[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 70 (Tuesday, April 12, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 20464-20488]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-8176]
[[Page 20463]]
Vol. 76
Tuesday,
No. 70
April 12, 2011
Part II
Department of the Interior
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish and Wildlife Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Endangered
Status for the Three Forks Springsnail and San Bernardino Springsnail,
and Proposed Designation of Critical Habitat; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2011 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 20464]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2009-0083; 92210-1117-0000-B4]
RIN 1018-AV84
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed
Endangered Status for the Three Forks Springsnail and San Bernardino
Springsnail, and Proposed Designation of Critical Habitat
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to
list the Three Forks springsnail (Pyrgulopsis trivialis) and the San
Bernardino springsnail (Pyrgulopsis bernardina) as endangered under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). If we finalize this
rule as proposed, it would extend the Act's protections to these
species. We also propose to designate critical habitat for both species
under the Act. In total, approximately 4.5 hectares (11.1 acres) are
being proposed for designation as critical habitat for Three Forks
springnail in Apache County, and approximately 0.815 hectares (2.013
acres) for San Bernardino springsnail in Cochise County, Arizona. We
seek information and comments from the public regarding the Three Forks
and San Bernardino springsnails and this proposed rule.
DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before June
13, 2011. We must receive requests for public hearings, in writing, at
the address shown in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section by May
27, 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 for Docket No. FWS-R2-
ES-2009-0083.
U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing,
Attn: Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2009-0083; 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
http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any
personal information you provide us (see the Public Comments Solicited
section below for more information).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Spangle, Field Supervisor,
Arizona Ecological Services Field Office, 2321 West Royal Palm Road,
Suite 103, Phoenix, Arizona, 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: This document consists of: (1) A proposed
rule to list the Three Forks Springsnail and San Bernardino Springsnail
as endangered; and (2) proposed critical habitat designations for the
two species.
Previous Federal Actions
We first identified the Three Forks springsnail as a candidate for
listing on October 30, 2001 (66 FR 54808). We first identified the San
Bernardino springsnail as a candidate for listing on December 6, 2007
(72 FR 69034). Candidates are those fish, wildlife, and plants for
which we have on file sufficient information on biological
vulnerability and threats to support preparation of a listing proposal,
but for which development of a listing regulation is precluded by other
higher priority listing activities.
On May 4, 2004, the Center for Biological Diversity petitioned the
Service to list 225 species of plants and animals as endangered under
the provisions of the Endangered Species Act, as amended (16 U.S.C.
1531 et seq.), including the Three Forks springsnail. On June 25, 2007,
we received a petition from Forest Guardians to list 475 species in the
southwestern United States as threatened or endangered under the
provisions of the Act, including the San Bernardino springsnail. In our
most recent annual Candidate Notice of Review dated November 10, 2010
(75 FR 69222), we retained a listing priority number (LPN) of 2 for the
Three Forks springsnail and the San Bernardino springsnail in
accordance with our priority guidance published on September 21, 1983
(48 FR 43098). An LPN of 2 reflects threats that are both imminent and
high in magnitude, as well as the taxonomic classification as a full
species.
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 the public, other concerned governmental
and tribal agencies, the scientific community, industry, or any other
interested party concerning this proposed rule. We particularly seek
comments concerning:
(1) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning
any threats (or lack thereof) to these species and regulations that may
be addressing those threats.
(2) Additional information concerning the range, distribution, and
population size of these species, including the locations of any
additional populations.
(3) Any information on the biological or ecological requirements of
these species.
(4) 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 activity which are expected to
increase due to the designation, and whether that increase in threat
outweighs the benefit of designation such that the designation of
critical habitat may not be prudent.
(5) Specific information on:
The amount and distribution of habitat for each species,
What areas occupied at the time of listing and that
contain features essential to the conservation of these species should
be included in the designation and why,
Special management considerations or protections that the
features essential to the conservation of both species 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.
(6) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the
subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat.
(7) Any probable economic, national security, or other relevant
impacts of designating 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.
(8) 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.
(9) Information on the projected and reasonably likely impacts of
climate change on both species and the critical habitat areas we are
proposing.
[[Page 20465]]
You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed
rule by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section.
We will post your entire comment--including your personal
identifying information--on http://www.regulations.gov. If you provide
personal identifying information, such as your street address, phone
number, or e-mail address, 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.
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be
available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov at Docket
No. FWS-R2-ES-2009-0083, or by appointment, during normal business
hours, at the Arizona Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section).
Background
Both the Three Forks springsnail and San Bernardino springsnail are
members of the genus Pyrgulopsis in the family Hydrobiidae. In the arid
Southwest, springsnails in this family are largely relicts of the
wetter Pleistocene Epoch (2.5 million to 10,000 years ago) and are
typically distributed across the landscape as geographically isolated
populations exhibiting a high degree of endemism (found only in a
particular area or region) (Bequart and Miller 1973, p. 214; Taylor
1987, pp. 5-6; Shepard 1993, p. 354; Hershler and Sada 2002, p. 255).
Springsnails are strictly aquatic and respiration occurs through an
internal gill. Springsnails in the genus Pyrgulopsis are egg-layers
(Hershler 1998, p. 14). The larval stage is completed in the egg
capsule and, upon hatching, tiny snails emerge into their adult habitat
(Brusca and Brusca 1990, p. 759; Hershler and Sada 2002, p. 256). The
sexes are separate and physical differences are noticeable between
them, with females being larger than males. Mobility is limited, and
significant migration likely does not occur, although aquatic snails
have been known to disperse by becoming attached to the feathers of
migratory birds (Roscoe 1955, p. 66; Dundee et al. 1967, pp. 89-90).
Springsnails in the family Hydrobiidae feed primarily on
periphyton, which is a complex mixture of algae, detritus, bacteria,
and other microbes that live upon submerged surfaces in aquatic
environments (Mladenka 1992, pp. 46, 81; Hershler and Sada 2002, p.
256; Lysne et al. 2007, p. 649). The life span of most aquatic snails
is 9 to 15 months (Pennak 1989, p. 552); survival of one species in the
genus Pyrgulopsis in the laboratory was 12.7 months (Lysne et al. 2007,
p. 3).
Both the Three Forks springsnail and San Bernardino springsnail
occur in springs, seeps, spring runs, and a variety of waters, but
particularly rheocrene systems (water emerging from the ground as a
free-flowing stream). In the desert Southwest, these spring ecosystems
are commonly referred to as cienegas (Hendrickson and Minckley 1984,
pp. 133, 169; Minckley and Brown 1994, pp. 223-287). Snails in the
genus Pyrgulopsis are rarely found in mud or soft sediments (Hershler
1998, p. 14) and are typically more abundant in gravel to cobble size
substrates (Frest and Johannes 1995, p. 203; Malcom et al. 2005, p. 75;
Martinez and Thome 2006, pp. 12-13; Lysne et al. 2007, p. 650). These
substrate types provide a suitable surface for springsnails to graze
and lay eggs (Taylor 1987, p. 5; Hersler 1998, p. 14).
Proximity to springheads, where water emerges from the ground,
plays a key role in the life history of springsnails. Many springsnail
species exhibit decreased abundance further away from spring vents,
presumably due to their need for stable water chemistry and flow regime
provided by spring waters (Hershler 1984, p. 68; Hershler 1998, p. 11;
Hershler and Sada 2002, p. 256; Martinez and Thome 2006, p. 14; Tsai et
al. 2007, p. 216). Several habitat parameters of springs, such as
substrate, dissolved carbon dioxide, dissolved oxygen, temperature,
conductivity, and water depth, have been shown to influence the
distribution and abundance of Pyrgulopsis snails (O'Brien and Blinn
1999, p. 231-232; Mladenka and Minshall 2001, pp. 209-211; Malcom et
al. 2005, p. 75; Martinez and Thome 2006, pp. 12-15; Lysne et al. 2007,
p. 650; Tsai et al. 2007, p. 2006). Dissolved salt may also be an
important factor, because it is essential for shell formation (Pennak
1989, p. 552).
Three Forks Springsnail
The Three Forks springsnail was described as Pyrgulopsis trivialis
by Hershler (1994, pp. 68-69). We have carefully reviewed the available
taxonomic information (Landye 1973, p. 49; Taylor 1987, pp. 30-32;
Hershler and Landye 1988, pp. 32-35; Hershler 1994, pp. 68-69; Hurt
2004, p. 1176) and conclude that Three Forks springsnail is a valid
taxon. The Three Forks springsnail is a variably sized species, with a
shell height (length) of 1.5 to 4.8 millimeters (mm) (0.06 to 0.19 in).
A detailed description of the identifying characteristics of the Three
Forks springsnail is found in Taylor (1987, pp. 30-32) and Hershler and
Landye (1988, pp. 32-35).
The Three Forks springsnail is known to occur in two separate
spring complexes, Three Forks Springs and Boneyard Bog Springs in the
North Fork East Fork Black River Watershed of the White Mountains on
the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests in Apache County, east-central
Arizona (Myers 2000, p. 1; Nelson et al. 2002, p. 5). These spring
complexes are found in open mountain meadows at 2,500 meters (m) (8,200
feet (ft)) elevation and are separated by 6 kilometers (km) (3.7 miles
(mi)) of perennial flowing stream (Martinez and Myers 2008, p. 189).
The species has been found in free-flowing springheads, concrete boxed
springheads, spring runs, spring seeps, and shallow ponded water at
Three Forks Springs and Boneyard Bog Springs (Martinez and Myers 2008,
p. 189). A springsnail of the same genus was recently found in a spring
along Boneyard Creek between Three Forks Springs and Boneyard Bog
Springs (Myers 2010, p. 1). Although the locality of this new site
suggests it is likely the same species, additional analysis will be
needed for a definitive determination of its taxonomy.
Martinez and Myers (2008, p. 189-194) found the presence of Three
Forks springsnail was associated with gravel/pebble substrates, shallow
water up to 6 centimeters (cm) (2.4 in) deep, high conductivity,
alkaline waters of pH 8, and the presence of pond snails, Physa gyrina.
It has also been shown that density of Three Forks springsnail is
significantly greater on gravel/cobble substrates (Martinez and Myers
2002, p. 1; Nelson 2002, p. 1), though the species has been reported as
``abundant'' in the fine-grained mud of a 0.01 hectare (ha) (0.025 acre
(ac)) pond at Three Forks (Taylor 1987, p. 32). Abundance has been
found to decrease downstream from springheads (Nelson et al. 2002, p.
11), consistent with studies of other springsnails (Hershler 1984, p.
68; Hershler 1998, p. 11; Hershler and Sada 2002, p. 256; Martinez and
Thome 2006, p. 14; Tsai et al. 2007, p. 216).
The Three Forks springsnail was historically abundant at both Three
Forks and Boneyard Bog springs (Myers 2000, p. 1; Nelson et al. 2002,
p. 5). Nelson et al. (2002, p. 5) reported Three Forks springsnail
densities of approximately 60 snails per square meter (72 per square
yard) at Three Forks and approximately 790 snails per square meter (945
per square yard) at Boneyard Bog Springs. The number at a single
springbrook, with an area of 213 square meters (254 square yards), at
[[Page 20466]]
Three Forks Springs in 2002 was estimated at tens of thousands of
individual snails (Martinez 2009, pp. 31-32). The Three Forks
springsnail no longer occurs in abundance at Three Forks Springs. Since
2004, annual surveys at Three Forks have detected very low numbers of
the species, including two individuals found in August 2005 (Cox 2007,
p. 1) and three individuals found in July 2008 (Bailey 2008, p. 1).
Reasons for the decline are discussed in the Threats section of this
proposed rule. The species continues to be abundant at Boneyard Bog
Springs (Cox 2007, p. 1).
San Bernardino Springsnail
The San Bernardino springsnail was described by Hershler (1994, pp.
21-22) as Pyrgulopsis bernardina from specimens collected at the type
locality (site of original collection) from two springs on San
Bernardino Ranch (including Snail Spring), Cochise County, Arizona. We
have reviewed the available taxonomic information (Landye 1973, p. 34;
Landye 1981, p. 21; Hershler and Landye 1988, p. 41; Taylor 1987, p.
34; Hershler 1994, p. 21; Hurt 2004, p. 1176) and conclude that San
Bernardino springsnail is a valid taxon. The San Bernardino springsnail
has a narrow-conic shell and a height of 1.3 to 1.7 mm. A detailed
description of the identifying characteristics of the San Bernardino
springsnail is found in Hershler (1994, pp. 21-22).
The historical range of the San Bernardino springsnail in the
United States may have included at least six populations within a
complex of spring ecosystems along the Rio San Bernardino (also known
as San Bernardino Creek or Black Draw) within the headwaters of the Rio
Yaqui in Cochise County, southern Arizona, on what is now the San
Bernardino National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) and the adjacent, private
John Slaughter Ranch, including Snail Spring, House Spring, Horse
Spring, Goat Tank Spring, House Pond, Tule Spring, and Mesa Seep (Cox
et al. 2007, pp. 1-2; Service 2007, pp. 82-83; Malcom et al. 2005, p.
