with a reasonable level of restoration work. These units, 
which were unoccupied or not known to be occupied at the time of 
listing, are being proposed as critical habitat because they currently 
contain known breeding populations of Chiricahua leopard frogs, which 
are relatively scarce (33 populations in Arizona and 20 to 23 in New 
Mexico), are all considered essential to the conservation of the 
species, and help meet the population goals in the recovery criterion 
discussed above.

[[Page 14137]]



   Table 1--Occupancy of Chiricahua Leopard Frog by Proposed Critical
                              Habitat Units
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Occupied at time        Currently
      Critical habitat unit           of listing?          occupied?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Recovery Unit 1 (Tumacacori-Atascosa-Pajarito Mountains, Arizona and
                                 Mexico)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Twin Tanks and Ox Frame Tank  Unknown...........  Yes.
(2) Garcia Tank.................  Yes...............  Yes.
(3) Buenos Aires NWR Central      Yes...............  Yes.
 Tanks.
(4) Bonita, Upper Turner, and     Yes...............  Yes.
 Mojonera Tanks.
(5) Sycamore Canyon.............  Yes...............  Yes.
(6) Pe[ntilde]a Blanca Lake and   Yes...............  Yes.
 Spring and Associated Tanks.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Recovery Unit 2 (Santa Rita-Huachuca-Ajos Bavispe, Arizona and Mexico)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(7) Florida Canyon..............  Unknown...........  Yes.
(8) Eastern Slope of the Santa    Unknown...........  Yes.
 Rita Mountains.
(9) Las Cienegas National         Yes...............  Yes.
 Conservation Area.
(10) Pasture 9 Tank.............  No................  Yes.
(11) Scotia Canyon..............  No................  Yes.
(12) Beatty's Guest Ranch.......  Yes...............  Yes.
(13) Carr Barn Pond.............  Yes...............  No.
(14) Ramsey and Brown Canyons...  No................  Yes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Recovery Unit 3 (Chiricahua Mountains-Malpai Borderlands-Sierra Madre,
                    Arizona, New Mexico, and Mexico)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(15) High Lonesome Well.........  Yes...............  Yes.
(16) Peloncillo Mountains.......  Yes...............  Yes.
(17) Cave Creek.................  Yes...............  No.
(18) Leslie Creek...............  Yes...............  Yes.
(19) Rosewood and North Tanks...  Yes...............  Yes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Recovery Unit 4 (Pi[ntilde]aleno-Galiuro-Dragoon Mountains, Arizona)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(20) Deer Creek.................  Yes...............  Yes.
(21) Oak Spring and Oak Creek...  Unknown...........  Yes.
(22) Dragoon Mountains..........  Yes...............  Yes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Recovery Unit 5 (Mogollon Rim-Verde River, Arizona)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(23) Buckskin Hills.............  Yes...............  Yes.
(24) Crouch, Gentry, and Cherry   Yes...............  Yes.
 Creeks, and Parallel Canyon.
(25) Ellison and Lewis Creeks...  Unknown...........  Yes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Recovery Unit 6 (White Mountains-Upper Gila, Arizona and New Mexico)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(26) Concho Bill and Deer Creek.  Unknown...........  Yes.
(27) Campbell Blue and Coleman    Yes...............  Yes.
 Creeks.
(28) Tularosa River.............  Yes...............  Yes.
(29) Deep Creek Divide Area.....  Yes...............  Yes.
(30) Main Diamond Creek.........  Yes...............  Yes.
(31) Beaver Creek...............  Unknown...........  Yes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Recovery Unit 7 (Upper Gila-Blue River, Arizona and New Mexico)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(32) Left Prong of Dix Creek....  Unknown...........  Yes.
(33) Rattlesnake Pasture Tank     Unknown...........  Yes.
 and Associated Tanks.
(34) Coal Creek.................  Unknown...........  Yes.
(35) Blue Creek.................  Yes...............  Yes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Recovery Unit 8 (Black-Mimbres-Rio Grande, New Mexico)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(36) Seco Creek.................  Yes...............  Yes.
(37) Alamosa Warm Springs.......  Yes...............  Yes.
(38) Cuchillo Negro Warm Springs  Yes...............  Yes
 and Creek.
(39) Ash and Bolton Springs.....  Yes...............  Yes
(40) Mimbres River..............  Yes...............  Yes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 14138]]

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

Proposed Critical Habitat Designation

    We are proposing 40 units as critical habitat for the Chiricahua 
leopard frog. The critical habitat areas we describe below constitute 
our current best assessment of areas that meet the definition of 
critical habitat for the species. All 40 units we are proposing as 
critical habitat are within the species' geographical range, including 
areas occupied at the time of listing and areas not known to be 
occupied at the time of listing but identified as essential for the 
conservation of the species (Platz and Mecham 1984, p. 347.1). Table 1 
below shows the specific occupancy status of each unit at the time of 
listing and currently (based on the most recent data available) 
(Rorabaugh 2010, pp. 7-30; Service files). The approximate area of each 
proposed critical habitat unit is shown in Table 2. The 40 areas we 
propose as critical habitat are grouped herein by recovery unit.

[[Page 14139]]



                    Table 2--Proposed Critical Habitat Units for the Chiricahua Leopard Frog
 [Area estimates reflect all land within critical habitat unit boundaries. Note that grazing allotments are not
                                        considered in private ownership.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Land ownership by type acres        Size of
                                                                            (hectares)                 unit in
                    Critical habitat unit                    ---------------------------------------    acres
                                                                Federal       State       Private     (hectares)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Twin Tanks and Ox Frame Tank............................            0    1.3 (0.5)    0.4 (0.2)    1.7 (0.7)
(2) Garcia Tank.............................................    0.7 (0.3)            0            0    0.7 (0.3)
(3) Buenos Aires NWR Central Tanks..........................  1,720 (696)            0            0  1,720 (696)
(4) Bonita, Upper Turner, and Mojonera Tanks................     201 (81)            0            0     201 (81)
(5) Sycamore Canyon.........................................    262 (106)            0        7 (3)    268 (108)
(6) Pe[ntilde]a Blanca Lake and Spring and Associated Tanks.     202 (82)            0            0     202 (82)
(7) Florida Canyon..........................................        4 (2)            0            0        4 (2)
(8) Eastern Slope of the Santa Rita Mountains...............     172 (70)            0       14 (6)     186 (75)
(9) Las Cienegas National Conservation Area.................  1,235 (500)     186 (75)            0  1,420 (575)
(10) Pasture 9 Tank.........................................            0            0    0.5 (0.2)    0.5 (0.2)
(11) Scotia Canyon..........................................      70 (29)            0            0      70 (29)
(12) Beatty's Guest Ranch...................................            0            0       10 (4)       10 (4)
(13) Carr Barn Pond.........................................    0.6 (0.3)            0            0    0.6 (0.3)
(14) Ramsey and Brown Canyons...............................      58 (24)            0      65 (26)     123 (50)
(15) High Lonesome Well.....................................            0            0    0.4 (0.2)    0.4 (0.2)
(16) Peloncillo Mountains...................................    366 (148)            0    289 (117)    655 (265)
(17) Cave Creek.............................................     234 (95)            0      92 (37)    326 (132)
(18) Leslie Creek...........................................      26 (11)            0            0      26 (11)
(19) Rosewood and North Tanks...............................            0      78 (31)       19 (8)      97 (39)
(20) Deer Creek.............................................       17 (7)      69 (28)      34 (14)     120 (48)
(21) Oak Spring and Oak Creek...............................      27 (11)            0            0      27 (11)
(22) Dragoon Mountains......................................      74 (30)            0            0      74 (30)
(23) Buckskin Hills.........................................     232 (94)            0            0     232 (94)
(24) Crouch, Gentry, and Cherry Creeks, and Parallel Canyon.    334 (135)      64 (26)        6 (3)    404 (163)
(25) Ellison and Lewis Creeks...............................      83 (34)            0       15 (6)      99 (40)
(26) Concho Bill and Deer Creek.............................       17 (7)            0            0       17 (7)
(27) Campbell Blue and Coleman Creeks.......................     174 (70)            0            0     174 (70)
(28) Tularosa River.........................................    335 (135)            0  1,575 (637)  1,910 (772)
(29) Deep Creek Divide Area.................................    408 (165)            0     102 (41)    510 (206)
(30) Main Diamond Creek.....................................       14 (6)            0      40 (16)      54 (22)
(31) Beaver Creek...........................................     132 (54)            0      25 (10)     157 (64)
(32) Left Prong of Dix Creek................................       13 (5)            0            0       13 (5)
(33) Rattlesnake Pasture Tank and Associated Tanks..........      59 (24)            0            0      59 (24)
(34) Coal Creek.............................................        7 (3)            0            0        7 (3)
(35) Blue Creek.............................................      24 (10)            0       12 (5)      37 (15)
(36) Seco Creek.............................................      66 (27)            0    610 (247)    676 (273)
(37) Alamosa Warm Springs...................................    0.2 (0.1)      25 (10)      54 (22)      79 (32)
(38) Cuchillo Negro Warm Springs and Creek..................        3 (1)        3 (1)       23 (9)      28 (12)
(39) Ash and Bolton Springs.................................            0            0      49 (20)      49 (20)
(40) Mimbres River..........................................            0            0  1,097 (444)  1,097 (444)
                                                             ---------------------------------------------------
    Total...................................................        6,571    426 (173)        4,139       11,136
                                                                  (2,661)  ...........      (1,676)      (4,510)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding.

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

[[Page 14140]]

the shoreline of tanks. In addition, proposed critical habitat extends 
upstream from ponds from the extent of the boundary for 328 ft (100 m) 
from the high water line. The proposed critical habitat extends to 328 
ft (100 m) upstream because there is often a riparian drainage coming 
into the tank, and the frogs are likely moving along those drainages. 
Also, the high water line is defined as that water level which, if 
exceeded, results in overflow of the pond. In most cases, this is the 
elevation of the spillway in livestock impoundments.

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

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

[[Page 14141]]

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

[[Page 14142]]

are an additional threat. Frogs in this region test positive for 
chytridiomycosis; however, the disease appears to have little effect on 
population viability.

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

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

[[Page 14143]]

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

[[Page 14144]]

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

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

Unit 15: High Lonesome Well
    This unit includes 0.4 ac (0.2 ha) of privately owned lands in the 
Playas Valley, Hidalgo County, New Mexico. This unit is proposed as 
critical habitat because it was occupied at the time of listing and 
currently contains sufficient PCEs (PCE 1) to support life-history 
functions essential for the conservation of the species.
    This unit consists of an elevated concrete tank into which 
Chiricahua leopard frogs were introduced prior to listing (Painter 
2000, p. 15). The tank is supplied with water from a windmill and 
provides water for livestock. The site supports a robust breeding 
population, but is much too far from other populations to be part of a 
metapopulation (the nearest population is in Unit 17, 25.4 mi (40.6 km) 
to the west). Furthermore, although frogs can exit the tank, they 
cannot get back into the tank. As a result, it is managed as an 
isolated, robust population.

