Federal Register, Volume 77 Issue 74 (Tuesday, April 17, 2012)

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 74 (Tuesday, April 17, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 23060-23092]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-8811]

[[Page 23059]]

Vol. 77

Tuesday,

No. 74

April 17, 2012

Part V

Department of the Interior

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

Fish and Wildlife Service

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

50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of
Endangered Status for Three Forks Springsnail and Threatened Status for
San Bernardino Springsnail Throughout Their Ranges and Designation of
Critical Habitat for Both Species; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 77 , No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules
and Regulations

[[Page 23060]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2009-0083; 4500030114]
RIN 1018-AV84

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), determine
endangered status for the Three Forks springsnail (Pyrgulopsis
trivialis) and threatened status for the San Bernardino springsnail
(Pyrgulopsis bernardina); and designate critical habitat for both
species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). In
total, approximately 17.2 acres (6.9 hectares) are designated as
critical habitat for Three Forks springsnail in Apache County, Arizona,
and approximately 2.0 acres (0.8 hectares) for San Bernardino
springsnail in Cochise County, Arizona. This final rule implements the
Federal protections provided by the Act for these species.

DATES: This rule becomes effective on May 17, 2012.

ADDRESSES: This final rule and associated final economic analysis are
available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/. Comments and materials received, as
well as supporting documentation used in preparing this final rule, are
available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business
hours at: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona Ecological Services
Field Office, 2321 West Royal Palm Road, Suite 103, Phoenix, AZ 85021;
telephone 602-242-0210; facsimile 602-242-2513.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Spangle, Field Supervisor,
Arizona Ecological Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES section). If
you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the
Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Summary

Purpose of the Regulatory Action

Under the Endangered Species Act, a species may warrant protection
through listing if it is endangered or threatened throughout all or a
significant portion of its range. The Endangered Species Act sets forth
procedures for adding species to, removing species from, or
reclassifying species on the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife and Plants.
Under the Act, a species may be determined to be endangered or
threatened based on any of the following five factors: (1) Destruction,
modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (2) Overuse; (3)
Disease or predation; (4) Inadequate existing regulations; or (5) Other
natural or manmade factors. Based on our analysis under the five
factors, we find that there are threats of sufficient imminence,
intensity, or magnitude to cause a substantial decrease in
distribution, or loss of viability of both the Three Forks springsnail
and San Bernardino springsnail. Therefore, these species qualify for
listing, which can only be done by issuing a rule.
We have made the following findings for the Three Forks springsnail
related to these criteria:
Historically, the Three Forks springsnail is known to have
occurred in numerous springs and seeps in Apache County, Arizona. In
recent years, the species' range has been reduced to the point that it
has only been found at two spring complexes.
Because the species is so limited in range, the magnitude
of threats that are occurring now are high, and those that may impact
the species in the foreseeable future are high as well.
A recent high-intensity fire that burned around the only
remaining populations of the Three Forks springsnail has caused the
habitat of the species to be currently threatened with destruction,
modification, and curtailment due to soil erosion and sedimentation
during storm events.
Also, we have found that predation by nonnative crayfish
is currently threatening the Three Forks springsnail across its entire
range.
In addition to the current threats, the Three Forks
springsnail is also at a high risk of extinction due to threats that
could affect the species in the foreseeable future, such as the use of
fire retardant chemicals during future wildfires, the potential spread
and competition with New Zealand springsnails, and the potential for
climate change and drought to dry its springhead habitat.
Due to its endemic nature, the Three Forks springsnail may
be more vulnerable to extinction from both present and future threats.
We have made the following findings for the Three Forks springsnail
related to the five factor criteria:
The historical range of the San Bernardino springsnail in
the United States may have included several springs in Cochise County,
Arizona. The current range of the species in the United States is now
believed to be limited to two springs.
The San Bernardino springsnail was recently discovered to
occur at five sites in Sonora, Mexico, in at least nine springs.
San Bernardino springsnail is not presently in danger of
extinction throughout its entire range, based on the immediacy,
severity, and extent of the threats.
However, we have determined that, while significant
threats are not operative now, they are likely to cause the species to
become in danger of extinction in the foreseeable future.
The species' habitat is likely to be threatened in the
foreseeable future with destruction, modification, and curtailment in
part of its range due to the potential use of fire retardant chemicals
in the United States, and throughout its entire range in both the
United States and Mexico due to potential springhead inundation, and
water depletion and diversion.
Also, we found that the San Bernardino springsnail is
likely to become in danger of extinction in the foreseeable future
throughout its entire range due to the potential invasion and predation
by nonnative crayfish, invasion and competition with New Zealand
springsnails, and climate change and drought drying its springhead
habitat.
Due to the species' endemic nature, the San Bernardino
springsnail may be more vulnerable to extinction in the foreseeable
future from these potential threats throughout its entire range.