75; Malcom et al. 2003, p. 2; Velasco 2000, p. 1). The current range of
the species is limited to two or possibly three springs, all located on
the John Slaughter Ranch. The San Bernardino springsnail has recently
been confirmed in Goat Tank Spring and Horse Spring (Martinez 2010, p.
2), though the species appears to exhibit low population numbers at
these two sites. The species was formerly very abundant at Snail Spring
on the John Slaughter Ranch (Malcom et al. 2003, p. 17; Malcom et al.
2005, p. 74) and was last confirmed from that site in 2005 (Cox et al.
2007, p. 1).
In Sonora, Mexico, a springsnail in the same family as the San
Bernardino springsnail occurs in the San Bernardino and Los Ojitos
cienegas on the private Rancho San Bernardino within 0.25 mi (0.4 km)
of San Bernardino NWR (Service 2007, p. 82; Malcom et al. 2005, p. 75).
The snails found in Mexico are likely to be San Bernardino
springsnails, since they occur in the same drainage; however,
additional research is needed to verify if this is the case (Hershler
2009, p. 1; Hershler 2008, p. 1).
Malcom et al. 2005 (pp. 71, 75-76) showed that the density of San
Bernardino springsnail was positively associated with cobble
substrates, higher vegetation density, faster water velocity, higher
dissolved oxygen, water temperatures of 14 to 22 degrees Celsius, and
pH values between 7.6 and 8.0. San Bernardino springsnail density
exhibited positive relationships to sand and cobble substrates,
vegetation density, and water velocity, and negative relationships to
silt and organic substrates, and water depth (Malcom et al. 2005, pp.
75-76). Substrates with higher silt content typically support fewer
springsnails. No studies have been conducted to determine the species'
limits or tolerances to specific habitat thresholds.
Limited information is available on population sizes for the San
Bernardino springsnail. Malcom et al. (2003, p. 7; 2005, p. 74)
estimated average springsnail density as 55,929 individuals per square
meter (66,893 per square yard) at Snail Spring from September 2001 to
March 2002. The species appears to occur in low population numbers at
Goat Tank Spring and Horse Spring, often making detection difficult.
Summary of Factors Affecting the Species
Section 4 of the Act and implementing regulations at 50 CFR part
424 set forth procedures for adding species to the Federal Lists of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. A species may be
determined to be an endangered or threatened species 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. Listing actions may
be warranted based on any of the above threat factors, singly or in
combination. Each of these factors is discussed below.
A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment
of Its Habitat or Range
Wildfire Suppression
Fire frequency and intensity in southwestern forests are altered
from historical conditions (Dahms and Geils 1997, p. 34; Danzer et al.
1997, p. 1). Before the late 1800s, surface fires generally occurred at
least once per decade in montane forests with a pine component (Swetnam
and Baisan 1996, p. 15), landscapes similar to those within which the
Three Forks springsnail occurs. During the early 1900s, frequent
widespread ground fires ceased to occur due to intensive livestock
grazing that removed fine fuels, such as grasses. Coupled with fire
suppression, changes in fuel load began to alter forest structure and
natural fire regime (Dahms and Geils 1997, p. 34). Absence of low-
intensity ground fires allowed a buildup of woody fuels that resulted
in infrequent, but very hot, stand replacing fires (very hot fires
which kill all or most of aboveground parts of the dominant vegetation,
changing the aboveground structure substantially) (Danzer et al. 1997,
p. 9; Dahm and Geils 1997, p. 34).
On May 17, 2004, and June 8, 2004, two wildfires, the KP and Three
Forks fires, ignited near one another on U.S. Forest Service (USFS)
lands and developed into hot crown fires (fires burning in tree
canopies). Initial fire suppression efforts by the USFS were
unsuccessful, and the USFS authorized additional actions to protect
resources from what they considered to be extreme fire behavior (USFS
2005, p. 2-3). The additional actions included application of aerial
fire retardants. Although this fire complex did not directly burn the
Three Forks Springs area, surface waters within the Three Forks fire
area were exposed to fire retardant (chemicals used to suppress fire)
that likely drifted from high elevation retardant releases from
aircraft (USFS 2005, pp. 4, 12).
Fire retardants are toxic to springsnails when they enter the
aquatic systems the snails occupy. Some fire retardant chemicals are
ammonia-based, which are toxic to aquatic wildlife; however, many
formulations also contain yellow prussiate of soda (sodium
ferrocyanide), which is added as an anticorrosive agent. Such
formulations are toxic for fish, aquatic invertebrates, and algae
(Angeler et al.
[[Page 20467]]
2006, pp. 171-172; Calfee and Little 2003, pp. 1527-1530; Little and
Calfee 2002, p. 5; Buhl and Hamilton 1998, p. 1598; Hamilton et al.
1998, p. 3; Gaikwokski et al. 1996, pp. 1372-1373). Toxicity of these
formulations is enhanced by sunlight (Calfee and Little 2003, pp. 1529-
1533). Contamination of aquatic sites can occur via direct application
or runoff from treated uplands.
During the fire suppression activities in the vicinity of Three
Forks Springs, approximately 108,610 gallons (411,130 liters) of aerial
fire retardant were applied (USFS 2005, p. 3). The nearest documented
release into a waterway was 0.65 mi (1.05 km) from Three Forks Springs,
though other undocumented aerial releases in the area could have been
closer. The USFS (2005, p. 12) concluded that lethal concentrations of
retardant contaminated Three Forks Springs waters. This contamination
resulted in the near disappearance of springsnails following the fire.
Available data indicate that the species was still abundant in all
historically occupied sites at Three Forks Springs in 2002 and 2003,
just prior to the fire (Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD) 2008,
p. 57-70; Martinez 2009, pp. 31-32). Surveys in 2004, immediately
following the fire, failed to locate any springsnails. 2005 surveys
detected only two snails (Cox 2007, p. 1), 2008 surveys detected only
three snails (Bailey 2008, p. 1), 2009 surveys located only one snail
(Grosch 2010, p. 1), and 2010 surveys did not detect any snails
(Sorensen 2010, p.1). Since these are short-lived species, finding even
a few individuals 4 and 5 years after the fire seems to indicate that
the species continues to persist, though precariously, at Three Forks
Springs.
Lack of vegetation and forest litter following intense crown fires
can expose soils to surface erosion during storms, often causing
sedimentation, and erosion in downstream drainages (DeBano and Neary
1996, pp. 70-75). Surface erosion could not have directly affected the
Three Forks springsnail or its habitat because the spring area did not
burn. We do not have information that surface erosion following any
wildfires has affected the Three Forks springsnail or its habitat in
the past. However, since both Three Forks and Boneyard Bog spring
complexes are surrounded by dense coniferous forests, it is reasonable
to expect that surface erosion from high intensity wildfires may
threaten them in the future.
Considering the toxic effect of fire retardant and the high
potential for future wildfires in the area with exposure at both Three
Forks and Boneyard Bog springs, we conclude there is a high risk that
the Three Forks springsnail could become extinct due to exposure to
fire retardant chemicals in its habitat.
While fires occur within the range of the San Bernardino
springsnail, we have no information on fire frequency or intensity in
this area. However, if a wildfire were to occur, suppression efforts
could include the application of fire retardant chemicals. In this
scenario, we would expect San Bernardino springsnails to react
negatively to exposure to fire retardants. Because wildfire is
unpredictable, and exposure to fire retardants could occur in the
future, we believe this represents a potential threat to the species.
Ungulate Grazing
Ungulate (hoofed mammal) grazing on spring ecosystems can alter or
remove springsnail habitat and limit the distribution of springsnails,
or result in extirpation. For instance, cattle trampling at a spring in
Owens Valley, California, reduced banks to mud and sparse grass,
limiting the occurrence of the endangered Fish Slough springsnail
(Pyrgulopsis pertubata) (Bruce and White 1998, pp. 3-4). Additionally,
a population of another closely related springsnail, Chupadera
springsnail, (P. chupaderae), endemic to Socorro County, New Mexico,
was extirpated due to the impacts of livestock grazing on its habitat
(Arritt 1998, p. 10).
Since the mid- and late 1990s, livestock have been fenced out of
both Three Forks and Boneyard Bog springs. However, free-ranging elk
(Cervus elaphus) have access to both spring complexes. During field
surveys in 2000 and 2008, Service staff noted evidence of elk wallowing
at Boneyard Bog Springs (Martinez 2000, p. 1; Martinez 2008, p. 1).
Areas affected by wallowing were characterized by banks reduced to mud
and sparse grass, with stagnant, rather than flowing, water. These are
not optimal habitat conditions for the Three Forks springsnail.
Although the AGFD have stated that elk wallowing at Boneyard Bog
Springs may be a problem for maintaining springhead integrity, they did
not find the amount of habitat disturbed alarming (Shroufe 2003, p. 5).
We have discussed with AGFD and the Forest Service the possibility of
constructing an elk fence, but no action has been taken. Nevertheless,
the maintenance of springhead integrity is critical to maintaining
water quality and conserving springsnails (Hershler and Williams 1996,
p. 1). The observed changes to springsnail habitat resulting from elk
use at Boneyard Bog Springs threatens the integrity of the spring
system.
Ungulate grazing is not believed to be a current threat for the San
Bernardino springsnail. Cattle grazing does not currently occur on the
San Bernardino NWR. A small number of cattle graze on the John
Slaughter Ranch, but they do not have access to the spring sites. Horse
Spring is located in a horse pen (Martinez 2010, p. 2), but it is
unclear what effect, if any, the horses have on the spring. However,
past cattle grazing may have played a role in the extirpation of the
species from what may have been its historical range. The San
Bernardino Valley, including the John Slaughter Ranch, historically
supported extensive cattle ranching (Hendrickson and Minckley 1984, pp.
142-144; Service 2007, p. iii-iv). At one time, livestock likely had
access to all spring habitats along the Rio San Bernardino.
Springhead Inundation
Springhead inundation refers to pooling of water over a spring vent
resulting in ponded water, sometimes relatively deep, that would
otherwise exist as shallow free-flowing water. Inundation can alter
springsnail habitats by causing shifts in water depth, velocity,
substrate composition, vegetation, and water chemistry. Inundation has
negatively affected other springsnails (70 FR 46304, August 9, 2005).
Three Forks springsnail habitats have been subjected to minor
inundation. During the 1930s, concrete boxes were constructed around
four springheads at Three Forks Springs. However, these boxes are small
and the majority of the springs affected still exist as shallow,
flowing-water ecosystems below the springboxes. Also, the species had
been known to be locally abundant within springboxes until 1999, when
the extirpation of the species from at least two boxed springheads at
Three Forks Springs was noted (Myers 2000, p. 1). Extirpation is
believed to be linked to invasion by the northern crayfish (Orconectis
virilis) (see Factor C below). Habitats at Boneyard Bog Springs have
not been affected by inundation. Springhead inundation does not appear
to be a substantial threat to the Three Forks springsnail because
inundated springheads are in a relatively small portion of the species'
occupied habitat, and the springboxes are relatively small.
Springhead inundation may be a threat to the San Bernardino
springsnail. Three unnamed springs on the Slaughter Ranch no longer
exist as free-flowing waters. Instead the springheads have been
converted into one large
[[Page 20468]]
artificial pond referred to as House Pond, which serves as an important
refuge for several native Yaqui fishes. Since inundation of this
habitat, the San Bernardino springsnail has not been found in these
springs, although it was previously believed to occur there (Cox et al.
2007, p.1).
Groundwater Depletion
Habitat loss due to groundwater depletion, or loss of water flow,
is the primary threat to the San Bernardino springsnail. Since spring
ecosystems rely on water discharged to the surface from underground
aquifers, depletion of these groundwater sources can result in drying
of springs. This threat is severe for the San Bernardino springsnail
because, like all springsnails, it is strictly aquatic, breathing
through an internal gill and filtering aquatic organisms for food.
Groundwater depletion has been recognized as a threat to the biota of
the Rio San Bernardino and associated springs for many years in the
Yaqui Fishes listing document (49 FR 34490, August 31, 1984) and the
Recovery Plan for Yaqui Fishes (Service 1994, p. 17). The extirpation
of several suspected populations of San Bernardino springsnail are
believed to have been caused by the loss of water flow attributable to
water depletion and diversion for domestic water use (Landye 1973, p.
34; Malcom et al. 2003, p. 17), though the taxonomy of those
populations is unconfirmed.
Two distinct aquifers exist in the San Bernardino Valley basin, one
deep and the other shallow (Earman et al. 2003, p. 35). These aquifers
exhibit different chemical and thermal properties. Many of the springs
in the area are influenced by both the deep and the shallow aquifers
(Earman et al. 2003, p. 166; Malcom et al. 2005, pp. 75-76). House
Spring, Snail Spring, and Goat Tank Spring have a different chemical
composition (isotopic signatures) than other springs in the area, as
well as one another (Earman et al. 2003, p. 166), indicating that the
interaction between the deep aquifer, shallow groundwater, and spring
sources, is a complex phenomenon.
Managers of Slaughter Ranch operate an irrigation system that
relies on the shallow aquifer and surface water from House Pond to
provide water to turf grass and to a cattle pasture (Malcom et al.