[[Page 14145]]

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

[[Page 14146]]

    Drought and lack of pools are limiting factors in this unit. 
Chiricahua leopard frogs are positive for chytridiomycosis at this 
site, and although they are persisting with the disease, the population 
is not robust, and the effects of the disease may be responsible in 
part. Bullfrogs occur in ponds to the east, but have never been 
recorded in Leslie Creek.
    The endangered Huachuca 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. A landowner 
adjacent to the the refuge has signed a Safe Harbor Agreement for the 
Chiricahua leopard frog and other species. With future habitat 
renovations and population reestablishments, there is some potential 
for developing additional populations of Chiricahua leopard frogs in 
this area, which could form a metapopulation with the Leslie Canyon 
population.
Unit 19: Rosewood and North Tanks
    This unit includes 19 ac (8 ha) of private land and 78 ac (31 ha) 
of land owned by the Arizona State Land Department in the San 
Bernardino Valley, Cochise County, Arizona. This unit is proposed as 
critical habitat because it was occupied at the time of listing and 
currently contains sufficient PCEs (PCEs 1 and 2) to support life-
history functions essential for the conservation of the species.
    Included in this proposed unit are two livestock tanks (Rosewood 
and North Tanks) and drainages and uplands to allow for movement of 
frogs between them. North Tank is on private land, while Rosewood Tank 
and the connecting drainage are on Arizona State Land Department lands. 
Rosewood Tank was occupied at the time of listing, but North Tank was 
not. Both tanks are currently occupied. Rosewood Tank is a breeding 
population, and North Tank probably supports breeding. The North Tank 
is a recent (2008) reestablishment site for which breeding has not yet 
been documented. Two interconnected breeding sites do not make a 
metapopulation (four or more interconnected breeding sites are 
necessary, Service 2007, p. K-3); hence this unit is considered an 
isolated population.
    The intervening drainages and uplands proposed as critical habitat 
are as follows: (1) From Rosewood Tank downstream in an unnamed 
drainage that is parallel to and just south of the Guadalupe Canyon 
Road to its confluence with a large unnamed drainage, then upstream in 
that drainage; (2) under Guadalupe Canyon Road and east to its 
confluence with a minor unnamed drainage; (3) upstream in that unnamed 
minor drainage to its headwaters; (4) then overland to the headwaters 
of another unnamed drainage; (5) downstream in that drainage to its 
confluence with the drainage containing North Tank; and (6) downstream 
in that drainage to North Tank.
    Chytridiomycosis has not been recorded in this unit despite its 
presence nearby at San Bernardino NWR. High pH at Rosewood Tank may be 
a limiting factor for the disease organism. No nonnative predators have 
been found at either of these tanks. Rosewood Tank has been equipped 
with two small, concrete-lined refugia ponds fed by a well so that the 
frogs can persist at this site even if the livestock tank, which is 
filled by runoff, goes dry.
    For many years, the owners of the Magoffin Ranch in this unit have 
made unprecedented efforts to maintain this population. The private and 
Arizona State Land Department lands in the proposal are covered by a 
Safe Harbor Agreement for the Chiricahua leopard frog. The Magoffin 
Ranch owners have worked tirelessly for the recovery of this species. 
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, lands in this unit are being 
considered for exclusion from the final rule for critical habitat (see 
Application of Section 4(b)(2) of the Act section below).

Recovery Unit 4 (Pi[ntilde]aleno-Galiuro-Dragoon Mountains, Arizona)

Unit 20: Deer Creek
    This unit consists of 17 ac (7 ha) of Coronado National Forest, 69 
ac (28 ha) of Arizona State Land Department lands, and 34 ac (14 ha) of 
private lands in the Galiuro Mountains, Graham County, Arizona. This 
unit is proposed as critical habitat because it is essential for the 
conservation of the species. PCEs 1 and 2 are present in this unit.
    Included in proposed critical habitat are Home Ranch, Clifford's, 
Vermont, and Middle Tanks, a series of 10 impoundments on the Penney 
Mine lease, and intervening drainages, primarily Deer Creek, and 
associated uplands and ephemeral tanks that provide corridors for 
movement among these tanks. Breeding has been confirmed on Deer Creek 
above Clifford's Tank, and in Home Ranch and Vermont Tanks, and is 
suspected in the other three sites named above when water is present 
long enough for tadpoles to metamorphose into adults (3 to 9 months). 
Home Ranch Tank supports a robust or nearly robust population of 
Chiricahua leopard frogs. This unit functions as a metapopulation. 
Intervening drainages include: (1) Deer Creek from a point where it 
exits a canyon and turns abruptly to the east, upstream to its 
confluence with an unnamed drainage, upstream in that drainage to a 
confluence with four other drainages, upstream from that confluence in 
the western drainage to Clifford's Tank, upstream from that confluence 
in the west-central drainage to an unnamed tank, then directly overland 
southeast to another unnamed tank, then downstream from that tank in an 
unnamed drainage to the aforementioned confluence and upstream in that 
unnamed drainage to a saddle, and downstream from that saddle in an 
unnamed drainage to its confluence with an unnamed tributary to Gardner 
Canyon, and upstream in that unnamed tributary to Home Ranch Tank; (2) 
from the largest of the Penney Mine Tanks directly overland and 
southwest to an unnamed tank, and downstream from that tank in an 
unnamed drainage to the aforementioned confluence, to include another 
unnamed tank situated in that drainage; (3) from Vermont Tank directly 
overland and east to Deer Creek; and (4) from Middle Tank upstream in 
an unnamed drainage to a saddle, and then directly downslope to Deer 
Creek.
    The primary threat to Chiricahua leopard frogs and their habitats 
in this unit is periodic drought that results in breeding sites drying 
out. During a severe drought in 2002, all but one of the waters in the 
unit dried out. The occupancy status of the unit at the time of listing 
is unknown. Frogs in this unit reportedly died for unknown reasons in 
the 1980s (Goforth 2005, p. 2), possibly indicative of 
chytridiomycosis; however, no Chiricahua leopard frogs have tested 
positive for the disease from this unit. The only nonnative aquatic 
predator recorded in this unit is the barred tiger salamander.
    Recovery work has occurred in this unit, including headstarting of 
egg masses and reestablishment and augmentation of populations. The 
Service, AGFD, Arizona State Land Department, and an agate miner 
(Penney Mine Tanks) have drafted a conservation plan for managing 
habitats on the mine lease, but funds are lacking to implement that 
plan.
Unit 21: Oak Spring and Oak Creek
    This unit consists of 27 ac (11 ha) of Coronado National Forest 
lands in the Galiuro Mountains, Graham County, Arizona. Oak Spring and 
Oak Creek are proposed as critical habitat because they

[[Page 14147]]

are essential for the conservation of the species.
    The unit is currently occupied; however, its occupancy status at 
the time of listing is unknown. It is just north of Deer Creek (Unit 
20) but is too far (about 1.6 mi (2.6 km)) overland (via straight-line 
distance) from the nearest aquatic sites (Home Ranch and Clifford's 
Tanks) in that unit. Connectivity is further complicated by a ridgeline 
between Oak Spring and Home Ranch Tank. Hence, this site is managed as 
an isolated population.
    PCEs 1 and 2 are present in this unit. The site does not support 
enough frogs to be considered a robust population. This unit is an 
approximate 1.06-mi (1.71-km) intermittent reach of an incised canyon 
punctuated by pools of varying permanence, from Oak Spring downstream 
in Oak Creek to where a hiking trail intersects the creek. The largest 
pool, Cattail Pool, is permanent or nearly so and typically supports 
several Chiricahua leopard frogs and breeding. The reach proposed for 
critical habitat captures the area where Chiricahua leopard frogs have 
been seen.
    The primary threat in this unit is extended drought during which 
all of the pools are subject to reduction or drying. Cattail Pool is 
spring-fed, and is likely the last pool to dry out. Oak Spring is also 
tapped for water developments, which may limit the capability of the 
site to support frogs. Chiricahua leopard frogs have been headstarted 
and released at this site to augment the population.
Unit 22: Dragoon Mountains
    This unit includes 74 ac (30 ha) of Coronado National Forest lands 
in Cochise County, Arizona. This uit is proposed as critical habitat 
because it was occupied at the time of listing and currently contains 
sufficient PCEs (PCEs 1 and 2) to support life-history functions 
essential for the conservation of the species.
    Shaw Tank and Tunnel Spring in Middlemarch Canyon are proposed as 
critical habitat in this unit and are currently occupied breeding 
sites. The latter is a robust population that was occupied at the time 
of listing. Shaw Tank is a reestablishment site that was not known to 
be occupied in 2002.
    Also included in the proposal as proposed critical habitat is 
Halfmoon Tank, which supported a robust population of Chiricahua 
leopard frogs until 2002. It dried or nearly dried that year and may or 
may not have supported Chiricahua leopard frogs at the time of listing. 
PCE 1 at Halfmoon Tank has been compromised by siltation and recent 
drought. The tank is in need of renovation so that it may again 
dependably hold water and support breeding.
    Currently, not enough breeding sites exist to comprise a 
metapopulation (four are necessary) in this unit; however, with 
additional habitat creation or renovation, a metapopulation may be 
possible, which is needed for this recovery unit (the only other 
metapopulation is in Unit 20).
    Also included in this critical habitat proposal are intervening 
drainages for connectivity, including Stronghold Canyon from Halfmoon 
Tank to Cochise Spring, then upstream in an unnamed canyon to Shaw 
Tank, and continuing upstream to the headwaters of that canyon, across 
a saddle and downstream in Middlemarch Canyon to Tunnel Spring.
    Threats to the Chiricahua leopard frog and its habitat are 
primarily scarcity of suitable breeding habitat and loss of that 
habitat during drought. Tunnel Spring is spring-fed and thus buffered 
against drought; however, Shaw and Halfmoon Tanks are filled with 
runoff. Neither nonnative predators nor chytridiomycosis have been 
noted in these populations and habitats, although if introduced they 
would constitute additional stressors.
    Recovery work, including headstarting of eggs collected from Tunnel 
Spring and establishment of a new population at Shaw Tank with reared 
tadpoles and frogs, has been accomplished in this unit, and the U.S. 
Forest Service's livestock permittee has been an enthusiastic 
participant in those recovery activities.

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

Unit 23: Buckskin Hills
    This unit includes 232 ac (94 ha) of Coconino National Forest lands 
in Yavapai County, Arizona. This unit is proposed as critical habitat 
because it was occupied at the time of listing and currently contains 
sufficient PCEs (PCEs 1 and 2) to support life-history functions 
essential for the conservation of the species.
    Included in this proposed critical habitat unit are six tanks 
occupied at the time of listing (Sycamore Basin, Middle, Walt's, 
Partnership, Black, and Buckskin) that form a metapopulation. Frogs 
currently occur at Middle and Walt's Tanks. Also included in the 
critical habitat proposal are two tanks occupied in 2001 that probably 
dried out during a drought in 2002: Doren's Defeat and Needed Tanks. 
The former holds water well and is about 0.5 mi (0.8 km) from 
Partnership Tank and 0.67 mi (1.07 km) from Walt's Tank. Needed Tank 
may not hold water long enough for breeding, but it provides a stopover 
for dispersing frogs.
    This proposed critical habitat also includes drainages and uplands 
likely used as dispersal corridors among these tanks, including: (1) 
From Middle Tank downstream in Boulder Canyon to its confluence with an 
unnamed drainage that comes in from the northwest, to include Black 
Tank, then upstream in that unnamed drainage to a saddle, to include 
Needed Tank, downstream from the saddle in an unnamed drainage to its 
confluence with another unnamed drainage, downstream in that drainage 
to the confluence with an unnamed drainage, to include Walt's Tank, and 
upstream in that unnamed drainage to Partnership Tank; (2) from Doren's 
Defeat Tank upstream in an unnamed drainage to Partnership Tank; (3) 
from the confluence of an unnamed drainage with Boulder Canyon west to 
a point where the drainage turns southwest, then directly overland to 
the top of Sycamore Canyon, and then downstream in Sycamore Canyon to 
Sycamore Basin Tank; and (4) from Buckskin Tank upstream in an unnamed 
drainage to the top of that drainage, then directly overland to an 
unnamed drainage that contains Walt's Tank.
    The greatest threats are reintroduction of nonnative species and 
drought. Divide Tank, which is adjacent to Highway 260, has supported 
nonnatives in the past and is a likely place for future illegal 
stockings of fish or bullfrogs. If established there, nonnatives could 
spread to sites proposed herein as critical habitat. All of the tanks 
proposed as critical habitat are filled by runoff; hence, they are 
vulnerable to drying during drought. When the species was proposed for 
listing, the populations in the Buckskin Hills were unknown; however, 
during 2000-2001, frogs were found at 11 sites. After a severe drought 
in 2002, frogs only remained at Sycamore Basin and Walt's Tanks. 
Drilling a well to make one or more of the tanks less susceptible to 
drying is cost prohibitive because of the extreme depth to groundwater. 
Because the tanks depend on runoff, and as most tanks went dry in 2002, 
protecting more than the minimum four breeding sites needed for a 
metapopulation is warranted. Chytridiomycosis has not been found in any 
wild frogs in the Buckskin Hills; however, the disease occurs in 
Arizona treefrogs (Hyla wrightorum) and western chorus frogs 
(Pseudacris triseriata) less than 10 mi (16 km) to the east, and frogs 
collected from Walt's Tank

[[Page 14148]]

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

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

Unit 26: Concho Bill and Deer Creek
    This unit includes 17 ac (7 ha) of Apache-Sitgreaves National 
Forest in Apache County, Arizona. This unit is proposed as critical 
habitat because it is essential for the conservation of the species. 
PCE 1 is present. Included in this critical habitat proposal is a 
spring at Concho Bill and a meadow-ephemeral stream reach extending for 
approximately 2,667 ft (813 m) below the spring.
    This is an isolated population that was established through captive 
breeding and translocation of stock from Three Forks, which is also in 
recovery unit 6 in Arizona. Frogs were first released at the spring 
pool in 2000; subsequent releases have augmented the population. 
Whether the frogs persisted after that initial release until the time 
of listing is unknown. The population is small and generally only a few 
frogs if any are detected during surveys.