Summary of the Major Provisions of the Regulatory Action

This document consists of: (1) A final rule to list the Three Forks
springsnail as endangered; (2) a final rule to list the San Bernardino
springsnail as threatened; and (3) final critical habitat designation
for both species.
On April 12, 2011, we proposed listing these species as endangered
with critical habitat. On November 17, 2011, we proposed revision of
the previously proposed critical habitat for the Three Forks
springsnail, based on new information indicating the species was

[[Page 23061]]

more widely distributed. We also announced the receipt of new
information confirming that populations of springsnails in Sonora,
Mexico, are San Bernardino springsnail. Since the publication of the
proposed rule, we have made the following changes in the final rule:
We previously proposed to list the San Bernardino
springsnail as endangered, but upon review of additional information
regarding the status of, and threats to, the springsnail in Mexico, we
have determined the species meets the definition of threatened instead
of endangered. We believe the species is likely to become an endangered
species within the foreseeable future rather than being in danger of
extinction now.
For the San Bernardino springsnail, we expanded the
Summary of Factors Affecting the Species to include a discussion
factors throughout the species' entire range, including the United
States and Mexico.
We obtained opinions from knowledgeable individuals with scientific
expertise to review our technical assumptions, analysis, adherence to
regulations, and whether or not we had used the best available
information. These peer reviewers generally concurred with our methods
and conclusions and provided additional information, clarifications,
and suggestions to improve the final listing and critical habitat rule.
As a result, we determine endangered status for the Three Forks
springsnail and threatened status for the San Bernardino springsnail.
We also designate critical habitat for both species. In total,
approximately 17.2 acres (6.9 hectares) are designated as critical
habitat for Three Forks springnail in Apache County, Arizona, and
approximately 2.0 acres (0.8 hectares) for San Bernardino springsnail
in Cochise County, Arizona.

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.
On April 12, 2011, we proposed listing the Three Forks springsnail
and San Bernardino springsnail as endangered with critical habitat (76
FR 20464) under the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Proposed critical
habitat for the Three Forks springsnail included spring ecosystems
within Apache County, Arizona, and for the San Bernardino springsnail
spring ecosystems within Cochise County, Arizona.
On November 17, 2011, we reopened the comment period on the
proposed rule, and announced the availability of a draft economic
analysis (76 FR 71300). At that time, we proposed revision of the
previously proposed critical habitat for the Three Forks springsnail,
based on new information indicating that the species was more widely
distributed along Boneyard Creek. We also announced the receipt of new
information confirming that populations of springsnails in Sonora,
Mexico, are San Bernardino springsnails.

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

We requested written comments from the public on the proposed
listing and designation of critical habitat for the Three Forks
springsnail and San Bernardino springsnail during two comment periods
from April 12 to June 13, 2011, and November 17 to December 19, 2011.
We did not receive any requests for a public hearing, and thus, none
was held. We also contacted associated Federal, State, and local
agencies, scientific organizations, and other interested parties and
invited them to comment on the proposed rule and draft economic
analysis during the two comment periods.
During the 2 comment periods, we received 11 letters addressing the
proposed listing and critical habitat designation. We did not receive
any comments on the draft economic analysis associated with this
rulemaking. However, all other substantive information provided during
the comment periods has either been incorporated directly into this
final determination as appropriate or addressed below.

Peer Review

In accordance with our peer review policy published on July 1, 1994
(59 FR 34270), we solicited expert opinions from five knowledgeable
individuals with scientific expertise that included familiarity with
the species, the geographic region in which the species occur, and
conservation biology principles. We received responses from three of
the peer reviewers.
We reviewed all comments received from peer reviewers for
substantive issues and new information regarding critical habitat for
the two springsnails. The peer reviewers generally concurred with our
methods and conclusions, and provided additional information,
clarifications, and suggestions to improve the final critical habitat
rule. Peer reviewer comments are addressed in the following summary and
incorporated into the final rule as appropriate.