2003, p. 18; Malcom 2007, p. 1; Cox et al. 2007, p. 2). Malcom (2007,
p.1) and Cox (2007, p. 1) both reported a visible decline in flow from
Snail and Tule Springs when this irrigation system is running. This may
indicate that the drawdown of House Pond on the Slaughter Ranch is
hydrologically connected to Snail Spring, or otherwise influences
spring flow. However, we have no direct evidence to prove this is the
case. Regardless, Snail Spring no longer discharges from the
springhead, and the presence of the San Bernardino springsnail was not
documented during 2010 spot surveys in areas where it was previously
abundant (Martinez 2010, p. 1). The factors contributing to the decline
in spring water flows in the San Bernardino Valley, including those
located on the Slaughter Ranch and the San Bernardino NWR, may include
irrigation, groundwater pumping, extended drought conditions, climate
change, and the natural dynamics of groundwater systems.
Regardless of the mechanisms, the cessation of water flow at Snail
Spring dates back to at least the summer of 2002, when San Bernardino
NWR staff and Slaughter Ranch managers tapped into the Slaughter Ranch
domestic water supply from House Spring to maintain springsnail habitat
(Smith 2003, p. 1; Malcom 2003, p. 18; Malcom 2007, p. 1). Use of the
Slaughter Ranch domestic water supply to support springsnails was
intended as an emergency measure that ultimately could not be
maintained by House Spring. As a result, surface flow at Snail Spring
has been periodically augmented by Slaughter Ranch managers using water
diverted from House Pond. While the perception is that such
augmentation maintains spring flow, the water chemistry of House Pond
is believed to differ significantly from the water chemistry that would
naturally flow from Snail Spring. Consistent natural water flow has not
been observed in Snail Spring since 2005, and spot surveys have not
found the San Bernardino springsnail since then (Cox et al. 2007, p. 1;
Malcom 2007, p.1; Service 2007, p. 83; Martinez 2010, p. 1). However,
these spot surveys have not been intensive, and it is possible the
species has managed to survive in wet areas where an overflow pipe
discharges water from House Pond, several meters downstream of the
springhead.
We have no information indicating that Goat Tank Spring or Horse
Spring has experienced any loss of water flow. Because the groundwater
system feeding these springs comprises complex interactions between two
separate aquifers, we cannot predict if these two springs will
eventually cease flowing, as did the springhead at Snail Spring. Even
though the species continues to persist at Goat Tank and Horse Springs,
it occurs in low numbers most likely due to sub-optimal habitat
conditions.
If groundwater depletion results in the continued drying of Snail
Spring, a large part of the known range of the San Bernardino
springsnail would be eliminated, and the San Bernardino springsnail
would be more vulnerable to extinction. If groundwater depletion were
to affect Goat Tank Spring and Horse Spring, the entire range of the
species could be eliminated.
Groundwater depletion is not currently known to be a threat to the
Three Forks springsnail.
Pesticides
Spring endemic species are typically adapted to the unique
environmental conditions provided by spring water and may be quite
sensitive to shifts in water quality (Hershler 1998, p. 11), including
those caused by contamination. Malcom et al. (2003, p. 17) consider
contamination from pesticides to be a significant threat to the San
Bernardino springsnail because a number of herbicides and other
pesticides have traditionally been used adjacent to springs on the
Slaughter Ranch to maintain landscape conditions (Service 2005, p. 4).
These include Roundup[supreg] and Rodeo[supreg], which contain
glyphosate, a broad-spectrum herbicide, with high water solubility.
Pesticides with glyphosate can be slightly to moderately toxic to
aquatic organisms, particularly zooplankton and microalgae (Montenegro-
Rayo 2004, p. 34), which are food for springsnails.
In addition to possibly contaminating the food base for the
springsnail, there may be direct effects to the springsnail. Tate et
al. (1997, p. 286) reported that glyphosate killed half of the aquatic
snails in the snail mimic lymnaea (Pseudosuccinea columella) when the
dosage was 0.004 ounces per quart (99 milligrams per liter). In the
same study, Tate et al. (1997, p. 286) continually exposed three
successive generations of snails to varying concentrations of
glyphosate in water. The results of the study indicate that long-term
exposure to sub-lethal concentrations of glyphosate had a delayed
effect on growth and development, egg-laying capacity, and hatching of
mimic lymnaea snails (Tate et al. 1997, p. 288). Less than 50 percent
of the eggs hatched at a dosage of 0.0004 ounces per quart (10
milligrams per liter). Thus, sub-lethal, as well as lethal, effects
from the use of glyphosate or other pesticides on the Slaughter Ranch
may be of concern for the San Bernardino springsnail.
We are unaware of any threat from pesticides to the Three Forks
springsnail, because we have no information that pesticides are used in
[[Page 20469]]
the vicinity of Three Forks or Boneyard Bog springs.
In summary, the present destruction, modification, and curtailment
of habitat and range of the Three Forks springsnail and the San
Bernardino springsnail pose significant threats to these species.
Threats to the habitat of the Three Forks springsnail are occurring
principally from exposure to wildfire and fire retardants, and
uncontrolled wild ungulate grazing. Threats to the habitat of the San
Bernardino springsnail are caused by springhead inundation, groundwater
depletion, and pesticide contamination.
B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
Both the Three Forks and San Bernardino springsnails have been
subjected to a limited number of scientific studies aimed at
determining taxonomy, distribution, and habitat use. Although sampling
can reduce population size of springsnails (Martinez and Sorensen 2007,
p. 29), studies conducted on the Three Forks and San Bernardino
springsnails have not resulted in the removal of large numbers of
snails, and we do not believe they have had discernible effects on any
population.
Unauthorized collecting has been identified as a threat to other
snails, including springsnails (65 FR 10033, February 25, 2000; 58 FR
5938, January 25, 1993; 56 FR 49646, September 30, 1991), due to their
rarity, restricted distribution, and generally well-known locations.
However, there is currently no documentation of collection being a
significant threat to either the Three Forks or San Bernardino
springsnail.
In summary, we find that the Three Forks and San Bernardino
springsnails are not threatened by overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational purposes now, or in the
foreseeable future.
C. Disease or Predation
Exceptionally heavy parasitism on the female reproductive system of
the Three Forks springsnail has been observed on specimens from Three
Forks Springs (Taylor 1987, p. 31). These parasites were not described,
but aquatic snails are known to serve as intermediate hosts for a
variety of parasitic flatworms (Dillon 2000, p. 227; Schmidt and
Roberts 2000, p. 1). Parasitic infection can result in castration of
individual snails, and may contribute to population decline (Dillon
2000, pp. 270-272). However, we have no information on whether this has
occurred to the Three Forks springsnail populations. No information is
available on parasites for the San Bernardino springsnail.
Springsnails are vulnerable to predation by a variety of fish,
amphibians, reptiles, mammals, and macroinvertebrates (Dillon 2000, p.
273). Nonnative crayfish are known predators of aquatic snails
(Fernandez and Rosen 1996, pp. 24-25; Parkyn et al. 1997, p. 690). Gut
content analysis has shown that nonnative mosquitofish (Gambusia
affinis) consumes springsnails (Raisanen 1991, p. 71).
Nonnative crayfish likely prey on the Three Forks springsnail.
These crayfish are relatively recent invaders at both Three Forks and
Boneyard Bog springs. In a laboratory aquaria experiment that mimicked
stream conditions found at Three Forks Springs, crayfish consumed
snails in the family Physidae (which occupy similar habitats as
springsnails) and their eggs within 1 week (Fernandez and Rosen 1996,
pp. 24-25).
As discussed under Factor A, the Three Forks springsnail has been
extirpated from concrete-boxed springheads at Three Forks Springs where
it previously survived in abundance (Myers 2000, p. 1). The extirpation
of the species from these springboxes coincided with the invasion of
nonnative crayfish. Recognizing the threat, AGFD personnel conducted an
intensive crayfish trapping program aimed at reducing potential
predatory pressure at Three Forks Springs (Nelson et al. 2002, pp. 4,
6). Complete elimination of crayfish from an aquatic system is usually
not possible (Helfrich et al. 2001, p. 4), and that was the case with
the trapping effort at Three Forks Springs. Arizona has no native
crayfish species (Inman 1999, p. 6). Since the Three Forks springsnail
did not evolve in the presence of crayfish and is likely not
evolutionarily adapted to cope with introduced crayfish, it is more
susceptible to crayfish predation.
We are unaware of the presence of significant populations of
nonnative predators within springs occupied by the San Bernardino
springsnail.
In summary, we find that predation by nonnative crayfish is a
threat to the Three Forks springsnail, but predation is not known to be
a threat to the San Bernardino springsnail. We have no information
indicating that disease is a threat for either species.
D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
A primary cause of decline of these springsnails is the loss,
degradation, and fragmentation of habitat due to human activities,
particularly application of aerial fire retardant, introduction of
nonnative crayfish, groundwater depletion, and application of
pesticides. Existing Federal, State, and local laws have been unable to
prevent ongoing loss of the limited habitat of these springsnails, and
they are not expected to prevent further declines of the species.
The policy for delivery of wildland fire chemicals near waterways
on USFS lands is described in the Interagency Standards for Fire and
Fire Aviation Operations developed by the National Interagency Fire
Center (NIFC). The policy directs the USFS to avoid aerial application
of wildland fire chemicals within 300 ft (91 m) of waterways and avoid
any ground application of wildland fire chemicals into waterways (NIFC
2011, p. 3). The closest accidental delivery of fire retardant into a
waterway was approximately 0.65 mi (1 km) upstream of Three Forks
Springs (USFS 2005, p. 12), well over the 300 ft (91 m) buffer
established by NIFC policy. Nevertheless, all aquatic areas at Three
Forks Springs were affected by fire retardant drift (USFS 2005, pp. 4,
12), likely from other unrecorded high-elevation drops. Additionally,
although long term fire retardants containing sodium ferrocyanide are
no longer on the USFS qualified products list as they were at the time
of the KP/Three Forks Fires, fire retardant products currently on the
qualified products list still contain substances toxic to the snail, as
described under Factor A. Therefore, we find the existing regulatory
mechanisms inadequate to protect the Three Forks springsnail from the
detrimental effects of fire retardant drift.
The application of glyphosate herbicide within or near Snail
Spring, Goat Tank Spring, and Horse Spring is not regulated. The
Environmental Protection Agency is responsible for controlling the
application of pesticides, which they do by putting a specimen label on
each pesticide container that explains restrictions on their use. The
specimen label for Rodeo[supreg], which is believed to be applied to
the grass lawn on the Slaughter Ranch, does not restrict its use within
and near aquatic sites (DowAgroSciences 2006, p. 11). Therefore, the
label is inadequate to protect the San Bernardino springsnail from the
detrimental effects of exposure to glyphosate.
The AGFD has conducted intensive crayfish trapping at Three Forks
Springs in an effort to curb predation on the Three Forks springsnail.
However, these efforts have not eliminated crayfish at Three Forks
Springs nor prevented their spread into Boneyard Bog Springs. Existing
regulatory mechanisms to prevent introduction of nonnative crayfish and
to control them, once
[[Page 20470]]
introduced, are inadequate to protect the Three Forks springsnail.
We are not aware of State laws or local ordinances that would limit
the use of groundwater on the Slaughter Ranch or in the San Bernardino
watershed; an adequate groundwater supply is needed to protect and
restore spring flow at Snail Spring and Tule Spring. Spring flow at
Snail Spring seems to be reduced at times when the shallow groundwater
aquifer is drawn down by the Slaughter Ranch and other users of the
aquifer. There is a Warranty Deed that reserves water rights on the
Slaughter Ranch to The Nature Conservancy (TNC), which previously owned
the ranch (TNC 1982, pp. 1-20; Malcom 2007, p. 1; Eiden 2007, p. 1).
When TNC sold what is now the San Bernardino NWR to the Service, and
the Slaughter Ranch to private landowners, it conveyed all water rights
it held and the control of the use of water on the ranch to the
Service. Thus, through the Warranty Deed, the Service has the right to
control the use of water on the Slaughter Ranch. The Service can
withhold its consent for planned water uses and other activities by the
owner and managers of the Slaughter Ranch if it determines that such
activities may have an adverse effect on the fish and snail species
occurring on the ranch. The San Bernardino NWR has proactively worked
with the ranch over the past several years to moderate irrigation water
use, and to install a water line from House Spring to assist in the
maintenance of water flow at Snail Spring. The San Bernardino NWR is in
the process of evaluating other sources of water for irrigation by the
Slaughter Ranch that are not hydrologically connected to the shallow
aquifer spring system. Although the Service is the sole owner of the
water rights being used by the Slaughter Ranch, the San Bernardino NWR
is initiating discussions with the Arizona Department of Water
Resources to properly claim the water rights conveyed to the United
States and to establish an agreement with the Slaughter Ranch for water
use. Through these efforts we are hopeful that we can eventually ensure
reliable flow and adequate water quality to provide for the continued
survival of the species. At this time, however, threats to the San
Bernardino springsnail from groundwater depletion persist.