[[Page 14149]]

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

[[Page 14150]]

downstream (western) boundary of Links Ranch downstream through a 
meadow to the confluence of a drainage that comes in from the south, 
which is also where the creek enters a canyon. This population is about 
a 4.6-mi (7.4-km), straight-line distance over rugged terrain to the 
next nearest population at Beaver Creek (Unit 31). As a result, it is 
managed as an isolated, robust population.
    Chytridiomycosis has not been found in this population, but is a 
potential threat. Bullfrogs at the impoundment likely prey upon 
Chiricahua leopard frogs. The creek is primarily privately owned; the 
future plans of the landowners regarding land management in the area 
are unknown.
Unit 31: Beaver Creek
    This unit consists of 132 ac (54 ha) of Gila National Forest and 25 
ac (10 ha) of private lands near Wall Lake, Catron County, New Mexico. 
This unit is an approximate 5.59-mi (8.89-km) portion of Beaver Creek 
beginning at a warm spring and running downstream to its confluence 
with Taylor Creek. Below that confluence, the stream is known as the 
East Fork of the Gila River. This unit is proposed as critical habitat 
because it is essential for the conservation of the species. PCE 1 is 
present in this unit.
    The status of the population at the time of listing is unknown; 
however, Chiricahua leopard frogs are currently present. The population 
is not well studied; Beaver Creek is, however, a long enough reach that 
it could support a robust population. The nearest known population of 
Chiricahua leopard frogs is at Main Diamond Creek (Unit 30), 
approximately a 4.6-mi (7.4-km), straight-line distance away over 
rugged terrain. As a result, this site is managed as an isolated 
population.
    The spring at the upstream end of the unit is a warm spring, which 
may help frogs survive with chytridiomycosis, if the disease is present 
or colonizes the area in the future (Johnson and Smorynski 1998, p. 45; 
Service 2007, p. 26). Rainbow trout, bass (Microptus sp.), and 
bullfrogs reportedly occur along Beaver Creek with Chiricahua leopard 
frogs, although trout are limited to the cooler waters near the 
confluence with Taylor Creek (Johnson and Smorynski 1998, pp. 44-45). 
The mechanisms by which Chiricahua leopard frogs coexist with these 
nonnative predators are unknown; however, habitat complexity and 
adequate cover are likely important features that may need special 
management.

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

Unit 32: Left Prong of Dix Creek
    This unit contains 13 ac (5 ha) of Apache-Sitgreaves National 
Forest lands in Greenlee County, Arizona. This unit is proposed as 
critical habitat because it is essential for the conservation of the 
species. PCE 1 is present.
    This reach runs from a warm spring above ``The Hole'' and continues 
to the confluence with the right prong of Dix Creek, an approximate 
stream distance of 4,248 ft (1,296 m). This population was discovered 
in 2003; its status at the time of listing is unknown. Chiricahua 
leopard frogs were found again in 2005. They were not observed in 2010, 
but a large boulder has lodged itself in the canyon, blocking access to 
the spring; hence, the warm spring was not surveyed. In 2003, 
Chiricahua leopard frogs were also reported from below a warm spring in 
the Right Prong of Dix Creek; however, surveys in 2010 only found 
lowland leopard frogs. Either the frogs in this reach were 
misidentified in 2003, or lowland leopard frogs have displaced 
Chiricahua leopard frogs in the Right Prong. Currently, the population 
in the Left Prong is isolated.
    The next nearest known Chiricahua leopard frog population is at 
Rattlesnake Pasture Tank (Unit 33), about a 6.0-mi (9.6-km), straight-
line distance over rough terrain. A number of stock tanks have 
potential to connect these two sites and form a metapopulation; 
however, they have not been investigated in enough detail to understand 
whether PCEs are present or have the potential to be developed. No 
Chiricahua leopard frogs have ever been found in these tanks.
    This proposed critical habitat overlaps that of critical habitat 
for Gila chub (Gila intermedia), which provides a level of protection 
for this unit. A healthy population of Gila chub, as well as other 
native fishes, occurs in the Left Prong of Dix Creek. A natural rock 
barrier about a mile below the confluence of the Right and Left Prongs 
serves as a barrier to upstream movement of nonnative fishes from the 
San Francisco River. The warm waters of the spring may allow 
persistence of Chiricahua leopard frogs if chytridiomycosis is present 
or if it colonizes this area in the future. A rough dirt road crosses 
the left prong of Dix Creek in the proposed critical habitat unit. It 
likely contributes some sediment to the stream.
Unit 33: Rattlesnake Pasture Tank and Associated Tanks
    This unit contains 59 ac (24 ha) of Apache-Sitgreaves National 
Forest in Greenlee County, Arizona. This unit is proposed as critical 
habitat because it is essential for the conservation of the species. 
PCEs 1 and 2 are present in this unit.
    Included in the proposed critical habitat are three stock tanks: 
Rattlesnake Pasture, Rattlesnake Gap, and Buckhorn. Also included are 
intervening drainages and uplands for connectivity, including: (1) From 
Rattlesnake Pasture Tank downstream in an unnamed drainage to Red Tank 
Canyon (including Buckhorn Tank), then upstream in Red Tank Canyon to 
Rattlesnake Gap Tank; and (2) from Rattlesnake Gap Tank upstream in an 
unnamed drainage to its confluence with a minor drainage, then upslope 
to a saddle, and across that saddle and directly downslope to 
Rattlesnake Pasture Tank.
    Chiricahua leopard frogs were discovered at Rattlesnake Pasture 
Tank in 2003, and are currently there. Status at the time of listing is 
unknown. The species has not been found at Rattlesnake Gap or Buckhorn 
Tanks; however, all three tanks are close to each other and well 
connected via drainages to allow movement of frogs from Rattlesnake 
Pasture Tank to these other tanks. Rattlesnake Gap and Buckhorn Tanks 
appear to have fairly permanent water. Other tanks in the area, 
including Cold Spring Mountain Tank and Rattlesnake Tanks 1 
and 2, do not hold water consistently enough to support a breeding 
population of frogs (and Chiricahua leopard frogs have not been found 
at these other tanks). The three tanks proposed form a nucleus from 
which a metapopulation could be constructed; however, habitat work will 
be needed to achieve the fourth breeding site of the metapopulation.
    Tiger salamanders, presumably native Arizona tiger salamanders 
(Ambystoma mavortium nebulosum), occur in all three tanks and likely 
prey upon Chiricahua leopard frogs to some degree. However, a healthy 
population of Chiricahua leopard frogs occurs with Arizona tiger 
salamanders at Rattlesnake Pasture Tank. Three juvenile to small adult 
bullfrogs, which were likely immigrants from another site, were found 
at Rattlesnake Gap Tank in June 2010. If a population of bullfrogs is 
established at Rattlesnake Gap Tank, it would threaten Chiricahua 
leopard frogs in Rattlesnake Pasture Tank and the capacity for recovery 
in this recovery unit 7. These tanks are fed by rainfall

[[Page 14151]]

runoff, but Rattlesnake Pasture Tank may be spring fed as well. 
Nonetheless, there is some risk that these tanks, particularly Buckhorn 
Tank, could dry out during an extended drought.
Unit 34: Coal Creek
    This unit consists of 7 ac (3 ha) of Apache-Sitgreaves National 
Forest in Greenlee County, Arizona, and is proposed as critical habitat 
because it is essential for the conservation of the species. This is an 
approximate 3,447-ft (1,051-m) reach of Coal Creek from Highway 78 
downstream to the confluence with an unnamed drainage. Seasonally this 
creek dries up to isolated pools where Chiricahua leopard frogs take 
refuge. However, during the spring and summer, Coal Creek typically 
carries water and the frogs distribute themselves throughout this 
reach. PCE 1 is present.
    This population was discovered in 2003, and is considered to be 
still in existence. Status at the time of listing is unknown. This unit 
is isolated from other Chiricahua leopard frog populations, the nearest 
of which is Rattlesnake Pasture Tank in Unit 33, 5.1 mi (8.2 km) to the 
west over rugged terrain. Hence, it is currently managed as an isolated 
population; however, it may not have sufficient habitat to support a 
robust population in most years. There may be some potential for 
linking this population to Units 32 or 33, if aquatic habitats in 
between could be identified, renovated as needed, and populations of 
frogs established. However, potential sites and presence of PCEs have 
not been investigated in any detail. No Chiricahua leopard frogs have 
been found at sites between Units 32, 33, and 34.
    Neither chytridiomycosis nor nonnative predators is known to be a 
problem in this unit; however, if introduced, they could be a serious 
impediment to recovery, particularly when the creek dries to isolated 
pools, concentrating frogs and any predators or disease in remaining 
waters. Wildfire in the area could result in ash flow, sedimentation, 
and erosion in Coal Creek, degrading or eliminating habitat for 
Chiricahua leopard frogs. The primary threat is probably extended 
drought, during which the aquatic habitats of the frog could be 
severely limited or could dry out completely, resulting in extirpation 
of this isolated population.
Unit 35: Blue Creek
    This unit includes 24 ac (10 ha) of Bureau of Land Management and 
12 ac (5 ha) of private lands in Grant County, New Mexico. This unit is 
proposed as critical habitat because it was occupied at the time of 
listing and currently contains sufficient PCEs to support 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 are currently known to breed. Additional 
habitat may occur upstream on private or State lands; however, the 
private reach immediately above the proposed critical habitat lacks 
breeding pools and no frogs have been found there (Barnitz 2010, p. 1). 
The lands upstream of there have not been surveyed.
    PCE 1 is present in this unit; however, this unit is much too far 
from other known Chiricahua leopard frog populations to be considered 
part of a metapopulation. The nearest population is at Coal Creek (Unit 
34) more than 22 mi (35 km) away by way of a straight-line distance.
    The primary limiting factor in this proposed critical habitat reach 
is lack of perennial flow and periodic flash flooding during the 
summer. In some years, the entire reach goes dry in June; however, in 
wetter periods frogs breed throughout this reach. Scouring floods, 
which happen during or after summer rains, likely wash tadpoles 
downstream and out of the unit. Nonnative aquatic predators are not 
known in the unit, and although a Chiricahua leopard frog from this 
unit tested positive for chytridiomycosis in 2009, no die-offs have 
been noted. Wildfire in the area could result in ash flow, 
sedimentation, and erosion in Blue Creek, degrading or eliminating 
habitat for Chiricahua leopard frogs.