Peer Reviewer Comments

Comment (1): Peer reviewers made a number of technical scientific
suggestions regarding our discussions and presentations of biological
terminology, springsnail ecology, species' descriptions, habitat
associations, and species distribution.
Our response: We have revised the language accordingly in this
final rule.
Comment (2): One peer reviewer stated that livestock grazing is a
threat to Three Forks springsnail and their habitats, because the
current fence around Boneyard Bog is inadequate as evidenced by the
recent presence of 25 to 35 cattle grazing near spring-seeps on
numerous occasions.
Our response: Based on communication with staff from the Apache-
Sitgreaves National Forests and Arizona Game and Fish Department
(AGFD), the current fence around Boneyard Bog is adequate, and they
have not observed livestock within the fenced exclosure. Also, since
2001, the AGFD has been conducting annual springsnail surveys (Nelson
et al. 2002, entire) and since 1997 the Apache-Sigreaves National
Forests have been implementing special management to minimize potential
livestock trespass (USFS 2011b, p. 184). For further information, see
Ungulate discussion

[[Page 23062]]

under Factor A analysis for this species, below.
Comment (3): One peer reviewer stated that it is clear the
abundance and distribution of both species has declined since studies
were first conducted, and the proposed rule supports listing of both
species.
Our response: The Three Forks springsnail and San Bernardino
springsnail have declined in abundance and distribution, and the
available information continues to support listing.
Comment (4): One peer reviewer suggested that the amount of
occupied habitat (particularly spring surface area) is a superior
metric over abundance of individual snails for assessing status of
springsnails.
Our response: When we assess the status of a species, we take into
consideration the factors that may impact the species' continued
existence, as well as the species' life history processes. In regards
to a springsnail's abundance, we agree that limits on springsnail
productivity appear to be more closely related to the availability of
suitable habitat rather than number of individuals, because
springsnails exhibit high fecundity. The availability of suitable
habitat is one of the components we take into consideration when
assessing the status of the springsnails.
Comment (5): One peer reviewer noted that numerous scattered
springs along Boneyard Creek, downstream of Boneyard Bog Springs and
upstream of Three Forks Springs, are inhabited by springsnails that are
likely Three Forks springsnails and should be included as critical
habitat.
Our response: We agree, and based on this new information
indicating that the species was more widely distributed along Boneyard
Creek, in November 17, 2011 (76 FR 71300), we proposed to revise the
previously proposed critical habitat for the Three Forks springsnail by
increasing the size of the Boneyard Bog Springs Unit, and by adding an
additional unit, the Boneyard Creek Springs Unit.
Comment (6): One peer reviewer noted that recent genetic work shows
that San Bernardino springsnails inhabit springs in Sonora, Mexico, on
the Rancho San Bernardino, and the proposed rule does not contain a
threats assessment for that portion of its range.
Our response: The genetic information was not available in early
2011 when the proposed rule was published in the Federal Register. We
have reviewed this new information and conducted a threats assessment
for San Bernardino springsnail across its entire range as part of this
final rule.
Comment (7): One peer reviewer suggested that the discussion under
Wildfire Suppression warrants reevaluation to avoid overstating the
effects of aerial retardant on populations of Three Forks springsnail
at Three Forks Springs.
Our response: The available evidence regarding the effects of fire
retardant on Three Forks springsnail does not constitute definitive
proof that exposure to drift resulted in the extirpation of the species
from Three Forks Springs. However, we are required to utilize the best
scientific and commercial information available, and conclude the
information we have cited meets the criteria. It is unlikely that
retardant residue traveled upstream within spring-runs, and if
springsnails were exposed to retardant it would have been drift from
high-elevation drops. Fire retardant chemicals are known to be toxic to
aquatic life, including those fire retardants used in the Three Forks
Fire in 2004. We find the inability of surveyors to locate the species
at Three Forks Springs since 2005, the season immediately following
suspected exposure to drift, to be a compelling reason to suspect
retardant-related toxicity. However, we acknowledge the speculative
nature of this conclusion, as well as technical errors, such as
overestimating the amount of retardant used to fight the fire, and have
revised the language accordingly in this final rule.
Comment (8): One peer reviewer did not believe sufficient evidence
was provided to conclude that elk wallowing threatens the integrity of
an entire spring system.
Our response: Field observations, largely from Service biologists,
have provided anecdotal evidence that wet seeps and boggy areas
characterized by elk wallows are not occupied by Three Forks
springsnails, and are unsuitable for the species. Even though elk
wallowing is a factor that seems to be impacting the Three Forks
springsnail's habitat, we do not believe it is occurring at a scale
that would cause the extinction of Three Forks springsnail on its own.
However, in combination with the other threats identified in this five-
factor analysis, we think elk wallowing may be contributing to the
species' risk of extinction by reducing its long-term viability.
Comment (9): One peer reviewer stated that it is unclear from the
information in the proposed rule if inundation continues to be a
threat, particularly at House Pond.
Our response: The San Bernardino springsnail is mainly found near
spring vents (area where water emerges from underground) and in
association with high water velocity. Inundation can alter the
springsnail's preferred habitat by increasing water depth, reducing
water velocity, and causing shifts in substrate (the base on which an
organism lives) composition, vegetation, and water chemistry. Because
of inundation's ability to alter the springsnail's preferred habitat,
we consider springhead inundation to be a threat to the San Bernardino
springsnail's continued existence. For more details on this issue,
please see Factor A analysis for the San Bernardino springsnail, below.
Comment (10): One peer reviewer indicated that the threat of
groundwater depletion to the San Bernardino springsnail is not clearly
demonstrated.
Our response: The use of the phrase ``groundwater depletion'' has
been revised in this final rule, because it did imply an unverified
connection to identifiable groundwater pumping or withdrawal. The loss
of habitat and the springsnail population at Snail Spring was clearly
due to the loss of water flow. However, the underlying hydrologic
mechanism that caused the spring to dry is unclear. Additionally,
because that population is now extirpated, the threat from water
depletion is no longer acting upon the species at that site. We have
revised the language accordingly in this final rule.
Comment (11): One peer reviewer questioned the potential effects of
glyphosate. The reviewer stated the use of the herbicide glyphosate
(Roundup[supreg]) on the John Slaughter Ranch Museum was not well
documented, and the pesticide has low toxicity for freshwater mollusks.
Our response: Based on a more in-depth evaluation of the available
information, the possible detrimental effects of glyphosate exposure to
springsnails are not well supported. We have revised the language
accordingly in this final rule.
Comment (12): One peer reviewer questioned our conclusions
regarding the potential effects of nonnative crayfish (Orconectis
virilis) on the Three Forks springsnail.
Our response: Our conclusion regarding the threat of crayfish
predation on the Three Forks springsnail is based on the fact that
nonnative crayfish are known predators of aquatic snails (Fernandez and
Rosen 1996, pp. 24-25; Parkyn et al. 1997, p. 690), and are relatively
recent invaders of Three Forks springsnail habitats. We also drew our
conclusion from field observations that noted a concurrent decline in
springsnail abundance in conjunction with an increase in crayfish