Since 1919, Arizona's courts have handled surface water and
groundwater separately. Surface water allocations are based on the
``first in time, first in right'' priority system, while groundwater is
generally governed by the ``reasonable use'' doctrine, which indicates
that the landowner, without waste, can use water beneath the land for
any beneficial purpose. Because the water rights system does not
acknowledge the hydrologic connection between surface water and
groundwater, it generally is not possible to limit groundwater pumping
in order to protect surface water rights (Arizona Department of Water
Resources 2009, p. 1).
Take of the Three Forks springsnail and the San Bernardino
springsnail is regulated by Arizona Game and Fish Commission Order 42,
which establishes no open season (no collecting) for any snail species
in the genus Pyrgulopsis (AGFD 2009, p. 1). Although Order 42 prohibits
direct taking of individuals, it does not prohibit habitat
modification. Both species are also identified as priority species in
the State Wildlife Action Plan prepared by AGFD. This plan helps guide
AGFD and other agencies in determining what biotic resources should
receive priority management consideration. However, it is not a
regulatory document.
In summary, current regulatory mechanisms do not provide adequate
protection for Three Forks and San Bernardino springsnail habitat from
modification or destruction or the spread of nonnative predators. USFS
and State regulatory mechanisms are adequate to control recreation and
scientific collecting, but these do not appear to be threats to either
species at this time.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence
Invasive Competitors
The nonnative New Zealand mudsnail (Potamopyrgus antipodarum) is an
invasive freshwater snail of the family Hydrobiidae that has become a
concern for spring-dependent aquatic snails, including springsnails.
The mudsnail is known to compete with and slow the growth of native
freshwater snails, including springsnails (Lysne and Koetsier 2008, pp.
103, 105; Lysne et al. 2007, p. 6). There is potential for invasion
into the spring ecosystems occupied by the Three Forks and San
Bernardino springsnails because the mudsnail can be easily transported
and unintentionally introduced into aquatic environments via birds,
recreationists, researchers, and resource managers.
The mudsnail was first discovered in the United States in the Snake
River, Idaho, in 1987 and has since spread to the Colorado River basin
in the western United States (U.S. Geological Survey 2002, p. 1). New
Zealand mudsnails were detected along the Colorado River at Lee's Ferry
in northern Arizona in 2002 (AGFD 2002, p. 1). Since that time,
detections of this exotic species have occurred along the Colorado
River at the confluence of Diamond Creek, 226 miles downstream of Lee's
Ferry (Montana State University 2008, p. 1), and more recently at
Willow Beach Fish Hatchery, downstream of Lake Mead (Olson 2008, pp. 1-
2). New Zealand mudsnails were also detected in Utah in 2001 and their
dispersal through that State has been rapid (Vinson 2004, p. 9).
The mudsnail has characteristics that enable it to out-compete and
replace native springsnails. Mudsnails tolerate a wide range of
habitats, and can reach densities exceeding tens of thousands per
square meter, particularly in systems with high primary productivity,
constant temperatures, and constant flow (typical of spring systems),
though faster moving water seems to limit colonization (Richards et al.
2001, pp. 378-379). Mudsnails can dominate the invertebrate composition
of an aquatic system, accounting for up to 97 percent of invertebrate
biomass (Hall et al. 2003, p. 409). In doing so, they can consume
nearly all microorganisms attached to submerged substrates, making food
no longer available for native species, in particular springsnails
(Hall et al. 2003, p. 409). Although invasion by mudsnails is not
considered an imminent threat, if the New Zealand mudsnail were to be
introduced into the spring systems harboring the Three Forks or San
Bernardino springsnail, the effect on springsnail populations could be
devastating. Additionally, control would be difficult because mudsnails
are small and therefore cryptic, and because chemical treatment to
eradicate them would also eradicate springsnails.
Climate Change
Seagar et al. (2007, pp. 1181-1184) analyzed 19 computer models of
different variables to estimate the future climatology of the
southwestern United States and northern Mexico in response to
predictions of changing climatic patterns. All but 1 of the 19 models
predicted a drying trend within the Southwest; one predicted a trend
toward a wetter climate (Seager et al. 2007, p. 1181). A total of 49
projections were created using the 19 models and all but 3 predicted a
shift to increasing aridity (dryness) in the Southwest as early as
2021-2040 (Seager, et al. 2007, p. 1181). The Three Forks and San
Bernardino springsnails depend on permanent flowing water for survival.
Wetlands in the Southwest and northern Mexico are predicted to be at
risk of drying (Seager et al. 2007, pp. 1183-1184), which has severe
implications for
[[Page 20471]]
aquatic ecosystems. Potential drought associated with changing climatic
patterns may adversely affect the spring habitats of the Three Forks
and San Bernardino springsnails, not only reducing water availability,
but also altering food availability and predation rates.
There are three predictions for anticipated effects from climate
change in the Southwest. First, climate change is expected to shorten
periods of snowpack accumulation, as well as lessen snowpack levels.
With gradually increasing temperatures and reduced snowpack (due to
higher spring temperatures and reduced winter-spring precipitation),
annual runoff will be reduced (Garfin 2005, p. 42; Smith et al. 2003,
p. 226), consequently reducing groundwater recharge. Second, snowmelt
is expected to occur earlier in the calendar year because increased
minimum winter and spring temperatures could melt snowpacks sooner,
causing peak water flows to occur much sooner than the historical
spring and summer peak flows (Garfin 2005, p. 41; Smith et al. 2003, p.
226; Stewart et al. 2004, pp. 217-218, 224, 230) and reducing flows
later in the season. Third, the hydrologic cycle is expected to become
more dynamic on average with climate models predicting increases in the
variability and intensity of rainfall events. This will modify
disturbance regimes by changing the magnitude and frequency of floods.
All of these anticipated effects may alter the habitat for the
springsnails by altering surface water flow and ground water recharge.
In addition, there will be increases in riverine system
temperatures in drier climates that will result in periods of prolonged
low flows and stream drying (Rahel and Olden 2008, p. 526) and will
increase demand for water storage and conveyance systems (Rahel and
Olden 2008, pp. 521-522). Warmer water temperatures across temperate
regions are predicted to expand the distribution of existing aquatic
nonnative species. In a study that compared the thermal tolerances of
57 fish species with predictions made from climate change temperature
models, Mohseni et al. (2003, p. 389) concluded that there would be 31
percent more suitable habitat for aquatic nonnative species, which are
often tropical in origin and adaptable to warmer water temperatures.
This could result in an expansion in the range of nonnative species
that is detrimental to the viability of springsnail populations.
Warmer water temperatures, altered stream flow events and
groundwater recharge, and increased demand for water storage and
conveyance systems (Rahel and Olden 2008, pp. 521-522) are all likely
to exacerbate existing threats to the Three Forks and San Bernardino
springsnails and their habitats.
Endemism
Endemic species (organisms with narrowly distributed isolated
populations) are susceptible to extinction from natural or human caused
events. Biological and ecological factors that put a species at risk of
extinction include specialized habitat preference, restricted
distribution, poor dispersal ability, population size, fragmentation of
range, and life history specialization (McKinney 1997, p. 497; O'Grady
et al. 2004, p. 514), all of which characterize the Three Forks and San
Bernardino springsnails. In addition, both species have suffered
substantial reductions in overall numbers and populations. Although
rarity itself is not a threat, rarity coupled with existing threats
puts them at risk of decreased population viability, loss of genetic
diversity, and outright extinction.
Extinction rates for freshwater species are five times higher than
those for terrestrial species (Ricciardi and Rasmussen 1999, p. 1220).
Spring-dependent species, such as springsnails, are especially at risk
because spring ecosystems harbor a disproportionate percentage of
endemic species (Minckley and Unmack 2000, pp. 52-53; Shepard 1993, pp.
354-357). Because both species have a very limited range, their
populations are disjunct and isolated from each other, and potential
habitat areas are isolated, they are particularly vulnerable to
localized extinction should their habitat be degraded or destroyed.
Because their mobility is limited, populations will have little
opportunity to leave degraded habitat areas in search of suitable
habitat. As a result, one contamination or wildfire event in the case
of the Three Forks springsnail, or a short period of drawdown or
exposure to pesticides in the aquatic habitat of the San Bernardino
springsnail, could result in the loss of an entire population.
Proposed Determination
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
to the Three Forks springsnail and the San Bernardino springsnail. The
habitat and range of both species are threatened with destruction,
modification, and curtailment. Existing regulatory mechanisms do not
provide adequate protection for these species, and other natural and
manmade factors affect their continued existence. The Three Forks
springsnail is also threatened by predation. These endemic species are
threatened by limited distribution, lack of mobility, and the isolation
of populations. As a result, any impact from increasing threats (loss
of spring flow, contaminants) is likely to result in their extinction
because the magnitude of threats is high.
The Endangered Species Act (Section 3(5)(C)(6) defines an
endangered species as ``any species which is in danger of extinction
throughout all or a significant portion of its range.'' Based on the
immediate and ongoing significant threats to the Three Forks
springsnail and San Bernardino springsnail throughout their entire
limited range, such as habitat destruction from loss of spring flow,
contamination, predation, and endemism), we consider both species to be
in danger of extinction throughout all of their range. Therefore, the
species is proposed as endangered, rather than threatened, because the
threats are occurring now, making the species at risk of extinction at
the present time. Since threats extend throughout their entire range,
it is unnecessary to determine if they are in danger of extinction
throughout a significant portion of their range. Therefore, on the
basis of the best available scientific and commercial information, we
are proposing to list the Three Forks springsnail and the San
Bernardino springsnail as endangered species throughout their entire
range.
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, Tribal, local agencies, private
organizations, and individuals. The Act encourages cooperation with the
States and requires that recovery actions be carried out for all listed
species. The protection measures required of Federal agencies and the
prohibitions against certain activities are discussed, in part, below.
The primary purpose of the Act is the conservation of endangered
and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The
ultimate goal of such conservation efforts is the recovery of these
listed species, so that they no longer need the protective measures of
the Act. Subsection 4(f) of the Act requires the Service to develop and
implement recovery plans for the
[[Page 20472]]
conservation of endangered and threatened species. The recovery
planning process involves the identification of actions that are
necessary to halt or reverse the species' decline by addressing the
threats to its survival and recovery. The goal of this process is to
restore listed species to a point where they are secure, self-
sustaining, and functioning components of their ecosystems.
Recovery planning includes the development of a recovery outline
shortly after a species is listed, preparation of a draft and final
recovery plan, and revisions to the plan as significant new information
becomes available. The recovery outline guides the immediate
implementation of urgent recovery actions and describes the process to
be used to develop a recovery plan. The recovery plan identifies site-
specific management actions that will achieve recovery of the species,
measurable criteria that determine when a species may be downlisted or
delisted, and methods for monitoring recovery progress. Recovery plans
also establish a framework for agencies to coordinate their recovery
efforts and provide estimates of the cost of implementing recovery
tasks. Recovery teams (comprised of species experts, Federal and State
agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and stakeholders) are often
established to develop recovery plans. When completed, the recovery
outline, draft recovery plan, and the final recovery plan will be
available from our Web site (http://www.fws.gov/endangered), or from
our Arizona Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
Implementation of recovery actions generally requires the
participation of a broad range of partners, including other Federal
agencies, States, non-governmental organizations, businesses, and
private landowners. Examples of recovery actions include habitat
restoration (e.g., restoration of native vegetation), research, captive
propagation and reintroduction, and outreach and education. The
recovery of many listed species cannot be accomplished solely on
Federal lands because their range may occur primarily or solely on non-
Federal lands. To achieve recovery of these species requires
cooperative conservation efforts on private and State lands.
If these species are listed, funding for recovery actions will be
available from a variety of sources, including Federal budgets, State
programs, and cost share grants for nonfederal landowners, the academic
community, and nongovernmental organizations. In addition, pursuant to
section 6 of the Act, the State of Arizona would be eligible for
Federal funds to implement management actions that promote the
protection and recovery of the Three Forks springsnail and San
Bernardino springsnail. Information on our grant programs that are
available to aid species recovery can be found at: http://www.fws.gov/grants.
Although the Three Forks springsnail and San Bernardino springsnail
are only proposed for listing under the Act at this time, please let us
know if you are interested in participating in recovery efforts for
this species. Additionally, we invite you to submit any new information
on this species whenever it becomes available and any information you
may have for recovery planning purposes (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
Section 7(a) of the Act, as amended, 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 designated. Regulations implementing this
interagency cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR
part 402. Section 7(a)(1) requires Federal agencies, in consultation
with the Service, to carry out programs for the conservation of listed
species. 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
subsequently listed, 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
adversely affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the
responsible Federal agency must enter into formal consultation with the
Service.