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

Unit 36: Seco Creek
    This unit includes 610 ac (247 ha) of private lands and 66 ac (27 
ha) of Gila National Forest in Sierra County, New Mexico. This area is 
proposed as critical habitat because it was occupied at the time of 
listing and currently contains sufficient PCEs to support life-history 
functions essential for the conservation of the species.
    The proposed critical habitat includes: (1) The North Fork of Seco 
Creek from Sawmill Well downstream to the confluence with South Fork of 
Seco Creek, including from west to east, Sucker Ledge, Davis Well, 
North Seco Well, Pauge Well, and LM Bar Well; (2) South Seco Creek from 
South Seco Well downstream to its confluence with the North Fork of 
Seco Creek; (3) Seco Creek from the confluence with North and South 
Forks of Seco Creek to the confluence with Ash Creek, including Fish 
Well and Johnson Well; and (4) Ash Creek from Artesia Well downstream 
to Seco Creek.
    Chiricahua leopard frogs are known to breed at all of the above 
mentioned wells except Sawmill and Johnson Wells. They also breed in a 
perennial reach of Seco Creek below Johnson Well. Frogs were extant at 
Davis Well, LM Bar Well, North Seco Well, Pauge Well, and Sucker Ledge 
at the time of listing. Status at other sites in 2002 is unknown. All 
of the aquatic sites are currently occupied. PCEs 1 and 2 are present 
in the unit.
    The aquatic sites form a metapopulation, and frogs move among these 
sites via reaches of the intervening creeks. This unit represents the 
strongest metapopulation in New Mexico.
    Chytridiomycosis has caused extirpations in this region, and in 
2001, four tadpoles from Seco Creek appeared to have damaged mouthparts 
consistent with the disease. However, no frogs have tested positive 
since then. Bullfrogs have been found occasionally, but the landowner 
(Ladder Ranch) dispatches them as they are discovered. Tiger 
salamanders (Ambystoma mavortium) occur in most waters on the Ladder 
Ranch and likely prey upon Chiricahua leopard frog tadpoles and small 
frogs, but the frogs and salamanders are able to coexist together. Most 
of the wells listed above are either artesian or equipped with solar-
powered pumps, and thus provide dependable water through drought 
periods.
    Recovery work in this unit has included fencing some of the waters 
from the bison that graze the area and reestablishment of populations 
using wild-to-wild translocations. The Ladder Ranch also monitors the 
frogs and habitats, and recently they have initiated a captive breeding 
facility and program to rear frogs for population augmentation and 
reestablishment. They also hold Seco Creek frogs in refugia near the 
ranch headquarters. Research on movements of Chiricahua leopard frogs 
using radiotelemetry has been funded by the Ladder Ranch and carried 
out in the Seco Creek area. Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, private 
lands in this unit are being considered for exclusion from the final 
rule for critical habitat (see Application of Section 4(b)(2) of the 
Act section below).

[[Page 14152]]

Unit 37: Alamosa Warm Springs
    This unit consists of 54 ac (22 ha) of private, 25 ac (10 ha) of 
New Mexico State, and 0.2 ac (0.1 ha) of Bureau of Land Management 
lands at the headwaters of Alamosa Creek, Socorro County, New Mexico. 
This unit is proposed as critical habitat because it was occupied at 
the time of listing and currently contains sufficient PCEs to support 
life-history functions essential for the conservation of the species. 
PCE 1 is present in this unit.
    Proposed critical habitat includes an approximate 4,974-ft (1,516-
m) spring run from the confluence of Wildhorse Canyon and Alamosa Creek 
downstream to the confluence with a drainage that comes in from the 
north, which is below the gauging station in Monticello Box. This reach 
includes areas where frogs have been found in recent years (Christman 
2006b, p. 11).
    At its source, waters at Alamosa Warm Springs range from 77 to 85 
[deg]F (25.0 to 29.3 [deg]C) (Christman 2006b, p. 3). Chytridiomycosis 
is present in this population, and presumably the warm waters allow 
persistence despite the disease.
    This is a robust, breeding population, but it is too far removed 
from other Chiricahua leopard frog populations to be part of a 
metapopulation. The nearest population is in Unit 38, 20.3 mi (32.5 km) 
to the south-southeast. As a result, this site is managed as an 
isolated, robust population.
    Alamosa Warm Springs is at the northeastern edge of the 
distribution of the Chiricahua leopard frog. The species was present at 
the time of listing and is currently present. This site is drought-
resistant because of perennial spring flow. Nonnative aquatic predators 
are unknown at this site, but if introduced could pose a serious threat 
to the population. Heavy livestock grazing on the site, in the 
watershed, and a dirt road through the canyon have degraded the habitat 
for Chiricahua leopard frogs, and flooding likely flushes tadpoles out 
of the unit periodically (Christman 2006b, pp. 5-6).
    The endangered Alamosa springsnail (Tryonia alamosae) occurs at 
Alamosa Warm Springs; its presence may provide some additional level of 
protection to Chiricahua leopard frog. The future land management plans 
of the landowners are unknown.
Unit 38: Cuchillo Negro Warm Springs and Creek
    This unit consists of 3 ac (1 ha) of Bureau of Land Management, 3 
ac (1 ha) of New Mexico State, and 23 ac (9 ha) of private lands in 
Sierra County, New Mexico. This unit is proposed as critical habitat 
because it was occupied at the time of listing and currently contains 
sufficient PCEs to support life-history functions essential for the 
conservation of the species.
    Two springs on Bureau of Land Management land are the source of a 
mostly perennial stream flow that runs for about 6.0 mi (9.6 km) down 
Cuchillo Negro Creek; however, the Chiricahua leopard frogs are rarely 
found more than 1.2 mi (2.0 km) downstream of the warm springs 
(Christman 2006a, p. 8). The proposed critical habitat begins at the 
upper of the two springs and follows Cuchillo Negro Creek downstream to 
the confluence with an unnamed drainage that comes in from the south, 
for an approximate stream distance of 1.58 mi (2.54 km).
    Chytridiomycosis is present in this population, and it is likely 
that frogs persist where the water is warm, but succumb to the disease 
in the cooler waters downstream. Chiricahua leopard frogs currently 
persist in very low numbers in this unit.
    PCE 1 is present in this unit; however, this site is too far from 
other Chiricahua leopard frog populations to be considered part of a 
metapopulation. The nearest population is in Unit 36, about 12.7 mi 
(20.3 km) to the 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. Bullfrogs have been 
recorded in Cuchillo Negro Creek, but only rarely, and apparently do 
not breed or persist in the reach with the leopard frogs (Christman 
2006a, p. 9).
    The primary threats in this unit are periodic cleaning out of the 
channel by the Cuchillo Acequia Association, seasonal flooding that 
eliminates tadpoles and fills in pools, and chytridiomycosis. The 
springs located on Bureau of Land Management land are the source of 
downstream irrigation water, and the Cuchillo Acequia Association has 
maintained two trenches through the springs reportedly to improve flow. 
Channel work in 2001 resulted in extensive damage to the springs, 
stream, and riparian vegetation (67 FR 40802; June 13, 2002).
    The private landowner downstream of the springs is the Ladder 
Ranch, and as described in the Unit 36 description above, the ranch is 
an active participant in Chiricahua leopard frog recovery. Under 
section 4(b)(2) of the Act, the private lands in Unit 38 are being 
considered for exclusion from the final rule for critical habitat (see 
Application of Section 4(b)(2) of the Act section below).
Unit 39: Ash and Bolton Springs
    This unit consists of 49 ac (20 ha) of private lands east of Hurley 
in Grant County, New Mexico. This unit is proposed as critical habitat 
because it was occupied at the time of listing and currently contains 
sufficient PCEs to support life-history functions essential for the 
conservation of the species.
    Included in the critical habitat proposal are Ash Spring and a 
spring in Bolton Canyon locally known as Bolton Springs. Also included 
are ephemeral or intermittent drainages and uplands needed for movement 
of frogs among these two breeding sites as follows: (1) From the spring 
box at Ash Spring downstream in a drainage to a dirt road crossing; and 
(2) west and overland from the ruins of an old house below Ash Spring 
to a low saddle, then downslope into an unnamed drainage, and 
downstream in that drainage to its confluence with another unnamed 
drainage, downstream in that unnamed drainage its confluence with 
another unnamed drainage, then upstream in that unnamed drainage to the 
top of that drainage and directly downslope and west to another unnamed 
drainage, downstream in that unnamed drainage to its confluence with 
Bolton Canyon, and upstream in Bolton Canyon to the locally known 
Bolton Springs.
    Populations at Ash and Bolton Springs were present at the time of 
listing and currently still exist. PCEs 1 and 2 are present in this 
unit. These sites were once part of a metapopulation, but recent 
extirpations have left only these two populations. There may be 
potential in the future to rebuild a metapopulation through natural 
recolonization or population reestablishments, if threats can be 
managed.
    The lands are owned by 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 proposed for critical 
habitat, and Freeport-McMoRan and its predecessor, Phelps-Dodge, have 
been cooperative in conservation of the Chiricahua leopard frog.
    Chytridiomycosis is probably the key threat in this unit; this 
region has experienced die-offs and extirpations associated with 
chytridiomycosis. Large

[[Page 14153]]

numbers of dead frogs were found at Ash Spring in 2007; however, the 
frogs at Bolton Springs have shown no signs of disease. Both 
populations exist in small aquatic sites that cannot sustain large 
populations; hence they are also vulnerable to variations in 
environmental conditions and population demographics.
Unit 40: Mimbres River
    This unit consists of 1,097 ac (444 ha) of private lands in Grant 
County, New Mexico. The unit is proposed as critical habitat because it 
was occupied at the time of listing and currently contains sufficient 
PCEs to support life-history functions essential for the conservation 
of the species.
    The unit is divided into two disjunct reaches of the Mimbres River 
that are separated by a 6.6-mi (10.6-km), intermittent reach. PCE 1 is 
present; however, the two reaches may be too far apart to reasonably 
expect frogs to move between the two sites, and the next nearest 
Chiricahua leopard frog population is at Ash Spring in Unit 39, over 10 
mi (16 km) away from the lower Mimbres River reach across rugged 
terrain.
    Proposed critical habitat in the upper Mimbres River includes an 
approximate 2.42-mi (3.89-km) reach that begins where the river flows 
into The Nature Conservancy's property and continues downstream to the 
confluence with Bear Canyon. The approximate 5.82-mi (9.36-km) proposed 
lower critical habitat reach begins at the bridge over the Mimbres 
River just west of San Lorenzo and continues downstream to where it 
exits the The Nature Conservancy's Disert parcel near Faywood. The two 
proposed critical habitat reaches are largely perennial, although 
portions of the river dry out during drought. Frogs are currently 
present in both reaches of the Mimbres River.
    The best breeding site in the upper reach is at Moreno Spring, 
which harbors a robust population of Chiricahua leopard frogs. In the 
upper reach, frogs are also observed and breed in the river itself and 
at ponds at Emory Oak Ranch. Breeding occurs in the lower river reach 
as well, where a robust population is present near San Juan.
    Chytridiomycosis is present in this unit; however, frogs are 
persisting with the disease. Moreno Spring is a warm spring that likely 
provides some buffer against the effects of the chytridiomycosis. Other 
threats include agricultural and rural development, water diversions, 
groundwater pumping, and leveeing and bankline work to protect 
properties from flooding. Periodic high flows probably wash some 
tadpoles out of the system and fill in pools used for breeding. No 
bullfrogs or crayfish have ever been found in this unit; although if 
introduced, they could pose a significant threat.
    The threatened Chihuahua chub (Gila nigrescens) occurs in the upper 
reach, and introduced rainbow trout occur throughout the areas where 
there is water. Both trout and chub likely prey upon Chiricahua leopard 
frog tadpoles. Bear Canyon Reservoir in Bear Canyon near the town of 
Mimbres reportedly supports populations of channel catfish (Ictalurus 
punctatus), black crappie (Pomoxis nigromaculatus), largemouth bass, 
and bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), plus winter stocked rainbow trout 
(Johnson and Smorynski 1998, p. 132). These species may spill 
periodically into the Mimbres River from the reservoir, adding 
additional nonnative predators to the river.
    Presence of the Chihuahua chub and protections afforded by the Act 
may provide some level of protection to the upper reach. In addition, 
The Nature Conservancy owns the majority of the river in the upper 
reach (not including Moreno Spring or Emory Oak Ranch) and significant 
parcels in the lower reach. These lands, known as The Mimbres River 
Preseve, are managed for the benefit of the Chihuahua chub, Chiricahua 
leopard frog, and other riparian and aquatic resources. Under section 
4(b)(2) of the Act, private lands owned by The Nature Conservancy in 
this unit are being considered for exclusion from the final rule for 
critical habitat (see Application of Section 4(b)(2) of the Act section 
below).