[[Page 23063]]

abundance. Therefore, based upon the best available information, we
consider nonnative crayfish predation to be a threat to the Three Forks
springsnail.
Comment (13): One peer reviewer asked how haplotype differentiation
would factor into the need to repopulate Three Forks Springs to ensure
the ecological representation of the Three Forks springsnail.
Our response: We believe information on genetic diversity will be a
critical element in determining the most appropriate manner in which to
promote recovery of the Three Forks springsnail, particularly at Three
Forks Springs. It is our goal to maintain the genetic diversity of the
species, and we have commissioned a genetic study to review the genetic
relationships between and among Three Forks springsnails within each
critical habitat unit. The decision of whether or not to allow natural
repopulation from upstream populations, or to conduct active
translocations, will be determined in the context of a recovery team
comprising Service personnel, species experts, and other stakeholders.
Comment (14): One peer reviewer stated that Tule Spring does not
appear conducive to occupation by San Bernardino springsnail,
particularly in regard to the presence of the primary constituent
elements (PCEs), and should not be designated as critical habitat.
Our response: Under the second prong of the Act's definition of
critical habitat, we can designate critical habitat in areas outside
the geographic area occupied by the species at the time it is listed,
upon a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation
of the species. We have determined that Tule Spring is essential to the
conservation of the San Bernardino springsnail, because it provides
redundancy of the species if a population were to become established
there either through natural or artificial reintroductions.

Comments From the States

Section 4(i) of the Act states the Secretary shall submit to the
State agency a written justification for his failure to adopt
regulations consistent with the agency's comments or petition. We
received two comment letters from the AGFD. The majority of AGFD's
comments were similar to those expressed by peer reviewers, and have
been addressed above (see our responses (3), (5), (8), and (14) under
Peer Reviewer Comments).
Comment (15): The AGFD stated that, due to new information on its
status and distribution, the San Bernardino springsnail is at less risk
to extinction, and they would support not listing this species.
Our response: We have reviewed the new information indicating the
San Bernardino springsnail is more widespread than previously believed,
particularly in Sonora, Mexico. We have included these sites in our
five-factor analysis, and have concluded that sufficient threats still
exist to warrant listing the species as threatened.