For the Three Forks springsnail and San Bernardino springsnail,
Federal agency actions that may require consultation as described in
the preceding paragraph include activities approved under a forest
management plan, a refuge comprehensive management plan, and activities
that require a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers pursuant to
section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
The USFS has established a closure around Three Forks Springs to
prevent unauthorized access. The AGFD has implemented a crayfish
trapping program and a Three Forks springsnail monitoring program. The
effectiveness of these measures is yet undemonstrated. We had recently
established a captive refugium for Three Forks springsnail in
coordination with USFS, AGFD, and the Phoenix Zoo. This refugium is no
longer viable, but we hope to apply lessons learned to future efforts
to establish refugia. We intend to work with the USFS, AGFD, the Zoo,
and The Nature Conservancy (which owns property near Boneyard Bog
Springs) to develop conservation actions for the Three Forks
springsnail. Additionally, Service staff is currently working to
publish additional results of field studies describing habitat
relationships for the Three Forks springsnail.
Efforts to rehabilitate habitat on the San Bernardino NWR at Tule
Spring have been initiated (Service 2003, p. 2), with the intention of
potentially reintroducing San Bernardino springsnails. However, the
inconsistency of water flow reduces the likelihood of successful
reestablishment of the species on the San Bernardino NWR. The Service
is also seeking to acquire, through donation, the John Slaughter Ranch
for incorporation into the San Bernardino NWR. This would provide
tremendous opportunities to protect, manage, and enhance springs on the
property. However, it is uncertain if this transaction will occur. The
Service intends to continue to work with AGFD and the John Slaughter
Ranch to develop conservation actions for the San Bernardino
springsnail, perhaps including the development of a domestic water well
that would not affect surface waters.
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, 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 threatened or endangered wildlife species under certain
circumstances. Regulations governing permits are codified at 50 CFR
17.22 for
[[Page 20473]]
endangered species. With regard to endangered wildlife, a permit must
be issued for the following purposes: 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 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 Three Forks springsnail and San Bernardino springsnail, such
as the introduction of competing, nonnative species to the State of
Arizona;
(3) The unauthorized release of biological control agents that
attack any life stage of this species;
(4) Unauthorized modification of the springs or water flow of any
stream or removal or destruction of emergent aquatic vegetation in any
body of water in which the Three Forks springsnail and San Bernardino
springsnail are known to occur; and
(5) Unauthorized discharge of chemicals or fill material into any
waters in which the Three Forks springsnail and San Bernardino
springsnail are 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).
Critical Habitat
Background
Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as:
(i) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a
species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which
are found those physical or biological features
(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 a
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 the use
of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring any
endangered species or threatened species to the point at which the
measures provided under the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods
and procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities
associated with scientific resources management such as research,
census, law enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance,
propagation, live trapping, and transplantation, and, in the
extraordinary case where population pressures within a given ecosystem
cannot be otherwise relieved, may include regulated taking.
Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act
through the prohibition against Federal agencies carrying out, funding,
or authorizing 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
government or public access to private 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 that may affect a listed
species or critical habitat, the consultation requirements of Section
7(a)(2) of the Act would apply. However, 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 implement reasonable and prudent alternatives 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 physical and biological features that are 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, those physical and biological
features that are essential to the conservation of the species (such as
space, food, cover, and protected habitat), focusing on the principal
biological or physical constituent elements (primary constituent
elements) within an area that are essential to the conservation of the
species (such as roost sites, nesting grounds, seasonal wetlands, water
quality, tide, soil type). Primary constituent elements are 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.
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 is listed as critical habitat 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. When the best available scientific data do not demonstrate
that the conservation needs of the species require such additional
areas, we will not designate critical habitat in areas outside the
geographical area occupied by the species. An area currently occupied
by the species but that was not occupied at the time of listing may,
however, be essential to the conservation of the species and may be
included in the critical habitat designation.
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.
[[Page 20474]]
When we are determining which areas should be proposed as critical
habitat, our primary source of information is generally the information
developed during the listing process for the species. Additional
information sources may include the recovery plan for the species,
articles in peer-reviewed journals, conservation plans developed by
States and counties, scientific status surveys and studies, biological
assessments, 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. Furthermore, we recognize that designation of
critical habitat may not include all of the habitat areas that we may
eventually determine, based on scientific data not now available to the
Service, 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 support populations, 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 other
species' conservation planning efforts if new information available to
these planning efforts calls for a different outcome.
Prudency Determination
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, and implementing
regulations (50 CFR 424.12), require that, to the maximum extent
prudent and determinable, we designate critical habitat at the time the
species is determined to be endangered or threatened. Our regulations
(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 human activity, and
identification of critical habitat can be expected to increase the
degree of threat to the species, or (2) such designation of critical
habitat would not be beneficial to the species.
There is no documentation that the Three Forks and San Bernardino
springsnails are threatened by collection and, therefore, are unlikely
to experience increased threats by identifying critical habitat. In the
absence of a 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 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 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.
The primary regulatory effect of critical habitat is the section
7(a)(2) requirement that Federal agencies refrain from taking any
action that destroys or adversely modifies critical habitat. At
present, the Three Forks springsnail occurs only on Federal lands in
the White Mountains of east-central Arizona. Lands proposed for
designation as critical habitat would be subject to Federal actions
that trigger the section 7 consultation requirements. These include
land-management actions and permitting by the Apache-Sitgreaves
National Forests.
There may also be some educational or informational benefits to the
designation of critical habitat. Educational benefits include the
notification of lessees and the general public of the importance of
protecting habitat.
At present, the only known extant population of the San Bernardino
springsnail occurs on private lands in the United States. Although the
species is believed to have historically occurred on the San Bernardino
NWR, the species currently is not known to occur on Federal lands.
However, the San Bernardino NWR has proposed to reintroduce the species
onto the refuge; therefore, the species may occur in the future on
Federal lands. In addition, lands proposed for designation as critical
habitat, whether or not under Federal jurisdiction, may be subject to
Federal actions that trigger the section 7 consultation requirement,
such as the granting of Federal monies or Federal permits. These may
include implementation of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan by the
San Bernardino NWR.
Although we make a detailed determination of the habitat needs of a
listed species during the recovery planning process, the Act has no
provision to delay designation of critical habitat until such time as a
recovery plan is prepared. We reviewed the available information
pertaining to habitat characteristics where these two species are
located. This and other information represent the best scientific data
available and lead us to conclude that the designation of critical
habitat is both prudent and determinable for the Three Forks
Springsnail and San Bernardino springsnail.
Critical Habitat Determinability
As stated above, section 4(a)(3) of the Act requires the
designation of critical habitat concurrently with the species' listing
``to the maximum extent prudent and determinable.'' Our regulations at
50 CFR 424.12(a)(2) state that critical habitat is not determinable
when one or both of the following situations exist:
(i) Information sufficient to perform required analyses of the
impacts of the designation is lacking, or
(ii) The biological needs of the species are not sufficiently well
known to permit identification of an area as critical habitat.
When critical habitat is not determinable, the Act provides for an
additional year to publish a critical habitat designation (16 U.S.C.
1533(b)(6)(C)(ii)).
We reviewed the available information pertaining to the biological
needs of the species and habitat characteristics where this species is
located. This and other information represent the best scientific data
available and led us to conclude that the designation of critical
habitat is both prudent and determinable for the Three Forks
Springsnail and San Bernardino springsnail.
Methods
As required by section 4(b) of the Act, we used the best scientific
data available in determining areas that contain the features that are
essential to the conservation of the Three Forks springsnail and the
San Bernardino springsnail. This includes information from the
Service's Species Assessment and Listing Priority Assignment Forms
(available at http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/pub/SpeciesReport.do?listingType=C); published literature; site visits;
data compiled by the Arizona Heritage Data Management System at AGFD;
topographic maps; data supplied
[[Page 20475]]
by the USFS, San Bernardino NWR, and AGFD; and other information in our
files.
We also reviewed the available information pertaining to historical
and current distribution, ecology, life history, and habitat
requirements of the Three Forks springsnail and San Bernardino
springsnail. This material included research published in peer-reviewed
scientific journals, museum records, technical reports, and unpublished
field observations by Service, State, Federal, and other experienced
biologists, as well as additional notes and communications with
qualified professionals and experts.
We plotted all known occurrences in springheads, spring runs, and
ditches of the Three Forks and San Bernardino springsnails on 2007 U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) Digital Ortho Quarter Quad maps using ArcMap
(Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc.), a computer GIS
program. For the San Bernardino springsnail, we also mapped the
historical occurrence at Tule Spring on San Bernardino NWR. For the
Three Forks springsnail at the Three Forks Spring complex, we believe
that all springs occupied prior to the exposure to fire retardant in
2004 (see discussion above under Threat Factor A) are still occupied,
although the Three Forks Springs population seems rather tenuous.
Polygons were computer-generated by applying a 1 m (3.3 ft) buffer
around these occurrence locations to capture the moist soils and
vegetation that produce food for the snails and protect the substrate
they use. Because of the small size of the springs and spring runs we
are proposing to designate for the San Bernardino springsnail, we were
precluded from mapping them precisely due to inaccuracies inherent in
the use of satellites for locating and mapping. Therefore, for mapping
purposes we created a circle that encompasses them. GPS coordinates
have been field verified.
Physical and Biological Features
In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) and 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act and
regulations at 50 CFR 424.12, in determining which areas within the
geographical area occupied at the time of listing to propose as
critical habitat, we consider the physical and biological features that
are essential to the conservation of the species, and which may require
special management considerations or protection. These include, but are
not limited to:
(1) Space for individual and population growth and for normal
behavior;
(2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or
physiological requirements;
(3) Cover or shelter;
(4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, or rearing (or development)
of offspring; and
(5) Habitats that are protected from disturbance or are
representative of the historical, geographical, and ecological
distributions of a species.
We derive the specific physical and biological features required
for the two Arizona springsnails from studies of these species'
habitats, ecology, and life histories as described below. We have
determined that the Three Forks springsnail and the San Bernardino
springsnail require the following physical and biological features:
Space for Individual and Population Growth and Normal Behavior
The Three Forks and San Bernardino springsnails occur where water
emerges from the ground as a free-flowing spring and spring run. Within
spring ecosystems, proximity to springheads is important due to their
need for appropriate water chemistry, substrate, and flow regime
characteristics of springheads. The Three Forks springsnail inhabits
free-flowing springs, concrete boxed springheads, spring runs, spring
seeps, and shallow ponded water. The San Bernardino springsnail
inhabitats free-flowing springs, a concrete boxed springhead, and
spring runs.
Food, Water, Air, Light, or Other Nutritional or Physiological
Requirements
Martinez and Myers (2008, pp. 189-194) found the presence of Three
Forks springsnail was associated with gravel and pebble substrates,
shallow water up to 6 cm (2.35 in) deep, high conductivity, alkaline
waters of pH 8, and the presence of pond snail, Physa gyrina. Three
Forks springsnail density is significantly greater on gravel and cobble
substrates (Martinez and Myers 2002, p. 1; Nelson 2002, p. 1), though
the species has been reported as ``abundant'' in the fine-grained mud
of a 0.01 ha (0.02 ac) pond at Three Forks Springs (Taylor 1987, p.
32). The density of San Bernardino springsnails is positively
associated with cobble substrates, higher vegetation density, faster
water velocity, higher dissolved oxygen, water temperature of 14 to 22
degrees Celsius, and pH values between 7.6 and 8.0 (Malcom et al. 2005,
pp. 71, 75-76). San Bernardino springsnail densities are higher in sand
and cobble substrates, higher vegetation density, and higher water
velocity, but lower in silt and organic substrates, and deeper water
(Malcom et al. 2005, pp. 75-76). The species' tolerance to these
habitat characteristics has not been quantified. Maintenance of high
water velocity flows at springheads and spring runs is essential for
both the Three Forks and San Bernardino springsnails.
Three Forks and San Bernardino springsnails consume periphyton on
submerged surfaces. Periphyton is a complex mixture of algae, detritus,
bacteria, and other microbes that grow attached to submerged surfaces
such as cobble or larger plants, such as watercress. Periphyton are
primary producers of energy (organisms at the beginning of a food chain
that produce biomass from inorganic compounds) and can be sensitive
indicators of environmental change in flowing waters. Spring ecosystems
occupied by these springsnail species must support the periphyton upon
which springsnails graze.
Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, and Rearing and Development of
Offspring
Substrate characteristics influence the productivity of Three Forks
and San Bernardino springsnails. Suitable substrates are typically
firm, characterized by cobble, gravel, sand, woody debris, and aquatic
vegetation such as watercress, though this is influenced by water flow
and depth. Suitable substrates increase productivity by providing
suitable egg laying sites, protection of young from predators, and
provision of food resources.
Habitats That Are Protected From Disturbance and Representative of the
Historical, Geographical, and Ecological Distribution of the Species
The Three Forks springsnail and the San Bernardino springsnail have
restricted geographic distributions. Endemic species whose populations
exhibit a high degree of isolation are extremely susceptible to
extinction from both random and non-random catastrophic natural or
human-caused events. Therefore, it is essential to maintain the spring
systems upon which the Three Forks springsnail and San Bernardino
springsnail depend. Adequate spring sites, free of inappropriate
disturbance, must exist to promote population expansion and viability.