Effects of Critical Habitat Designation

Section 7 Consultation

    Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the 
Service, to ensure that actions they authorize, fund, or carry out are 
not likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. Decisions 
by the Fifth and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeal have invalidated our 
definition of ``destruction or adverse modification'' (50 CFR 402.02) 
(see Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 378 
F. 3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2004) and Sierra Club v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service et al., 245 F.3d 434, 442 (5th Cir. 2001), and as a result, we 
do not rely on this regulatory definition when analyzing whether an 
action is likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. Under 
the statutory provisions of the Act, we determine destruction or 
adverse modification on the basis of whether, with implementation of 
the proposed Federal action, the affected critical habitat would remain 
functional (or retain those PCEs that relate to the ability of the area 
to periodically support the species) to serve its intended conservation 
role for the species.
    If a species is listed or critical habitat is designated, section 
7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies to ensure that activities 
they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the 
continued existence of the species or to destroy or adversely modify 
its critical habitat. If a Federal action may affect a listed species 
or its critical habitat, the responsible Federal agency (action agency) 
must enter into consultation with us. As a result of this consultation, 
we document compliance with the requirements of section 7(a)(2) through 
our issuance of:
    (1) A letter of concurrence with determination by a Federal agency 
that their actions may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect, 
listed species or critical habitat; or
    (2) A biological opinion for Federal actions that may affect, and 
are likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat.
    When we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is 
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or 
destroy or adversely modify critical habitat, we also provide 
reasonable and prudent alternatives to the project, if any are 
identifiable. ``Reasonable and prudent alternatives'' are defined at 50 
CFR 402.02 as alternative actions identified during consultation that:
     Can be implemented in a manner consistent with the 
intended purpose of the action,
     Can be implemented consistent with the scope of the 
Federal agency's legal authority and jurisdiction,
     Are economically and technologically feasible, and
     Would, in the Director's opinion, avoid jeopardizing the 
continued existence of the listed species or destroying or adversely 
modifying critical habitat.
    Reasonable and prudent alternatives can vary from slight project 
modifications to extensive redesign or relocation of the project. Costs 
associated with implementing a reasonable and prudent alternative are 
similarly variable.
    Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require Federal agencies to reinitiate 
consultation on previously reviewed actions in instances where we have 
listed a new species or subsequently designated critical habitat that 
may be affected and the Federal agency has

[[Page 14154]]

retained discretionary involvement or control over the action (or the 
agency's discretionary involvement or control is authorized by law). 
Consequently, Federal agencies may sometimes need to request 
reinitiation of consultation with us on actions for which formal 
consultation has been completed, if those actions with discretionary 
involvement or control may affect subsequently listed species or 
designated critical habitat.
    Federal activities that may affect the Chiricahua leopard frog or 
its critical habitat require section 7 consultation under the Act. 
Activities on State, Tribal, local, or private lands requiring a 
Federal permit (such as a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
under section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or a 
permit from us under section 10 of the Act) or involving some other 
Federal action (such as funding from the Natural Resource Conservation 
Service, Federal Highway Administration, Federal Aviation 
Administration, or the Federal Emergency Management Agency) are subject 
to the section 7 consultation process. Federal actions not affecting 
listed species or critical habitat, and actions on State, Tribal, local 
or private lands that are not federally authorized, funded, or 
permitted do not require section 7 consultations.

Application of the ``Adverse Modification'' Standard

    The key factor related to the adverse modification determination is 
whether, with implementation of the proposed Federal action, the 
affected critical habitat would continue to serve its intended 
conservation role for the species, or retain those PCEs that relate to 
the ability of the area to periodically or regularly support the 
species. Activities that may destroy or adversely modify critical 
habitat are those that alter the PCEs to an extent that appreciably 
reduces the conservation value of critical habitat for the Chiricahua 
leopard frog. As discussed above, the role of critical habitat is to 
support the life-history needs of the species and provide for the 
conservation of the species as breeding habitat or as movement 
corridors among breeding sites in a metapopulation.
    Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to briefly evaluate and 
describe, in any proposed or final regulation that designates critical 
habitat, activities involving a Federal action that may destroy or 
adversely modify such habitat, or that may be affected by such 
designation.
    Activities that, when carried out, funded, or authorized by a 
Federal agency, may affect critical habitat and therefore should result 
in consultation for the Chiricahua leopard frog include, but are not 
limited to:
    (1) Actions that would significantly increase sediment deposition 
or scouring within the stream channel or pond that acts as a breeding 
site or a movement corridor among breeding sites in a metapopulation. 
Such activities could include, but are not limited to: Excessive 
sedimentation from livestock overgrazing; road construction; commercial 
or urban development; channel alteration; timber harvest; prescribed 
fires; off-road vehicle or recreational use; and other alterations of 
watersheds and floodplains. These activities could adversely affect the 
potential for frogs to survive or breed at a breeding site, and reduce 
the likelihood that frogs could move among subpopulations in a 
metapopulation, which in turn would decrease the viability of the 
metapopulation and its component local populations.
    (2) Actions that would alter water chemistry beyond the tolerance 
limits of the Chiricahua leopard frog (see discussion above, ``Aquatic 
Breeding Habitat and Immediately Adjacent Uplands''). Such activities 
could include, but are not limited to: Release of chemicals, biological 
pollutants, or effluents into the surface water or into connected 
groundwater at a point source or by dispersed release (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 a month 
each year, it will lose its ability to support breeding Chiricahua 
leopard frogs. If the quantity of water declines, it may reduce the 
likelihood that the site will support a population of frogs that is 
robust enough to be viable over time. Similarly, ephemeral, 
intermittent, or perennial ponds can be important stop-over points for 
frogs moving among breeding sites in a metapopulation. Reducing the 
permanence of these sites may reduce their ability to facilitate frog 
movements. However, in some cases, increasing permanence can be 
detrimental as well, in that it could create favorable habitat for 
predatory fishes, bullfrogs, or crayfish that otherwise could not exist 
in the system. Such activities that could cause these effects include, 
but are not limited to, water diversions, groundwater pumping, 
watershed degredation, construction or destruction of dams or 
impoundments, developments or `improvements' at a spring, 
channelization, dredging, road and bridge construction, and destruction 
of riparian or wetland vegetation.
    (4) Actions that would directly or indirectly result in 
introduction of nonnative predators, increase the abundance of extant 
predators, or introduce disease, particularly chytridiomycosis. 
Possible actions could include, but are not limited to: Introduction or 
stocking of fishes, bullfrogs, crayfish, tiger salamanders or other 
predators on the Chiricahua leopard frog; creating or sustaining a 
sport fishery that encourages use of live fish, crayfish, tiger 
salamanders, or frogs as bait; water diversions, canals, or other water 
conveyance that moves water from one place to another and through which 
inadvertent transport of predators into Chiricahua leopard frog habitat 
may occur; and movement of water, mud, wet equipment, or vehicles from 
one aquatic site to another, through which inadvertent transport of may 
occur.
    (5) Actions and structures that would physically block movement 
among breeding sites in a metapopulation. Such actions and structures 
include, but are not limited to: Urban, industrial, or agricultural 
development; reservoirs stocked with predatory fishes, bullfrogs, or 
crayfish that are 50 ac (20 ha) or more in size; highways that do not 
include frog fencing and culverts; and walls, dams, fences, canals, or 
other structures that physically block movement. These actions and 
structures could reduce or eliminate immigration and emigration among 
breeding sites in a metapopulation, reducing the viability of the 
metapopulation and its subpopulations.
    (6) Actions that would remove or block access to riparian 
vegetation and banklines within 20 ft (6.1 m) of the high water line of 
breeding ponds or to the upland edge of the wetland and riparian 
vegetation community lining breeding sites, whichever is greatest, or 
that would reduce vegetation in movement corridors among breeding sites 
in a metapopulation. Such activities could include, but are not

[[Page 14155]]

limited to: Clearing of riparian or wetland vegetation; saltcedar 
(Tamarix sp.) control; road, bridge, or canal construction; urban 
development; conversion of river bottomlands to agriculture; stream or 
drainage channelization; and levee or dike construction. In some cases, 
thinning of very dense vegetation, such as cattails, which can 
completely take over an aquatic site, can be beneficial to the frog and 
its habitat. However, in most cases, vegetation clearing or removal, or 
blocking access to uplands adjacent to breeding sites, will reduce the 
quality of foraging and basking habitat, and may increase the 
likelihood of successful predation because cover has been removed.
    We note that the above activities may adversely affect critical 
habitat. As stated previously, an activity adversely affecting critical 
habitat must be of a severity or intensity that the PCEs are 
compromised to the extent that the critical habitat can no longer meet 
its intended conservation function before a destruction or adverse 
modification determination is reached. Within the context of the goals 
and purposes of the recovery strategy in the species' recovery plan, an 
activity that compromises the PCEs to the point that one or more of the 
recovery criteria could not be achieved or would be very difficult to 
achieve in one or more recovery units would deteriorate the value of 
critical habitat to the point that its conservation function could not 
be met.

Exemptions

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

    The Sikes Act Improvement Act of 1997 (Sikes Act) (16 U.S.C. 670a) 
required each military installation that includes land and water 
suitable for the conservation and management of natural resources to 
complete an integrated natural resources management plan (INRMP) by 
November 17, 2001. An INRMP integrates implementation of the military 
mission of the installation with stewardship of the natural resources 
found on the base. Each INRMP includes:
     An assessment of the ecological needs on the installation, 
including the need to provide for the conservation of listed species;
     A statement of goals and priorities;
     A detailed description of management actions to be 
implemented to provide for these ecological needs; and
     A monitoring and adaptive management plan.
    Among other things, each INRMP must, to the extent appropriate and 
applicable, provide for fish and wildlife management; fish and wildlife 
habitat enhancement or modification; wetland protection, enhancement, 
and restoration where necessary to support fish and wildlife; and 
enforcement of applicable natural resource laws.
    The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Pub. 
L. 108-136) amended the Act to limit areas eligible for designation as 
critical habitat. Specifically, section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (16 
U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) now provides: ``The Secretary shall not 
designate as critical habitat any lands or other geographical areas 
owned or controlled by the Department of Defense, or designated for its 
use, that are subject to an integrated natural resources management 
plan prepared under section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a), if 
the Secretary determines in writing that such plan provides a benefit 
to the species for which critical habitat is proposed for 
designation.''
    There are no Department of Defense lands within the proposed 
critical habitat designation; thus we are not exempting any lands from 
critical habitat under section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act.