Comments From the U.S. Forest Service

We did not receive comments from the U.S. Forest Service (USFS)
specifically on the proposed rule. However, we did receive a map from
the USFS during the open comment period on the proposed rule to
designate critical habitat for the Chiricahua leopard frog (Lithobates
chiricahuensis) (76 FR 58441, September 21, 2011) outlining the area
they are considering as the Three Forks Recommended Research Natural
Area (RNA) and Associated Features.

Public Comments

Several commenters made numerous comments similar to those
expressed by peer reviewers, and which have been addressed above (see
our responses (3), (5), (6), (11), and (14) under Peer Reviewer
Comments).
Comment (16): One commenter noted that current husbandry research
indicates that the Three Forks springsnail requires a consistent
environment in order to thrive, particularly in the context of water
quality and temperature.
Our response: We have compiled the available information regarding
ongoing research on captive populations of Three Forks springsnail and
incorporated this information into the final rule as appropriate.
Comment (17): One commenter stated that, at the time of public
comment, the Wallow Fire was burning in the White Mountains,
potentially threatening remaining populations of Three Forks
springsnail.
Our response: We have compiled the available information regarding
the Wallow fire and incorporated it into the final rule as appropriate.
Wildfire has been known to have negative effects on springsnails, and
most Three Forks springsnail sites were severely burned. However,
reporting indicates that aerial fire retardants were not applied along
Boneyard Creek, because the fire burned too hot and fast. At this time,
we do not know what effect the Wallow Fire will have on the long-term
viability of Three Forks springsnail. We will continue to work with the
USFS, AGFD, and interested stakeholders, to monitor and conserve the
species.
Comment (18): One commenter questioned what actions the Service was
taking to alter established policies identified in the preamble to the
proposed rule under The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms.
Our response: Many regulatory mechanisms discussed are under the
purview and discretion of other Federal and State agencies. The Service
has no regulatory authority to affect change to existing regulatory
mechanisms of other agencies. However, we do work under the authorities
of the Act to assist and coordinate with other agencies to ensure their
actions are protective of threatened and endangered species and their
critical habitats.
Comment (19): One commenter stated additional suitable springs in
the vicinity of habitat currently occupied by the San Bernardino
springsnail should be designated as critical habitat.
Our response: Other than those discussed in this final rule, the
commenter did not provide nor do we have any information on other
springs in the vicinity of habitat currently occupied by the San
Bernardino springsnail in the United States to evaluate for critical
habitat. Although several springs in Sonora, Mexico, provide habitat
for the species, we do not designate critical habitat in foreign
countries.
Comment (20): One commenter stated that the Service should consider
designation of critical habitat throughout the historical ranges of
both species, and include areas that are not currently occupied.
Our response: In this final critical habitat designation, we are
including both occupied and unoccupied units, for both species. In
accordance with section 3(5)(A) of the Act, we are designating critical
habitat in specific areas within the geographic area occupied by the
species at the time of listing, which contain the physical and
biological features essential for the conservation of the species, and
which may require special management, as well as specific areas outside
the geographic area occupied by the species at the time of listing, and
are essential to the conservation of the species. In this final rule,
the unoccupied units we designated as critical habitat are areas within
the historical ranges of both species.

Summary of Changes From the Proposed Rule

Since the publication of the April 12, 2011 (76 FR 20464), proposed
rule to list and designate critical habitat for the

[[Page 23064]]

Three Forks springsnail and San Bernardino springsnail, and the
November 17, 2011 (76 FR 71300), proposed revision of the critical
habitat for the Three Forks springsnail, we have made the following
changes in this final rule:
(1) We previously proposed to list the San Bernardino springsnail
as endangered, but upon review of additional information, which we
described in the notice announcing the availability of a draft economic
analysis (76 FR 71300; November 17, 2011), regarding the status of, and
threats to, the springsnail in Mexico, we have the determined the
species meets the definition of threatened instead of endangered. Based
on the best available information at this time, the species is likely
to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future rather
than being in danger of extinction now.
(2) For the San Bernardino springsnail, we expanded the Summary of
Factors Affecting the Species to include a discussion of factors
throughout the species' entire range, including the United States and
Mexico.