This means protection from disturbance caused by exposure to fire
retardant, recreation, elk grazing, water depletion, and water
contamination. The Three Forks springsnail and San Bernardino
springsnail must sustain and
[[Page 20476]]
expand their current distribution if ecological representation of these
species is to be ensured. For the Three Forks springsnail, this means
it must repopulate the Three Forks Spring complex to levels it occupied
prior to the 2004 wildfire described under Factor A. For the San
Bernardino springsnail, it must repopulate the entirety of the
historical Snail Spring, and be re-introduced into a spring, which it
historically occupied. At this time, we believe Tule Spring is the most
likely candidate since it still retains some water flow.
Primary Constituent Elements (PCEs) for the Three Forks and San
Bernardino Springsnails
Based on the above needs and our current knowledge of the life
history, biology, and ecology of these species and the habitat
requirements for sustaining the essential life history functions of
these species, we have determined that the Three Forks springsnail and
the San Bernardino springsnail PCEs are:
(1) Adequately clean spring water (free from contamination)
emerging from the ground and flowing on the surface;
(2) Periphyton (attached algae), bacteria, and decaying organic
material for food;
(3) Substrates that include cobble, gravel, pebble, sand, silt, and
aquatic vegetation, for egg laying, maturing, feeding, and escape from
predators; and
(4) Either an absence of nonnative predators (crayfish) and
competitors (snails) or their presence at low population levels.
Special Management Considerations or Protections
When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the proposed
areas contain features that are essential to the conservation of the
species and may require special management considerations and
protections. Threats to the physical and biological features essential
to the conservation of the Three Forks springsnail and San Bernardino
springsnail include loss of spring flows due to groundwater depletion
and drought; inundation of springheads due to pond creation;
degradation of water quality due to pollution, exposure to fire
retardant, or other alteration of water chemistry; alteration of
appropriate aquatic substrates due to wild ungulate grazing,
inundation, and erosion; and, the introduction of nonnative predators
and competitors. Due to one or more of the above threats, we find that
all areas that we are proposing for critical habitat contain essential
physical or biological features that may require special management
considerations or protections to ensure the conservation of the Three
Forks springsnail and San Bernardino springsnail.
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 Three Forks springsnail and
San Bernardino springsnail, and areas outside of the geographical area
occupied at the time of listing that are essential for the conservation
of Three Forks springsnail and San Bernardino springsnail. We have also
reviewed available information that pertains to the habitat
requirements of these species.
We are proposing to designate critical habitat in two areas
occupied by the Three Forks springsnail at the time of listing, the
Three Forks and Boneyard Bog spring complexes; three areas occupied by
the San Bernardino springsnail at the time of listing, Snail Spring,
Goat Tank Spring, and Horse Spring; and one area not occupied by the
San Bernardino springsnail at the time of listing (but considered to
have been historically occupied), Tule Spring. These springs all
contain features essential to the conservation of the respective
springsnail species. We have determined that Tule Spring, although not
currently occupied, is essential to the conservation of the San
Bernardino springsnail, as the geographic area occupied at the time of
listing is not sufficient for conservation and the SBNWR has identified
Tule Spring as a potential reintroduction site with the availability of
restorable habitat on protected lands.
The Three Forks springsnail occurs in two separate spring
complexes, Three Forks Springs and Boneyard Bog Springs. Historically,
the species was abundant at these spring complexes. Recently, annual
surveys have documented only two or three individual Three Forks
springsnails at Three Forks Springs since 2004. The species continues
to occur in abundance at Boneyard Bog Springs.
The San Bernardino springsnail may have historically occurred in a
complex of at least six springs along the Rio San Bernardino within the
headwaters of the Rio Yaqui in Arizona. Currently, it is known from
Goat Tank Spring, Horse Spring, and likely from wet portions of Snail
Spring on the private John Slaughter Ranch. Although not currently
occupied, Tule Spring on the nearby San Bernardino NWR contains a
majority of the PCEs.
We evaluated both species of springsnail in the context of their
distribution within their historical range, to determine what portion
of their range must be included to ensure conservation of both species.
For the Three Forks springsnail, we are designating all habitat
containing PCEs that we consider to be currently occupied, which is
also the entire known historically occupied habitat. For the San
Bernardino springsnail, we are designating the three occupied springs
and the only remaining historically occupied spring (but currently
unoccupied) in the United States that still contains the PCEs for the
species because we believe they are essential to conservation of the
species as discussed above. If the two cienegas nearby in Mexico are
determined to harbor the San Bernardino springsnail, we would not
designate critical habitat for the species in either of those cienegas
because we do not designate critical habitat outside the United States.
We assessed the critical life-history components of these
springsnail species, as they relate to habitat. Three Forks and San
Bernardino springsnails require unpolluted spring water in springheads
and spring runs; periphyton, bacteria, and decaying organic material
for food; rock-derived substrates for egglaying, maturing, feeding, and
escape from predators; and absence or low levels of nonnative predators
and competitors. The areas proposed as critical habitat for the Three
Forks springsnail and the San Bernardino springsnail contain these PCEs
that are essential to these life-history components of the species.
Both species occur or occurred in isolated populations in very
small areas. For the Three Forks springsnail, catastrophic wildfires
and firefighting actions (retardant drops), as well as overgrazing by
elk, and random, intense natural disasters threaten the two populations
with extinction. For the San Bernardino springsnail, known populations
are at risk of extinction from groundwater pumping and exposure to
pesticides. 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
[[Page 20477]]
have determined are essential for the conservation of these species.
Units are proposed for designation based on sufficient PCEs being
present to support life processes. Some units contained all PCEs and
support multiple life processes. Some segments contain only a portion
of the PCEs necessary to support use of that habitat, but remain an
essential component necessary for the conservation of the species
because they will provide for population redundancy to protect against
extinction.
Proposed Critical Habitat Designation
We are proposing two units of critical habitat for the Three Forks
springsnail and four units of critical habitat for the San Bernardino
springsnail. The critical habitat units we describe below constitute
our current and best assessment of the areas that meet the definition
of critical habitat for the Three Forks springsnail and the San
Bernardino springsnail. Table 1 summarizes the threats and current
occupancy of the proposed critical habitat units. Table 2 provides
approximate areas (ac/ha) and land ownership of the units.
Table 1--Threats and Occupancy in Areas Containing Features Essential to the Conservation of the Three Forks and
San Bernardino Springsnails.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Threats requiring special
Critical habitat unit management or protections Currently occupied
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Three Forks springsnail
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Three Forks Springs Unit............. wildfire, fire retardant use, yes.
elk grazing, nonnative
predators, and potential
introduction of nonnative
snails.
2. Boneyard Bog Springs Unit............ wildfire, fire retardant use, yes.
elk grazing, nonnative
predators, and potential
introduction of nonnative
snails.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
San Bernardino springsnail
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Snail Spring Unit.................... groundwater depletion, drought, unknown.
water contamination from
pesticide use, and potential
introduction of nonnative
snails.
2. Goat Tank Spring Unit................ groundwater depletion, drought, yes.
water contamination from
pesticide use, and potential
introduction of nonnative
snails.
3. Horse Spring Unit.................... groundwater depletion, drought, yes.
water contamination from
pesticide use, and potential
introduction of nonnative
snails.
4. Tule Spring Unit..................... groundwater depletion, drought, no.
and potential introduction of
nonnative snails.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2--Ownership and Approximate Area of Proposed Critical Habitat
units
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Critical habitat unit Ownership Total area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Three Forks springsnail
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Three Forks Springs Unit.... Federal........... 2.5 ha (6.1 ac)
2. Boneyard Bog Springs Unit... Federal........... 2.0 ha (5.0 ac)
----------------------------------------
Total...................... .................. 4.5 ha (11.1 ac)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
San Bernardino springsnail
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Snail Spring Unit........... Private........... 0.457 ha (1.129 ac)
2. Goat Tank Spring Unit....... Private........... 0.002 ha (0.005 ac)
3. Horse Spring Unit........... Private........... 0.032 ha (0.078 ac)
4. Tule Spring Unit............ Federal........... 0.324 ha (0.801 ac)
----------------------------------------
Total...................... .................. 0.815 ha (2.013 ac)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
We present below brief descriptions of all units and reasons why
they meet the definition of critical habitat for the Three Forks
springsnail or San Bernardino springsnail. Unit descriptions are
presented separately by species.
Three Forks Springsnail
Three Forks Springs Unit
The proposed Three Forks Springs Unit is a complex of springs,
spring runs, spring seeps, a segment of an unnamed stream connecting
them, and a small amount of upland area encircling them to make them a
single unit of approximately 2.5 ha (6.1 ac) in the vicinity of UTM
Zone 12 coordinate 655710, 3747260 in Apache County. The entire unit is
in Federal ownership and managed by the Apache-Sitgreaves National
Forests of the USFS. The unit encompasses eight major springheads and
spring runs, which each flow a short distance of several meters to an
[[Page 20478]]
unnamed tributary of the Black River. Two of the spring runs flow into
a pond, which is occupied by the species and has an outflow run to the
unnamed tributary. The spring complex contains spring seeps along the
spring runs and the tributary. We are proposing to designate a single
critical habitat unit that includes the springheads, spring runs,
seeps, pond, and that portion of the unnamed tributary that connects
the spring runs. The tributary itself is occupied where there are
spring seeps along it and provides for springsnail movement among the
occupied seeps, spring runs and springs, thus providing habitat
connectivity. The area within the proposed unit contains a small amount
of upland area adjacent to the springheads, spring runs, spring seeps
and the tributary segment. The moist soils and vegetation in the
adjacent uplands (approximately 1 m (3.3 ft) in width) are essential to
the species because they produce food for the snails and protect the
substrate they use. The remaining small amount of upland area is
included to connect the entire essential, occupied habitat to form a
single unit. Human-caused changes to the uplands adjacent to the
aquatic habitats can be managed through this proposed unit designation
to control threats to the aquatic habitats through conservation efforts
by AGFD and through consultations between USFS and the Service under
section 7 of the Act. For specific coordinates of the boundaries for
the proposed critical habitat designation, please reference the unit
descriptions in the Regulation Promulgation section below.
Threats to the Three Forks springsnail in this unit that may
require special management of the physical and biological features
include wildfire, fire retardant use to fight wildfires, erosion and
sedimentation, elk grazing, predation by nonnative crayfish, and
potential competition from nonnative snails. The Three Forks Springs
complex has had documented occupancy since 1973 (Landye 1973, p. 49),
and the species was considered abundant there until 2004 (AGFD 2008;
Service 2008, p. 1) when the waters appear to have been contaminated by
wildfire retardant drift. Surveys in 2004, immediately following a
wildfire and fire retardant use, failed to locate springsnails, though
surveys in subsequent years revealed the species in low numbers (Cox
2007, p. 1; Bailey 2008, p. 1). Fire retardant becomes non-toxic within
a few days of contact with water, so currently, the Three Forks Springs
Unit contains all of the PCEs essential to the species, and the unit
supports all of the Three Forks springsnail life processes.
Boneyard Bog Springs Unit
The proposed Boneyard Bog Springs Unit is a complex of springs,
spring runs, spring seeps, and a segment of an unnamed stream
connecting them, and a small amount of upland area encircling them to
make them a single unit of approximately 2.0 ha (5.0 ac) in the
vicinity of UTM Zone 12 coordinate 659970, 3750730 in Apache County.
The entire unit is in Federal ownership and managed by the Apache-
Sitgreaves National Forests of the USFS. The unit encompasses seven
major springheads and spring runs, which each flow a short distance of
several meters to an unnamed tributary of the Black River. The spring
complex contains spring seeps along the spring runs and the tributary.
We are proposing to designate a single critical habitat unit that
includes the springheads, spring runs, seeps, and that portion of the
unnamed tributary that connects the spring runs. The tributary itself
is occupied where there are spring seeps along it and provides for
springsnail movement among the occupied seeps, spring runs and springs
and is essential for habitat connectivity. The area within the proposed
unit contains a small amount of upland area adjacent to the
springheads, spring runs, spring seeps and the tributary segment. The
moist soils and vegetation in the adjacent uplands (approximately 1
meter (3.3 ft) in width) are essential to the species because they
produce food for the snails and protect the substrate they use. The
remaining small amount of upland area is included to connect all of the
essential, occupied habitat to form a single unit. Human-caused changes
to the uplands adjacent to the aquatic habitats can be managed through
this proposed unit designation to control threats to the aquatic
habitats through conservation efforts by AGFD and through consultations
between USFS and the Service under section 7 of the Act. For specific
coordinates of the boundaries for the proposed critical habitat
designation, please reference the unit descriptions in the Proposed
Regulation Promulgation section below.
Threats to the Three Forks springsnail in this unit that may
require special management of the physical and biological features
include wildfire, fire retardant use to fight wildfires, elk grazing,
predation by nonnative crayfish, and potential competition from
nonnative snails. This proposed unit contains all the PCEs and supports
all of the Three Forks springsnail life processes.