Exclusions

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

    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary must designate 
and revise critical habitat on the basis of the best available 
scientific data after taking into consideration the economic impact, 
national security impact, and any other relevant impact of specifying 
any particular area as critical habitat. The Secretary may exclude an 
area from critical habitat if he determines that the benefits of such 
exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying such area as part of the 
critical habitat, unless he determines, based on the best scientific 
data available, that the failure to designate such area as critical 
habitat will result in the extinction of the species. In making that 
determination, the legislative history is clear that the Secretary has 
broad discretion regarding which factor(s) to use and how much weight 
to give to any factor.
    Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we may exclude an area from 
designated critical habitat based on economic impacts, impacts on 
national security, or any other relevant impacts. In considering 
whether to exclude a particular area from the designation, we must 
identify the benefits of including the area in the designation, 
identify the benefits of excluding the area from the designation, and 
determine whether the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of 
inclusion. If based on this analysis, we make this determination, then 
we can exclude the area only if such exclusion would not result in the 
extinction of the species.
    When considering the benefits of inclusion for an area, we consider 
the additional regulatory benefits that area would receive from the 
protection from adverse modification or destruction as a result of 
actions with a Federal nexus; the educational benefits of mapping 
essential habitat for recovery of the listed species; and any benefits 
that may result from a designation due to State or Federal laws that 
may apply to critical habitat.
    When considering the benefits of exclusion, we consider, among 
other things, whether exclusion of a specific area is likely to result 
in conservation; the continuation, strengthening, or encouragement of 
partnerships; implementation of a management plan that provides equal 
to or more conservation than a critical habitat designation would 
provide; or a combination of these.
    In the case of the Chiricahua leopard frog, the benefits of 
critical habitat include public awareness of Chiricahua leopard frog 
presence and the importance of habitat protection, and in cases where a 
Federal nexus exists, increased habitat protection for Chiricahua 
leopard frogs due to the protection from adverse modification or 
destruction of critical habitat.
    The consultation provisions under section 7(a) of the Act 
constitute the regulatory benefits of critical habitat. Federal 
agencies must consult with us on discretionary actions that may affect 
critical habitat and must avoid destroying or adversely modifying 
critical habitat. Federal agencies must also consult with the Service 
on discretionary actions that may affect a listed species and refrain 
from undertaking actions that are likely to jeopardize the continued 
existence of such species. The analysis of effects to critical habitat 
is a separate and different analysis from that of the effects to the 
species. Therefore, the difference in outcomes of these two analyses 
represents the regulatory benefit of critical habitat. For some 
species, and in some locations, the outcome of these analyses will be 
similar, because effects on habitat will often result in effects on the 
species. However, the regulatory standard is different. The jeopardy 
analysis looks at the action's impact on survival and recovery of the 
species, while the adverse modification analysis examines the action's 
effects on the

[[Page 14156]]

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

[[Page 14157]]

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

[[Page 14158]]

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

[[Page 14159]]

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

                 Table 3--Exemptions and Areas Considered for Exclusion by Critical Habitat Unit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Section of the    Area meeting the
                                                          act that is the     definition of
                                    Specific area to be      basis for       critical habitat       Possible
               Unit                   considered for          possible         in the unit        exclusion in
                                         exclusion          exclusion or          (acres        acres (hectares)
                                                             exemption         (hectares))
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10...............................  Pasture 9 Tank......            4(b)(2)          0.5 (0.2)          0.5 (0.2)
12...............................  Beatty's Guest Ranch            4(b)(2)             10 (4)             10 (4)
14...............................  Ramsey Canyon                   4(b)(2)           123 (50)             16 (6)
                                    Preserve.
16...............................  Canoncito Ranch.....            4(b)(2)          655 (265)          289 (117)
17...............................  Southwest Research              4(b)(2)          326 (132)            92 (37)
                                    Station.
19...............................  Magoffin Ranch......            4(b)(2)            97 (39)            97 (39)
36...............................  Ladder Ranch........            4(b)(2)          676 (273)          610 (247)
38...............................  Ladder Ranch........            4(b)(2)            28 (12)             23 (9)
40...............................  Mimbres River                   4(b)(2)        1,097 (444)          510 (206)
                                    Preserve.
                                  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Totals.......................  ....................  .................      3,013 (1,219)        1,648 (665)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Peer Review

    In accordance with our joint policy published in the Federal 
Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we will seek the expert 
opinions of at least three appropriate and independent specialists 
regarding this proposed rule. The purpose of peer review is to ensure 
that our critical habitat designation is based on scientifically sound 
data, assumptions, and analyses. We will send copies of this proposed 
rule to these peer reviewers immediately following publication in the 
Federal Register. We will invite these peer reviewers to comment during 
the public comment period on our specific assumptions and conclusions 
concerning the taxonomic revision of the Chiricahua leopard frog, our 
assessment of threats to the currently described species Lithobates 
chiricahuensis, our proposal of listing as threatened the currently 
described species, and our proposed designation of critical habitat.
    We will consider all comments and information we receive during the 
comment period on this proposed rule during our preparation of a final 
determination. Accordingly, the final decision may differ from this 
proposal.

Public Hearings

    The Act provides for one or more public hearings on this proposal, 
if requested. Requests must be received within 45 days after the date 
of publication of this proposed rule in the Federal Register (see the 
DATES section above). Such requests must be sent to the address shown 
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. We will schedule public 
hearings on this proposal, if any are requested, and announce the 
dates, times, and places of those hearings, as well as how to obtain 
reasonable accommodations, in the Federal Register and local newspapers 
at least 15 days before the hearing. A draft economic analysis and 
draft environmental assessment for this action will be prepared and 
made available to the public for review. At that time, we will reopen 
the comment period on this proposed rule and concurrently solicit 
comments on the draft economic analysis and draft environmental 
assessment. If determined necessary, in the Federal Register notice 
reopening the comment period, we will announce public hearing(s) during 
that comment period for the public to present oral and written comment 
on all three documents.

Special Rule Under Section 4(d) of the Act

    The June 13, 2002, final rule (67 FR 40790) listing the Chiricahua 
leopard frog as threatened included a special rule as defined under 
section 4(d) of the Act to ease the general take prohibitions for 
livestock use at or maintenance activities of livestock tanks located 
on private, State, or Tribal lands (see 50 CFR 17.43(b)). Under section 
4(d) of the Act, the Secretary may publish a special rule that modifies 
the standard protections for threatened species in the Service's 
regulations at 50 CFR 17.31, which implement section 9 of the Act, with 
special measures that are determined to be necessary and advisable to 
provide for the conservation of the species. Based on changes made to 
the listed entity, we reevaluated the existing 4(d) rule to see if its 
measures are still necessary and advisable to the conservation of the 
species and appropriate to apply in the expanded range of the species. 
We determined that the measures of the 4(d) rule are appropriate and 
should be applied to the whole range. Therefore, we are not changing 
any conditions of the June 13, 2002, special rule, and it shall remain 
in effect as identified in our regulations at 50 CFR 17.43(b).
    The special rule replaces the Act's general prohibitions against 
take of the Chiricahua leopard frog with special measures tailored to 
the conservation of the species on all non-Federal lands. Through the 
maintenance and operation of the stock tanks for cattle, habitat is 
provided for the leopard frogs, hence there is a conservation benefit 
to the species. Under the special rule, take of Chiricahua leopard frog 
caused by livestock use of or maintenance activities at livestock tanks 
located on private, State, or Tribal lands would be exempt from section 
9 of the Act. A livestock tank is defined as an existing or future 
impoundment in an ephemeral drainage or upland site constructed 
primarily as a watering site for livestock. The rule targets tanks on

[[Page 14160]]

private, State, and Tribal lands to encourage landowners and ranchers 
to continue to maintain these tanks as they provide habitat for the 
frogs. Livestock use and maintenance of tanks on Federal lands will be 
addressed through the section 7 process. When a Federal action, such as 
permitting livestock grazing on Federal lands, may affect a listed 
species, consultation between us and the action agency is required 
pursuant to section 7 of the Act. The conclusion of consultation may 
include mandatory changes in livestock programs in the form of measures 
to minimize take of a listed animal or to avoid jeopardizing the 
continued existence of a listed species. Changes in a proposed action 
resulting from consultations are almost always minor.

Required Determinations

Regulatory Planning and Review--Executive Order 12866

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this 
rule is not significant under Executive Order 12866 (E.O. 12866). OMB 
bases its determination upon the following four criteria:
    (a) Whether the rule will have an annual effect of $100 million or 
more on the economy or adversely affect an economic sector, 
productivity, jobs, the environment, or other units of the government.
    (b) Whether the rule will create inconsistencies with other Federal 
agencies' actions.
    (c) Whether the rule will materially affect entitlements, grants, 
user fees, loan programs, or the rights and obligations of their 
recipients.
    (d) Whether the rule raises novel legal or policy issues.
    At this time, we lack the available economic information necessary 
to determine whether the revised rule would have an annual effect on 
the economy of $100 million or more or affect the economy in a material 
way. To determine the economic consequences of designating the specific 
area as critical habitat, we are preparing a draft economic analysis of 
this proposed action, which will be available for public comment. This 
economic analysis also will be used to determine compliance with E.O. 
12866, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Small Business Regulatory 
Enforcement Fairness Act, E.O. 12630, and E.O. 13211.
    Further, E.O. 12866 directs Federal agencies promulgating 
regulations to evaluate regulatory alternatives (OMB Circular A-4, 
September 17, 2003). Under Circular A-4, once an agency determines that 
the Federal regulatory action is appropriate, the agency must consider 
alternative regulatory approaches. Because the determination of 
critical habitat is a statutory requirement under the Act, we must 
evaluate alternative regulatory approaches, where feasible, when 
promulgating a designation of critical habitat.
    In developing our designations of critical habitat, we consider 
economic impacts, impacts to national security, and other relevant 
impacts under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. Based on the discretion 
allowable under this provision, we may exclude any particular area from 
the designation of critical habitat providing that the benefits of such 
exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying the area as critical 
habitat and that such exclusion would not result in the extinction of 
the species. As such, we believe that the evaluation of the inclusion 
or exclusion of particular areas, or a combination of both, constitutes 
our regulatory alternative analysis for designations.
    We will announce the availability of the draft economic analysis 
and draft environmental assessment in the Federal Register and in local 
newspapers to ensure that they are available for public review and 
comments. These documents will also be available on the Internet at 
http://www.regulations.gov.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), 
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 
(SBREFA) of 1996, whenever an agency must publish a notice of 
rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make 
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that 
describes the effects of the rule on small entities (small businesses, 
small organizations, and small government jurisdictions). However, no 
regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of the agency 
certifies the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. The SBREFA amended RFA to require 
Federal agencies to provide a certification statement of the factual 
basis for certifying that the rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    At this time, we lack the available economic information necessary 
to provide an adequate factual basis for the required RFA finding. 
Therefore, we defer the RFA finding until completion of the draft 
economic analysis prepared under section 4(b)(2) of the Act and E.O. 
12866. This draft economic analysis will provide the required factual 
basis for the RFA finding. Upon completion of the draft economic 
analysis, we will announce availability of that analysis of the 
proposed designation in the Federal Register and reopen the public 
comment period for the proposed designation. We will include with this 
announcement, as appropriate, an initial regulatory flexibility 
analysis or a certification that the rule will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities accompanied 
by the factual basis for that determination.
    As discussed above, designation of critical habitat will require 
Federal agencies to consult with the Service on activities that may 
affect critical habitat. If the site is occupied by Chiricahua leopard 
frogs, consultation would likely be triggered by the presence of the 
frog, regardless of critical habitat. From Table 1, only 2 of the 40 
sites proposed are currently unoccupied; however, this number is 
somewhat misleading in that, within individual units, there are often 
ponds or stream segments of critical habitat units that are occupied 
while others are not (see descriptions in Proposed Critical Habitat 
Designation). Within occupied units, there are sometimes aquatic sites 
that are unoccupied (while other aquatic sites have frogs). As a 
result, we expect more consultations on Federal actions than occur with 
just the listing of the frog without critical habitat. These 
consultations could incur project delays (consultations run 135 days 
from the date of initiation of consultation to the issuance of a 
biological opinion (50 CFR 402.14(e)), and can be extended), and 
conservation measures developed during consultation, as well as 
mandatory reasonable and prudent alternatives, could cause additional 
project costs or alter the scope, timing, location, or duration of a 
project. Federal actions likely to incur these delays, additional 
costs, or limitations include issuance of livestock grazing permits, 
road construction, fuel reduction projects, prescribed fire, 
transmission lines, fiber optic lines, recreational developments or 
use, and other Federal actions common to Federal land management. 
Projects on non-Federal lands would be similarly affected if they are 
funded, authorized, or carried out by a Federal agency. We have 
concluded that deferring the RFA finding until completion of the draft 
economic analysis is necessary to meet the purposes and requirements of 
the RFA. Deferring the RFA finding in this manner will ensure that we 
make a

[[Page 14161]]

sufficiently informed determination based on adequate economic 
information and provide the necessary opportunity for public comment.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 
et seq.), we make the following findings:
    (a) This rule would not produce a Federal mandate. In general, a 
Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or regulation 
that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or Tribal 
governments, or the private sector, and includes both ``Federal 
intergovernmental mandates'' and ``Federal private sector mandates.'' 
These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). ``Federal 
intergovernmental mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose 
an enforceable duty upon State, local, or [T]ribal governments'' with 
two exceptions. It excludes ``a condition of Federal assistance.'' It 
also excludes ``a duty arising from participation in a voluntary 
Federal program,'' unless the regulation ``relates to a then-existing 
Federal program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually 
to State, local, and [T]ribal governments under entitlement 
authority,'' if the provision would ``increase the stringency of 
conditions of assistance'' or ``place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, 
the Federal Government's responsibility to provide funding,'' and the 
State, local, or Tribal governments ``lack authority'' to adjust 
accordingly. At the time of enactment, these entitlement programs were: 
Medicaid; Aid to Families with Dependent Children work programs; Child 
Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social Services Block Grants; Vocational 
Rehabilitation State Grants; Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, and 
Independent Living; Family Support Welfare Services; and Child Support 
Enforcement. ``Federal private sector mandate'' includes a regulation 
that ``would impose an enforceable duty upon the private sector, except 
(i) a condition of Federal assistance or (ii) a duty arising from 
participation in a voluntary Federal program.''
    The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally 
binding duty on non-Federal Government entities or private parties. 
Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must 
ensure that their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical 
habitat under section 7. While 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.
    (b) We lack the available economic information to determine if a 
Small Government Agency Plan is required. Therefore, we defer this 
finding until completion of the draft economic analysis prepared under 
section 4(b)(2) of the Act.