San Bernardino Springsnail
Snail Spring Unit
The proposed Snail Spring Unit encompasses 0.457 ha (1.129 ac) in
Cochise County. The entire unit is in private ownership and managed by
the John Slaughter Ranch. The spring is approximately 5 m (16 ft) in
diameter and has a spring run that goes south from the spring
approximately 23.5 m (77 ft) to a manmade ditch, which runs 10.2 m
(33.5 ft) to a dirt road. It passes under the road in a 3.5 m (11.5 ft)
culvert, then flows approximately 17 m (56 ft) below the road. We are
not proposing the road as critical habitat, but we are proposing to
designate the culvert beneath the road because it contains flowing
water that is a PCE. The spring and spring run down to the ditch is dry
and is likely unoccupied, though they contain other PCEs such as
substrate. It is unknown if the ditch is occupied when water and other
PCEs are present. We are proposing to include a 1 m (3.3 ft) buffer of
upland area around the spring, spring run and ditch because it has
moist soils and vegetation that produce food for the snails and protect
the substrate they use. Because of the small size of the spring, spring
run, and ditch, we are precluded from mapping them precisely due to
inaccuracies inherent in the use of satellites for locating and
mapping. Therefore, for mapping purposes we created a circle that
encompasses them. The proposed critical habitat is the spring, spring
run, ditch and buffer within the 76 m (249 ft) diameter circle centered
on UTM coordinate 663858, 3468182 in Zone 12.
Threats to the San Bernardino springsnail in this unit that may
require special management of the physical and biological features
include groundwater depletion, drought, water contamination from
pesticide use, and potential introduction of nonnative snails.
Groundwater depletion, perhaps from watering the lawn adjacent to Snail
Spring, has threatened the species with a loss of flowing water in the
past (Cox et al. 2007, p. 2; Smith et al. 2003, p. 1; Malcom et al.
2003, p. 18) and continues to threaten it. Groundwater depletion
threatens the region more broadly as the human population grows and
demands for water increase (Earman et al. 2003, p. 259), especially
during periods of drought. Human-caused changes to the uplands adjacent
to the aquatic habitats likely cannot be managed through this proposed
unit designation to control threats to the aquatic habitat,
particularly runoff from pesticide use on the adjacent lawn unless
Federal actions or funding are
[[Page 20479]]
involved. If that occurs, we would enter into consultation under
section 7 of the Act. The proposed Snail Spring Unit contains all the
physical and biological features in a complex spatial arrangement and
supports all of the San Bernardino springsnail life processes where
water is present.
Goat Tank Spring Unit
The proposed Goat Tank Spring Unit encompasses 0.002 ha (0.005 ac)
in Cochise County. The entire unit is in private ownership and managed
by the John Slaughter Ranch. The spring is contained entirely within a
square concrete box approximately 0.6 x 0.9 m (2 x 3 ft). There is also
some spring seepage emanating from the base of cottonwood tree about 2
m (6.6 ft) from the springbox. We are proposing to include a 1 m (3.3
ft) of upland area around the springbox and spring seepage because it
has moist soils and vegetation that produce food for the snails and
protects the substrate snails use. Because of the small size of the
springbox and spring seepage, we are precluded from mapping them
precisely due to inaccuracies inherent in the use of satellites for
locating and mapping. Therefore, for mapping purposes we created a
circle that encompasses them. The proposed critical habitat is the
springbox, spring seepage, and buffer within the 5 m (16 ft) diameter
circle centered on UTM coordinate 663725, 3468162 in Zone 12.
Threats to the San Bernardino springsnail in this unit that may
require special management of the physical and biological features
include groundwater depletion, drought, water contamination from
pesticide use, and potential introduction of nonnative snails.
Groundwater depletion has affected the species with a loss of flowing
water at nearby Snail Spring in the recent past (Cox et al. 2007, p. 2;
Smith et al. 2003, p. 1; Malcom et al. 2003, p. 18) and continues to
threaten it. Groundwater depletion threatens the region more broadly as
the human population grows and demands for water increase (Earman et
al. 2003, p. 259), especially during periods of drought. Human-caused
changes to the uplands adjacent to the aquatic habitats likely cannot
be managed through this proposed unit designation to control threats to
the aquatic habitat, particularly runoff from pesticide use on the
adjacent lawn unless Federal actions or funding are involved. If that
occurs, we would enter into consultation under section 7 of the Act.
The proposed Goat Tank Unit contains all the PCEs that support all of
the San Bernardino springsnail life processes.
Horse Spring Unit
The proposed Horse Spring Unit encompasses 0.032 ha (0.078 ac) in
Cochise County. The entire unit is in private ownership and managed by
the John Slaughter Ranch. The spring emerges from a PVC pipe and flows
in a springrun that is approximately 0.5 m (1.6 ft) wide and 15.5 m
(50.9 ft) in length. We are proposing to include a 1 m (3.3 ft) buffer
of upland area around the springhead and springrun because it has moist
soils and vegetation that produce food for the snails and protect the
substrate they use. Because of the small size of the springhead and
springrun, we are precluded from mapping them precisely due to
inaccuracies inherent in the use of satellites for locating and
mapping. Therefore, for mapping purposes we created a circle that
encompasses them. The proposed critical habitat is the springbox,
spring seepage, and buffer within the 20 m (66 ft) diameter circle
centered on UTM coordinate 663772, 3468091 in Zone 12.
Threats to the San Bernardino springsnail in this unit that may
require special management of the physical and biological features
include groundwater depletion, drought, water contamination from
pesticide use, and potential introduction of nonnative snails.
Groundwater depletion has affected the species with a loss of flowing
water at nearby Snail Spring in the recent past (Cox et al. 2007, p. 2;
Smith et al. 2003; p. 1, Malcom et al. 2003, p. 18) and continues to
threaten it. Groundwater depletion threatens the region more broadly as
the human population grows and demands for water increase (Earman et
al. 2003, p. 259), especially during periods of drought. Human-caused
changes to the uplands adjacent to the aquatic habitats likely cannot
be managed through this proposed unit designation to control threats to
the aquatic habitat, particularly runoff from pesticide use on the
adjacent lawn unless Federal actions or funding are involved. If that
occurs, we would enter into consultation under section 7 of the Act.
The proposed Horse Spring Unit contains all the PCEs that support all
of the San Bernardino springsnail life processes.
Tule Spring Unit
The proposed Tule Spring Unit encompasses 0.324 ha (0.801 ac) in
Cochise County. The entire unit is in Federal ownership and managed by
the San Bernardino NWR of the Service. The spring forms a pond
approximately 23 m (75 ft) north-south and 13 m (43 ft) east-west, and
it has a spring run that is approximately 21.7 m (71 ft) in length. The
spring run emerges from the southeastern side of the spring pond, runs
northeast for approximately 12.5 m (41 ft) to a manmade ditch, which
runs southeast 9.2 m (30 ft). We are proposing to include a 1 m (3.3
ft) buffer of upland area around the spring, spring run, and ditch
because it has moist soils and vegetation that produce food for the
snails and protect the substrate they use. Because of the small size of
the spring, spring run, and ditch, we are precluded from mapping them
precisely due to inaccuracies inherent in the use of satellites for
locating and mapping. Therefore, for mapping purposes we created a
circle that encompasses them. The proposed critical habitat is the
spring, spring run, ditch and buffer within the 64 m (210 ft) diameter
circle centered on UTM coordinate 664259, 3468499 in Zone 12.
The proposed Tule Spring Unit is currently unoccupied by the San
Bernardino springsnail, but is considered to have been historically
occupied (Malcom et al. 2007, p. 19) and shares a common aquifer and
similarities in water chemistry, temperature and hydrology with Snail
Spring. Tule Spring is essential to the conservation of the species
because it provides a reintroduction opportunity to provide population
redundancy of the species. When developing conservation strategies for
species whose life histories are characterized by short generation
time, small body size, high rates of population increase, and high
habitat specificity; greater emphasis should be placed on the
maintenance of multiple populations as opposed to protecting a single
population (Murphy et al. 1990, pp. 41-51).
Effects of Critical Habitat Designation
Section 7 Consultation
Section 7 of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the
Service, to ensure that actions they fund, authorize, or carry out are
not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or
destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. Decisions by the courts
of appeals for the Fifth and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeals 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 Circuit 2004) and Sierra Club v.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service et al., 245 F.3d 434, 442F (5th Circuit
2001), and we do not rely on this regulatory definition when analyzing
whether an action is likely to destroy or adversely modify critical
[[Page 20480]]
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 concurrence letter for Federal actions that may affect, but
are not likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat;
or
(2) A biological opinion for Federal actions that are likely to
adversely affect listed species or critical habitat.
An exception to the concurrence process referred to in (1) above
occurs in consultations involving National Fire Plan projects. In 2004,
the USFS and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) reached agreements
with the Service to streamline a portion of the section 7 consultation
process (BLM 2004, pp. 1-8; USFS 2004, pp. 1-8). The agreements allow
the USFS and the BLM the opportunity to make ``not likely to adversely
affect'' (NLAA) determinations for projects implementing the National
Fire Plan. Such projects include prescribed fire, mechanical fuels
treatments (thinning and removal of fuels to prescribed objectives),
emergency stabilization, burned area rehabilitation, road maintenance
and operation activities, ecosystem restoration, and culvert
replacement actions. The USFS and the BLM must ensure staff are
properly trained, and both agencies must submit monitoring reports to
the Service to determine if the procedures are being implemented
properly and that effects on endangered species and their habitats are
being properly evaluated. As a result, we do not believe the
alternative consultation processes being implemented as a result of the
National Fire Plan will differ significantly from those consultations
being conducted by the Service.
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. We define ``Reasonable and prudent alternatives'' at 50
CFR 402.2 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 project redesign or relocation of the
project. Costs associated with implementing reasonable and prudent
alternatives 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 have been affected and the Federal agency has retained
discretionary involvement or control over the action (or the agency's
discretionary involvement or control is authorized by law).
Consequently, Federal agencies 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 actions that may affect the Three Forks springsnail or the
San Bernardino springsnail or their designated critical habitat require
section 7(a)(2) consultation under the Act. On private lands, examples
of Federal actions include, but are not limited to, Environmental
Protection Agency authorization of discharges under the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System and registration of pesticides;
Federal Highway Administration approval of funding of road or highway
infrastructure and maintenance; Corps authorization of discharges of
dredged and fill material into waters of the United States under
section 404 of the CWA; U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural
Resources Conservation Service technical assistance and other programs;
USDA-Rural Utilities Service infrastructure or development; U.S.
Department of Homeland Security activities in regard to immigration
enforcement and regulation; the Department of Housing and Urban
Development Small Cities Community Development Block Grant and home
loan programs; or a permit from us under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the
Act. Federal actions not affecting listed species or critical habitat,
and actions on State, Tribal, local, or private lands that are not
federally funded, authorized, or permitted, do not require section
7(a)(2) consultations. In addition to several of the specific examples
above, other Federal actions that may require consultation on Federal
lands include land-management actions implemented by the applicable
Federal land management agency.
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 would retain those PCEs that
relate to the ability of the area to periodically 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 Three Forks springsnail
or the San Bernardino springsnail. 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.
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 Federal actions that may 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 Three Forks springsnail and the San
Bernardino springsnail include, but are not limited to:
(1) Actions that would reduce the quantity of water flow within the
spring systems proposed as critical habitat.
(2) Actions that would result in the inundation of springheads
within the spring systems proposed as critical habitat.
(3) Actions that would degrade water quality within the spring
systems proposed for designation as critical habitat.
[[Page 20481]]
(4) Actions that would reduce the availability of coarse, firm
aquatic substrates within the spring systems that are proposed as
critical habitat.
(5) Actions that would reduce the occurrence of native aquatic
macrophytes, algae, and/or periphyton within the spring systems
proposed as critical habitat.
(6) Actions that would cause, promote, or maintain the presence of
nonnative predators and competitors at unacceptable levels within the
spring systems proposed as critical habitat.
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 resource management plan (INRMP) by
November 17, 2001.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Pub.
L. 108-136) amended the Act to limit areas eligible for designation as
critical habitat. Specifically, section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (16
U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) now provides: ``The Secretary shall not
designate as critical habitat any lands or other geographical areas
owned or controlled by the Department of Defense, or designated for its
use, that are subject to an integrated natural resources management
plan prepared under section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a), if
the Secretary determines in writing that such plan provides a benefit
to the species for which critical habitat is proposed for
designation.''
There are no Department of Defense lands with a completed INRMP
within the critical habitat designation.
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 factors to use and how much weight to
give any factor.
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, 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.
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
and other impacts of proposing critical habitat for the Three Forks
springsnail and San Bernardino springsnail. 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 from the Arizona
Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section). We may exclude areas from the final rule based on the
information in the economic analysis. 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 Three Forks and San Bernardino springsnails
are not owned or managed by the Department of Defense, and therefore,
anticipate no impact to national security. There are no areas proposed
for exclusion based on impacts on 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 on 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.
We have evaluated the Forest Management Plan for the Apache-
Sitgreaves National Forests with respect to providing adequate
protection and management for the Three Forks springsnail. At this
time, the Plan does not provide sufficient protection and management to
satisfy the criteria necessary for proposed exclusion from critical
habitat. There are currently no conservation plans for the private
lands in the Snail Spring Unit for the San Bernardino springsnail.
In preparing this proposal, we have determined that the proposed
designation does not include any Tribal lands or trust resources. We
anticipate no impact to Tribal lands, partnerships, or HCPs from this
proposed critical habitat designation. There are no areas proposed for
exclusion from this proposed designation based on other relevant
impacts.
Peer Review
In accordance with our joint policy published in the Federal
Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we are requesting 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 proposed rule is based on scientifically sound data,
assumptions, and analyses. We will invite these peer reviewers to
comment, during the public comment period, on the specific assumptions
and conclusions regarding the proposal to list the Three Forks
springsnail and San Bernardino springsnail as endangered, and our
decision regarding critical habitat for these species.
We will consider all comments and information received during the
comment period on this proposed rule during preparation of a final
rulemaking. Accordingly, the final decision may differ from this
proposal.
Public Hearings
The Act provides for one or more public hearings on this proposal,
if we receive any request for hearings.
[[Page 20482]]
Requests must be received within 45 days after the date of publication
of this proposal in the Federal Register. Send your request to the
person named in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 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 first hearing.
Required Determinations
Regulatory Planning and Review
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this
rule is not significant and has not reviewed this rule under Executive
Order 12866. 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.
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) of 1996), 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 (i.e., 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. SBREFA amended RFA to
require Federal agencies to provide a 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 the draft economic 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. 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 sufficiently informed determination based on adequate economic
information and provides 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 proposed rule will not produce a Federal mandate. In
general, a Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute or
regulation that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or
tribal governments, or the private sector and includes both ``Federal
intergovernmental mandates'' and ``Federal private sector mandates.''
These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)(7). ``Federal
intergovernmental mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose
an enforceable duty upon State, local, or [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 [T]ribal governments ``lack authority'' to adjust
accordingly. At the time of enactment, these entitlement programs were:
Medicaid; AFDC 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 do not expect this rule to significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. Small governments will be affected only to the
extent that any programs having Federal funds, permits, or other
authorized activities must ensure that their actions will not adversely
affect the critical habitat. Therefore, a Small Government Agency Plan
is not required. However, we will further evaluate this issue as we
conduct our economic analysis, and review and revise this assessment as
warranted.
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 Three Forks springsnail and San Bernardino springsnail
in a takings implications assessment. The takings implications
assessment will determine whether this designation of critical habitat
for the Three Forks springsnail and San Bernardino springsnail poses
significant takings implications for lands within or affected by the
proposed revised designation. We will further evaluate
[[Page 20483]]
this issue as we conduct our economic analysis.
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. The designation of
critical habitat on lands currently occupied by the Three Forks
springsnail or San Bernardino springsnail imposes no additional
restrictions to those currently in place and, therefore, has little
incremental impact on State and local governments and their activities.
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 physical and biological
features of the habitat necessary to the conservation of the species
are specifically identified. This information does not alter where and
what federally sponsored activities may occur. However, it may assist
local governments in long-range planning (rather than having them wait
for case-by-case section 7 consultations to occur).
Where state and local governments require approval or authorization
from a Federal agency for actions that may affect critical habitat,
consultation under section 7(a)(2) 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 physical and
biological features within the designated areas to assist the public in
understanding the habitat needs of the Three Forks springsnail and San
Bernardino springsnail.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
This proposed rule does not contain any new collections of
information that require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This rule will not impose
recordkeeping or reporting requirements on State or local governments,
individuals, businesses, or organizations. An agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
National Environmental Policy Act
It is our position that, outside the jurisdiction of the Circuit
Court of the United States for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to
prepare environmental analyses as defined by the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) in connection with
designating critical habitat under the Act. We published a notice
outlining our reasons for this determination in the Federal Register on
October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). This assertion was upheld by the
Circuit Court of the United States for the Ninth Circuit (Douglas
County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied 516 U.S.
1042 (1996)).
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 with features essential for the conservation, and no
Tribal lands that are essential for the conservation, of the Three
Forks springsnail and San Bernardino springsnail. Therefore, we have
not proposed designation of critical habitat for the Three Forks
springsnail and San Bernardino springsnail on Tribal lands.
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' requires
agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking
certain actions. This proposed rule to designate critical habitat for
the Three Forks springsnail and San Bernardino springsnail is not a
significant regulatory action, and we do not expect it to significantly
affect energy supplies, distribution, or use. Therefore, this action is
not a significant energy action, and no Statement of Energy Effects is
required. However, we will further evaluate energy-related issues as we
conduct our economic analysis, and review and revise this assessment as
warranted.
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited in this rule is available
on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or upon request from the
Field Supervisor, Arizona Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section).
Authors
The primary authors of this document are the staff members of the
Arizona Field Services Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
[[Page 20484]]
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, and Transportation.
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--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C.
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500, unless otherwise noted.
2. In Sec. 17.11(h) add entries for ``Springsnail, San
Bernardino'' and ``Springsnail, Three Forks'' to the List of Endangered
and Threatened Wildlife in alphabetic order under SNAILS 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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Snails
* * * * * * *
Springsnail, San Bernardino Pyrgulopsis U.S.A. (AZ)........ Entire............. E 17.95(f) NA
bernardina
* * * * * * *
Springsnail, Three Forks Pyrgulopsis U.S.A. (AZ)........ Entire............. E 17.95(f) NA
trivialis.
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. In Sec. 17.95, amend paragraph (f) by adding entries for ``San
Bernardino Springsnail (Pyrgulopsis bernardina)'' and ``Three Forks
Springsnail (Pyrgulopsis trivialis)'' to follow the entry for ``Rough
hornsnail (Pleurocera foremani)'' to read as follows:
Sec. 17.95 Critical habitat--fish and wildlife.
* * * * *
(f) Clams and Snails.
* * * * *
San Bernardino Springsnail (Pyrgulopsis bernardina)
(1) Critical habitat units are depicted for Cochise County, on the
map in paragraph (5) of this entry.
(2) The physical and biological features of critical habitat for
the San Bernardino springsnail are:
(i) Adequately clean spring water (free from contamination)
emerging from the ground and flowing on the surface;
(ii) Periphyton (attached algae), bacteria, and decaying organic
material for food;
(iii) Substrates, which include cobble, gravel, pebble, sand, silt,
and aquatic vegetation, for egg laying, maturing, feeding, and escape
from predators; and
(iv) Either an absence of nonnative predators (crayfish) and
competitors (snails) or their presence at low population levels.
(3) We have determined that all of the areas designated as critical
habitat contain one or more of the physical and biological features,
and there are no developed areas other than the road culvert and
concrete springbox included to protect water within them.
(4) Critical habitat map units were plotted on 2007 USGS Digital
Ortho Quarter Quad maps using Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM)
coordinates in ArcMap. Because of the small size of the springs, spring
runs and ditches, for mapping purposes we created a circle that
encompasses them.
(5)
Note: Index map of critical habitat for the San Bernardino
springsnail follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[[Page 20485]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12AP11.000
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
(6) Snail Spring Unit 0.457 ha (1.129 ac) in Cochise County,
Arizona. The proposed unit is a spring approximately 5 m (16 ft) in
diameter and has a spring run that goes south from the spring
approximately 23.5 m (77 ft) to a manmade ditch, which runs 10.2 m
(33.5 ft) to a dirt road. It passes under the road in a 3.5 m (11.5 ft)
culvert, then flows approximately 17 m (56 ft) below the road. The
culvert beneath the road is included in critical habitat, but not the
road itself. We include 1 m (3.3 ft) of upland area around the spring,
spring run and ditch because it has moist soils and vegetation that
produce food for the snails and protect the substrate essential to the
species. The critical habitat is the spring, spring run, ditch and
buffer within the 76 m (249 ft) diameter circle centered on UTM
coordinate 663858, 3468182 in Zone 12 with the units in meters using
North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83).
(7) Goat Tank Spring Unit 0.002 ha (0.005 ac) in Cochise County.
The unit is a spring contained entirely within a square concrete box
approximately 0.61 x 0.91 m (2 x 3 ft) and spring seepage emanating
from the base of cottonwood tree about 2 m (6.56 ft) from the
springbox. We include 1 m (3.3 ft) of upland area around the spring box
and spring. The critical habitat is the
[[Page 20486]]
springbox, spring seepage, and buffer within the 5 m (16.4 ft) diameter
circle centered on UTM coordinate 663725, 3468162 in Zone 12 with the
units in meters using North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83).
(8) Horse Spring Unit 0.032 ha (0.078 ac) in Cochise County. The
unit is a spring and springrun approximately 0.5 m (1.6 ft) wide and
15.5 m (50.9 ft) in length. We include 1 m (3.3 ft) of upland area
around the springhead and spring run. The proposed critical habitat is
the springbox, spring seepage, and buffer within the 20 m (66 ft)
diameter circle centered on UTM coordinate 663772, 3468091 in Zone 12
with the units in meters using North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83).
(9) Tule Spring Unit 0.324 ha (0.801 ac) in Cochise County,
Arizona. The unit is a spring, which forms a pond approximately 23 m
(75 ft) north-south and 13 m (43 ft) east-west, and it has a spring run
that is approximately 21.7 m (71 ft) in length. The spring run emerges
from the southeastern side of the spring pond, runs northeast for
approximately 12.5 m (41 ft) to a manmade ditch, which runs southeast
9.2 m (30 ft). We include 1 m (3.3 ft) of upland area around the
spring, spring run, and ditch. The proposed critical habitat is the
spring, spring run, ditch and buffer within the 64 m (210 ft) diameter
circle centered on UTM coordinate 664259, 3468499 in Zone 12 with the
units in meters using North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83).
* * * * *
Three Forks Springsnail (Pyrgulopsis trivialis)
(1) Critical habitat units are depicted for Apache County, Arizona,
on the map at paragraph (5) of this entry below.
(2) The primary constituent elements of critical habitat for the
Three Forks springsnail are:
(i) Adequately clean spring water (free from contamination)
emerging from the ground and flowing on the surface;
(ii) Periphyton (attached algae), bacteria, and decaying organic
material for food;
(iii) Substrates that include cobble, gravel, pebble, sand, silt,
and aquatic vegetation, for egglaying, maturing, feeding, and escape
from predators; and
(iv) Either an absence of nonnative predators (crayfish) and
competitors (snails) or their presence at low population levels. .
(3) We have determined that all of the areas designated as critical
habitat contain one or more of the physical and biological features,
and there are no developed areas other than concrete springboxes
included to protect water within them.
(4) Critical habitat map units were plotted on 2007 USGS Digital
Ortho Quarter Quad maps using Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM)
coordinates in ArcMap.
(5)
Note: Index map of critical habitat for the Three Forks
springsnail follows:
[[Page 20487]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12AP11.001
(6) Three Forks Springs Unit (2.5 ha; 6.1 ac). The Three Forks
Spring Unit consists of all areas within boundary points with the
following coordinates in UTM Zone 12 with the units in meters using
North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83): 655708, 3747262; 655714,
3747269; 655746, 3747258; 655777, 3747256; 655802, 3747270; 655808,
3747288; 655815, 3747304; 655877, 3747299; 655898, 3747291; 655911,
3747271; 655922, 3747253; 655932, 3747227; 655932, 3747209; 655939,
3747196; 655948, 3747186; 655958, 3747165; 655969, 3747142; 655979,
3747116; 655998, 3747094; 656013, 3747078; 656022, 3747061; 656023,
3747050; 656013, 3747052; 656001, 3747065; 655991, 3747086; 655973,
3747112; 655963, 3747133; 655951, 3747166; 655931, 3747191; 655906,
3747198; 655886, 3747201; 655869, 3747198; 655836, 3747179; 655826,
3747158; 655830, 3747123; 655841, 3747098; 655838, 3747083; 655818,
3747085; 655785, 3747097; 655771, 3747122; 655782, 3747144; 655784,
3747170; 655752, 3747216; 655715, 3747232; 655707, 3747242; Thence
returning to 655708, 3747262.
(7) Boneyard Bog Springs Unit (2.0 ha; 5.0 ac). The Boneyard Bog
Spring Unit consists of all areas within boundary points with the
following coordinates in UTM Zone 12 with the units in meters using
North American Datum of 1983
[[Page 20488]]
(NAD 83): 659968, 3750753; 659990, 3750731; 660021, 3750713; 660060,
3750717; 660070, 3750742; 660176, 3750787; 660190, 3750781; 660199,
3750758; 660208, 3750744; 660159, 3750685; 660125, 3750680; 660088,
3750684; 660081, 3750690; 660072, 3750691; 660072, 3750676; 660076,
3750675; 660076, 3750664; 660069, 3750664; 660067, 3750663; 660060,
3750654; 660052, 3750648; 660034, 3750649; 660029, 3750654; 660027,
3750663; 660008, 3750659; 659997, 3750649; 659997, 3750639; 659988,
3750639; 659982, 3750641; 659958, 3750660; 659954, 3750671; 659945,
3750675; 659942, 3750688; 659933, 3750685; 659921, 3750691; 659910,
3750693; 659919, 3750712; Thence returning to 659968, 3750753.
* * * * *
Dated: March 11, 2011.
Will Shafroth,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 2011-8176 Filed 4-11-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C