Takings

    In accordance with E.O. 12630 (Government Actions and Interference 
with Constitutionally Protected Private Property Rights), we will 
analyze the potential takings implications of designating critical 
habitat for the Chiricahua leopard frog in a takings implications 
assessment. Following completion of the proposed rule, a draft economic 
analysis will be completed for the proposed designation. The draft 
economic analysis will provide the foundation for us to use in 
preparing a takings implications assessment.

Federalism

    In accordance with E.O. 13132 (Federalism), this proposed rule does 
not have significant Federalism effects. A Federalism assessment is not 
required. In keeping with Department of the Interior and Department of 
Commerce policy, we requested information from, and coordinated 
development of, this proposed critical habitat designation with 
appropriate State resource agencies in Arizona and New Mexico. The 
designation may have some benefit to these governments because the 
areas that contain the features essential to the conservation of the 
species are more clearly defined, and the PCEs of the habitat necessary 
to the conservation of the species are specifically identified. This 
information does not alter where and what 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) would be required. While non-Federal 
entities that receive Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that 
otherwise require approval or authorization from a Federal agency for 
an action may be indirectly impacted by the designation of critical 
habitat, the legally binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse 
modification of critical habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency.

Civil Justice Reform

    In accordance with E.O. 12988 (Civil Justice Reform), the Office of 
the Solicitor has determined that the rule does not unduly burden the 
judicial system and that it meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 
3(b)(2) of the Order. We have proposed designating critical habitat in 
accordance with the provisions of the Act. This proposed rule uses 
standard property descriptions and identifies the PCEs within the 
designated areas to assist the public in understanding the habitat 
needs of the Chiricahua leopard frog.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This rule does not contain any new collections of information that 
require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This rule would not impose recordkeeping or 
reporting requirements on State or local governments, individuals, 
businesses, or organizations. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and 
a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information 
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

    It is our position that, outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court 
of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to prepare 
environmental analyses as defined by NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) in 
connection with designating critical habitat under the Act. We 
published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the 
Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). This position was 
upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Douglas 
County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied 516 U.S. 
1042 (1996)).] However, when the range of the species includes States 
within the Tenth Circuit, such as that of the Chiricahua leopard frog, 
under the Tenth Circuit ruling in Catron County Board of Commissioners 
v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 75 F.3d 1429 (10th Cir. 1996), we 
will undertake a NEPA analysis for critical habitat designation

[[Page 14162]]

and notify the public of the availability of the draft environmental 
assessment for this proposal when it is finished.

Clarity of the Rule

    We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the 
Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain 
language. This means that each rule we publish must:
    (a) Be logically organized;
    (b) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
    (c) Use clear language rather than jargon;
    (d) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
    (e) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
    If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us 
comments by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. To 
better help us revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as 
possible. For example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections 
or paragraphs that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences 
are too long, the sections where you feel lists or tables would be 
useful, etc.

Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

    In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, 
Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal 
Governments (59 FR 22951), E.O. 13175, and the Department of the 
Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our 
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal 
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with 
Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 ``American Indian Tribal Rights, 
Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species 
Act'', we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly 
with Tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to 
acknowledge that Tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as 
Federal public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to 
make information available to Tribes.
    We have determined that there are no Tribal lands occupied at the 
time of listing that contain the features essential for the 
conservation of, and no Tribal lands that are essential for the 
conservation of, the Chiricahua leopard frog. Therefore, we have not 
proposed designation of critical habitat for the Chiricahua leopard 
frog on Tribal lands.

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    On May 18, 2001, the President issued an Executive Order (E.O. 
13211; Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use) on regulations that significantly affect 
energy supply, distribution, and use. E.O. 13211 requires agencies to 
prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. 
We do not expect Chiricahua leopard frog critical habitat to 
significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use. As 
discussed above under Regulatory Flexibility Act, designation of 
critical habitat will require Federal agencies to consult with the 
Service on actions that may affect critical habitat. Those Federal 
actions could include construction of powerlines, energy pipelines, or 
other actions associated with energy supply, distribution, or use. The 
number of consultations may increase somewhat due to the two units that 
are not occupied; however, once in consultation, the outcome would not 
be substantially different unless there is an adverse modification 
biological opinion. Regardless of critical habitat, a Federal agency's 
proposed action would result in a consultation anyway because the 
consultation would be triggered by the presence of the species. Hence, 
critical habitat would very often make little difference in the 
consultation outcome, unless there is an adverse modification 
biological opinion. We expect the vast majority of consultations 
projects to proceed with only minor changes that do not affect the 
project purpose or objectives (Tobin 2010, p. 55). Therefore, this 
action is not a significant energy action, and no Statement of Energy 
Effects is required. However, we will further evaluate this issue as we 
conduct our economic analysis, and review and revise this assessment as 
warranted.

References Cited

    A complete list of references cited is available on the Internet at 
http://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the Arizona Ecological 
Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Authors

    The primary authors of this package are the staff members of the 
Arizona Ecological Services Field Office.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

    Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

    Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter 
I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:

PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS

    1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C. 
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.

    2. In Sec.  17.11(h), revise 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.
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 14163]]

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

[[Page 14164]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15MR11.000


    (6) Unit 1: Twin Tanks and Ox Frame Tank, Pima County, Arizona.
    (i) Twin Tanks, including the north tank (31.838230 N, 111.149875 
W) and south tank (31.836031 N 111.149102 W), and the drainage running 
between them, a drainage distance of 979 feet (299 meters).
    (ii) Ox Frame Tank (31.881882 N, 111.200318 W).
    (iii) Note: Map of Unit 1, Twin Tanks and Ox Frame Tank (Map 2), 
follows:

[[Page 14165]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15MR11.001

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

[[Page 14166]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15MR11.002

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

[[Page 14167]]

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

[[Page 14168]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15MR11.003

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

[[Page 14169]]

    (vi) Note: Map of Unit 4, Bonita, Upper Turner, and Mojonera Tanks 
(Map 5), follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15MR11.004

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

[[Page 14170]]

(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 Unit 5, Sycamore Canyon (Map 6), follows:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15MR11.005
    

[[Page 14171]]


    (11) Unit 6: Pe[ntilde]a Blanca Lake and Spring and Associated 
Tanks, 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 Unit 6, Pe[ntilde]a Blanca Lake and Spring and 
Associated Tanks (Map 7), follows:

[[Page 14172]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15MR11.006

    (12) Unit 7: Florida Canyon, Pima County, Arizona.
    (i) Florida Canyon from a silted-in dam (31.759444 N, 110.844095 W) 
downstream to just east of the Florida Workstation entrance gate 
(31.763186 N, 110.845511 W), a distance of approximately 1,521 stream 
feet (463 meters).
    (ii) Note: Map of Unit 7, Florida Canyon (Map 8), follows:

[[Page 14173]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15MR11.007

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

[[Page 14174]]

Gulch (31.762953 N, 110.749329 W), then upstream in Ophir Gulch to the 
confluence with the unnamed drainage mentioned in subparagraph (13)(v) 
of this entry (31.763978 N, 110.751312 W), a distance of approximately 
1.98 drainage miles (3.19 kilometers) and 327 feet (100 meters) 
overland.
    (viii) Note: Map of Unit 8, Eastern Slope of the Santa Rita 
Mountains (Map 9), follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15MR11.008

    (14) Unit 9: Las Cienegas National Conservation Area, Pima County, 
Arizona.
    (i) Empire Gulch near Empire Ranch, beginning at a pipeline access 
road crossing (31.787054 N, 110.648665 W) and continuing downstream to 
its confluence with Cienega Creek (31.808804 N, 110.589758 W), a 
distance of approximately 4.33 stream miles (6.98 kilometers).
    (ii) Cienega Creek from the Empire Gulch confluence (31.808804 N, 
110.589758 W) upstream to the approximate end of the wetted reach and 
where the creek bends hard to the east (31.776478 N, 110.590382 W), to 
include Cinco Ponds (31.793066 N, 110.584422 W upstream to 31.788559 N, 
110.584114 W), a distance of approximately 1.91 stream miles (3.08 
kilometers).
    (iii) Note: Map of Unit 9, Las Cienegas National Conservation Area 
(Map 10), follows:

[[Page 14175]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15MR11.009

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

[[Page 14176]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15MR11.010

    (16) Unit 11: Scotia Canyon, Cochise County, Arizona.
    (i) Peterson Ranch Pond (31.457016 N, 110.397724 W).
    (ii) Travertine Seep (31.453466 N, 110.399386 W).
    (iii) Creek in Scotia Canyon from just east of Peterson Ranch Pond 
(31.455723 N, 110.396124 W) downstream to the confluence of an unnamed 
drainage and a sharp bend in the canyon to the south (31.447598 N, 
110.409884 W), a distance of approximately 1.36 stream miles (2.19 
kilometers).
    (iv) Overland from Peterson Ranch Pond (31.457016 N, 110.397724 W) 
to the upper end of the Scotia Creek segment (31.455723 N, 110.396124 
W), to include an ephemeral pond (31.456929 N, 110.397120 W), an 
overland distance of approximately 671 feet (205 meters).
    (v) Overland from the Travertine Seep (31.453466 N, 110.399386 W) 
directly southeast to Scotia Creek (31.452720 N, 110.398117 W), an 
overland distance of approximately 348 feet (106 meters).
    (vi) Note: Map of Unit 11, Scotia Canyon (Map 12), follows:

[[Page 14177]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15MR11.011

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

[[Page 14178]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15MR11.012

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

[[Page 14179]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15MR11.013

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

[[Page 14180]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15MR11.014

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

[[Page 14181]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15MR11.015

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

[[Page 14182]]

miles (2.26 kilometers) and 2,245 feet (684 meters) overland.
    (ix) From Javelina Tank (31.484995 N, 109.024970 W) downstream in 
Cloverdale Creek to the Canoncito Ranch Tank (31.449553 N, 109.986836 
W), to include Maverick Spring (31.469376 N, 109.011142 W), an 
approximate stream distance of 3.88 miles (6.24 kilometers).
    (x) Note: Map of Unit 16, Peloncillo Mountains Tanks (Map 17), 
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15MR11.016

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

[[Page 14183]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15MR11.017

    (23) Unit 18: Leslie Creek, Cochise County, Arizona.
    (i) Leslie Creek from the upstream National Wildlife Refuge 
boundary (31.591072 N, 109.505311 W) downstream to the Leslie Canyon 
Road crossing (31.588510 N, 109.511598 W), an approximate stream 
distance of 4,094 feet (1,248 meters).
    (ii) Note: Map of Unit 18, Leslie Creek (Map 19), follows:

[[Page 14184]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15MR11.018

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

[[Page 14185]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15MR11.019

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

[[Page 14186]]

    (vii) From the largest of the Penney Mine Tanks (32.669696 N, 
110.257652 W) directly overland to an unnamed tank (32.688150 N, 
110.260309 W), and downstream in an unnamed drainage to the 
aforementioned confluence (32.671318 N, 110.262600 W), including 
another unnamed tank (32.669324 N, 110.261672 W) situated in that 
drainage, a distance of approximately 948 drainage feet (289 meters) 
and 1,051 feet (320 meters) overland.
    (viii) From Vermont Tank (32.676883 N, 110.262404 W) directly 
overland for approximately 468 feet (143 meters) to Deer Creek 
(32.677037 N, 110.260815 W).
    (ix) From Middle Tank (32.679691 N, 110.252180 W) upstream in an 
unnamed drainage to a saddle (32.677989 N, 110.256915 W), then directly 
downslope to Deer Creek (32.678307 N, 110.258257 W), an approximate 
drainage distance of 1,530 feet (466 meters) and 436 feet (133 meters) 
overland.
    (x) Note: Map of Unit 20, Deer Creek (Map 21), follows:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15MR11.020
    
    (26) Unit 21: Oak Spring and Oak Creek, Graham County, Arizona.
    (i) Oak Creek from Oak Spring (32.673538 N, 110.293214 W) 
downstream to where a hiking trail intersects the creek (32.682618 N, 
110.283915 W), an approximate stream distance of 1.06 miles (1.71 
kilometers).
    (ii) Note: Map of Unit 21, Oak Spring and Oak Creek (Map 22), 
follows:

[[Page 14187]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15MR11.021

    (27) Unit 22: Dragoon Mountains, Cochise County, Arizona.
    (i) Shaw Tank (31.906230 N, 109.958350 W).
    (ii) Tunnel Spring (31.881018 N, 109.948182 W).
    (iii) Halfmoon Tank (31.912453 N, 109.977963 W).
    (iv) Stronghold Canyon from Halfmoon Tank (31.912453 N, 109.977963 
W) downstream to Cochise Spring (31.912026 N, 109.963266 W), then 
upstream in an unnamed canyon to Shaw Tank (31.906230 N, 109.958350 W), 
and continuing upstream to the headwaters of that unnamed canyon 
(31.898491 N, 109.956589 W), then across a saddle and directly 
downslope to Middlemarch Canyon (31.894591 N, 109.956429 W), downstream 
in Middlemarch Canyon to its confluence with an unnamed drainage 
(31.883322 N, 109.949925 W), then upstream in that drainage to Tunnel 
Spring (31.881018 N, 109.948182 W), an approximate distance of 3.71 
drainage miles (5.97 kilometers) and 1,300 feet (396 meters) overland.
    (v) Note: A Map of Unit 22, Dragoon Mountains (Map 23), follows:

[[Page 14188]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15MR11.022

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

[[Page 14189]]

    (x) From Doren's Defeat Tank (34.446271 N, 111.641269 W) upstream 
in an unnamed drainage to Partnership Tank (34.452241 N, 111.646271 W), 
an approximate drainage distance of 3,310 feet (1,009 meters).
    (xi) From the confluence of an unnamed drainage with Boulder Canyon 
(34.469515 N, 111.624979 W) west to a point where the drainage turns 
southwest (34.469911 N, 111.630080 W), then directly overland to the 
top of Sycamore Basin (34.473970 N, 111.633584 W), and then downstream 
in Sycamore Basin to Sycamore Basin Tank (34.481619 N, 111.641676 W), 
an approximate distance of 4,658 drainage feet (1,420 meters) and 1,827 
feet (557 meters) overland.
    (xii) From Buckskin Tank upstream in an unnamed drainage to the top 
of that drainage (34.465121 N, 111.641428 W), then directly overland to 
an unnamed drainage (34.462851 N, 111.637797 W) that contains Walt's 
Tank, an approximate distance of 1,109 drainage feet (338 meters) and 
1,429 feet (435 meters) overland.
    (xiii) Note: Map of Unit 23, Buckskin Hills (Map 24), follows:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15MR11.023
    
    (29) Unit 24: Crouch, Gentry, and Cherry Creeks, and Parallel 
Canyon, Gila County, Arizona.
    (i) Trail Tank (34.176747 N, 110.812383 W).
    (ii) HY Tank (34.148580 N, 110.831331 W).

[[Page 14190]]

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

[[Page 14191]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15MR11.024

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

[[Page 14192]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15MR11.025

    (31) Unit 26: Concho Bill and Deer Creek, Apache County, Arizona.
    (i) From Concho Bill Spring (33.830088 N, 109.366540 W) downstream 
in Deer Creek to its confluence with an unnamed drainage (33.827115 N, 
109.359495 W), an approximate drainage distance of 2,667 feet (813 
meters).
    (ii) Note: Map of Unit 26, Concho Bill and Deer Creek (Map 27), 
follows:

[[Page 14193]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15MR11.026

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

[[Page 14194]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15MR11.027

    (33) Unit 28: Tularosa River, Catron County, New Mexico.
    (i) Tularosa River from the upper end of Tularosa Spring (33.903798 
N, 108.501926 W) downstream to the entrance to the canyon downstream of 
Hell Hole (33.762737 N, 108.681551 W), an approximate river distance of 
19.31 miles (31.08 kilometers).
    (ii) Note: Map of Unit 28, Tularosa River (Map 29), follows:

[[Page 14195]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15MR11.028

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

[[Page 14196]]

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 Unit 29, Deep Creek Divide Area (Map 30), 
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15MR11.029

    (35) Unit 30: Main Diamond Creek, Catron County, New Mexico.
    (i) Main Diamond Creek, from the downstream boundary of Links Ranch 
(33.269512 N, 108.105542 W) downstream to the confluence with an 
unnamed drainage that comes in from the south, which is also where Main 
Diamond Creek enters a canyon (33.264514 N, 108.116019 W), an 
approximate stream distance of 3,980 feet (1,213 meters).
    (ii) Note: Map of Unit 30, Main Diamond Creek (Map 31), follows:

[[Page 14197]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15MR11.030

    (36) Unit 31: Beaver Creek, Catron County, New Mexico.
    (i) Beaver Creek from an unnamed warm spring (33.380952 N, 
108.111761 W) downstream to its confluence with Taylor Creek (33.334694 
N, 108.101543 W), an approximate stream distance of 5.59 miles (8.89 
kilometers).
    (ii) Note: Map of Unit 31, Beaver Creek (Map 32), follows:

[[Page 14198]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15MR11.031

    (37) Unit 32: Left Prong of Dix Creek, Greenlee County, Arizona.
    (i) Left prong of Dix Creek from an unnamed warm spring (33.179413 
N, 109.149176 W) above ``The Hole'' downstream to its confluence with 
the right prong of Dix Creek (33.186657 N, 109.157754 W), an 
approximate stream distance of 4,248 feet (1,295 meters).
    (ii) Note: Map of Unit 32, Left Prong of Dix Creek (Map 33), 
follows:

[[Page 14199]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15MR11.032

    (38) Unit 33: Rattlesnake Pasture Tank and Associated Tanks, 
Greenlee County, Arizona.
    (i) Rattlesnake Pasture Tank (33.093987 N, 109.151714 W).
    (ii) Rattlesnake Gap Tank (33.098497 N, 109.162152 W).
    (iii) Buckhorn Tank (33.105613 N, 109.155506 W).
    (iv) From Rattlesnake Pasture Tank (33.093987 N, 109.151714 W) 
downstream in an unnamed drainage to its confluence with Red Tank 
Canyon (33.109603 N, 109.155549 W), to include Buckhorn Tank (33.105613 
N, 109.155506 W); then upstream in Red Tank Canyon to Rattlesnake Gap 
Tank (33.098497 N, 109.162152 W), an approximate drainage distance of 
2.27 miles (3.65 kilometers).
    (v) From Rattlesnake Gap Tank (33.098497 N, 109.162152 W) upstream 
in an unnamed drainage to its confluence with a minor drainage 
(33.090898 N, 109.155386 W), then directly upslope to a saddle 
(33.091771 N, 109.152380), and across that saddle and directly 
downslope to Rattlesnake Pasture Tank (33.093987 N, 109.151714 W), an 
approximate distance of 3,722 drainage feet (1,134 meters) and 1,645 
feet (501 meters) overland.
    (vi) Note: Map of Unit 33, Rattlesnake Pasture Tank and Associated 
Tanks (Map 34), follows:

[[Page 14200]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15MR11.033

    (39) Unit 34: Coal Creek, Greenlee County, Arizona.
    (i) Coal Creek from the Highway 78 crossing (33.103667 N, 
109.062458 W) downstream to the confluence with an unnamed drainage 
(33.110025 N, 109.065847 W), an approximate stream distance of 3,447 
feet (1,051 meters).
    (ii) Note: Map of Unit 34, Coal Creek (Map 35), follows:

[[Page 14201]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15MR11.034

    (40) Unit 35: Blue Creek, Grant County, New Mexico.
    (i) Blue Creek from just east of a corral on private lands 
(32.848702 N, 108.835761 W) downstream to its confluence with an 
unnamed drainage that comes in from the east (32.825785 N, 108.824742 
W), an approximate stream distance of 2.37 miles (3.81 kilometers).
    (ii) Note: Map of Unit 35, Blue Creek (Map 36), follows:

[[Page 14202]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15MR11.035

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

[[Page 14203]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15MR11.036

    (42) Unit 37: Alamosa Warm Springs, Socorro County, New Mexico.
    (i) From the confluence of Wildhorse Canyon and Alamosa Creek 
(33.570315 N, 107.608474 W) downstream in Alamosa Creek to the 
confluence with an unnamed drainage that comes in from the north 
(33.569199 N, 107.577137 W), to include Alamosa Warm Springs (33.572365 
N, 107.600153 W), an approximate stream distance of 4,974 feet (1,516 
meters).
    (ii) Note: Map of Unit 37, Alamosa Warm Springs (Map 38), follows:

[[Page 14204]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15MR11.037

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

[[Page 14205]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15MR11.038

    (44) Unit 39: Ash and Bolton Springs, Grant County, New Mexico.
    (i) Ash Spring (32.715625 N, 108.071980 W).
    (ii) Unnamed spring in Bolton Canyon locally known as Bolton 
Springs (32.713419 N, 108.099679 W).
    (iii) From the spring box at Ash Spring (32.715625 N, 108.071980 W) 
downstream to a dirt road crossing of the drainage (32.708769 N, 
108.073579 W), an approximate stream distance of 2,830 feet (863 
meters).
    (iv) From the the ruins of a house in the Ash Spring drainage 
(32.714562 N, 108.072542 W) west to a low saddle (32.714373 N, 
108.075263 W) and directly downslope into an unnamed drainage 
(32.713983 N, 108.076665 W), then downstream in that drainage to its 
confluence with another unnamed drainage (32.712829 N, 108.078131 W), 
then downstream in that unnamed drainage its confluence with another 
unnamed drainage (32.708210 N, 108.086360 W), then upstream in that 
unnamed drainage to the top of that drainage (32.715476 N, 108.087719 
W) and directly downslope and west to another unnamed drainage 
(32.715207 N, 108.092094 W), then downstream in that unnamed drainage 
to its confluence with Bolton Canyon (32.707844 N, 108.099267 W), and 
then upstream in Bolton Canyon to the locally known Bolton Springs 
(32.713419 N, 108.099679 W), an approximate distance of 2.41 drainage 
miles (3.87 kilometers) and 2,650 feet (808 meters) overland.
    (v) Note: Map of Unit 39, Ash and Bolton Springs (Map 40), follows:

[[Page 14206]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15MR11.039

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

[[Page 14207]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15MR11.040

* * * * *

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