Endangered Status for Three Forks Springsnail and Threatened Status for
San Bernardino Springsnail

It is our intent to discuss below only those topics directly
relevant to the listing of the Three Forks springsnail as endangered,
and the San Bernardino springsnail as threatened, in this section of
the final rule.

Species Information

Both the Three Forks springsnail and San Bernardino springsnail are
members of the genus Pyrgulopsis in the family Hydrobiidae. In the arid
Southwest, springsnails 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
with a single small egg capsule deposited on a hard surface (Hershler
1998, p. 14; Pearson 2011, p. 3). 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 females are noticeably 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); the survival of one
species in the genus Pyrgulopsis in the laboratory was nearly 13 months
(Lysne et al. 2007, p. 3).
Hydrobiid snails occur in springs, seeps, spring runs, and a
variety of waters, but particularly spring systems that produce running
water. 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 farther away from spring vents,
presumably due to their need for stable water chemistry and flow
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). They are sensitive to water quality, and each
species is usually found within relatively narrow habitat parameters
(Sada 2008, p. 59). Several habitat parameters, such as substrate,
dissolved carbon dioxide, dissolved oxygen, temperature, conductivity,
pH, and water depth, have been shown to influence the distribution and
abundance of Pyrgulopsis snails (O'Brien and Blinn 1999, pp. 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; Martinez and Rogowski 2011, pp. 218-220). Dissolved
salts such as calcium carbonate may also be important factors because
they are essential for shell formation (Pennak 1989, p. 552).
Three Forks Springsnail
The Three Forks springsnail was originally described as
Fontelicella trivialis by Taylor (1987, pp. 30-32) and later
Pyrgulopsis confluentis by Hershler and Landye (1988, pp. 32-35) from a
spring-fed pond at Three Forks, Apache County, Arizona. The species was
renamed 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 (entity). The Three Forks
springsnail is a variably sized species, with a shell height (length)
of 0.06 to 0.19 inches (in) (1.5 to 4.8 millimeters (mm). A detailed
description of the identifying characteristics of the Three Forks
springsnail is found in Taylor (1987, pp. 30-32), Hershler and Landye
(1988, pp. 32-35), and Hershler (1994, pp. 68-69).
Historically, the Three Forks springsnail is known to have occurred
in numerous springs and seeps along Boneyard Creek and its confluence
with the North Fork East Fork Black River in the White Mountains on the
Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, in Apache County, east-central
Arizona. In recent years, the springnail was found only in the Three
Forks Springs, Boneyard Bog Springs, and Boneyard Creek Springs. Each
of these spring complexes comprise few to many spring vents (Table 1)
and are found in shallow canyon drainage or open mountain meadows at
8,200 feet (ft) (2,500 meters (m)) in elevation. These springs are
spread across 3.7 miles (mi) (6 kilometers (km)) of perennial flowing
stream. The species has been found in free-flowing springheads,
concrete boxed springheads, spring runs, spring seeps, and shallow
ponded water (Martinez and Myers 2008, p. 189). Unfortunately, the
species was extirpated from Three Forks Springs in 2004 following the
Three Forks Springs Fire (see a more detailed discussion on the effects
of this fire under Factor A analysis for this species, below).

[[Page 23065]]

Table 1--Occupancy of the Three Forks Springsnail in Springs Along Boneyard Creek and North Fork East Fork Black
River, Arizona
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year of last
Area of recent occurrence Number of springs Currently occupied verified
occupancy
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Three Forks Springs.................... At least 8............... No....................... 2003
Boneyard Bog Springs................... At least 8............... Yes...................... 2010
Boneyard Creek Springs................. At least 11.............. Yes...................... 2010
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Martinez and Myers (2008, pp. 189-194) found that presence of Three
Forks springsnail was associated with gravel and pebble substrates,
shallow water up to 2.4 in (6 centimeters (cm)) deep, high
conductivity, alkaline waters of pH 8, and the presence of pond snails
(Physa gyrina). Martinez and Rogowski (2011, p. 218) found that density
of Three Forks springsnail was greater in water depths less than 2.2 in
(5.6 cm), where density of pond snails was less than 5.5 per square
yard (4.6 per square meter), and where distance from the springhead was
less than 2.6 ft (0.8 m). In captivity, the species selected water
depths of 3.2 in (8.1 cm) in an aquarium that ranged from 1.9 in (4.8
cm) to 7.5 in (19.1 cm) in depth (Rogowski 2011, p. 1). It has been
shown that density of Three Forks springsnail is significantly greater
on gravel and cobble substrates (Martinez and Rogowski 2011, p. 220;
Martinez and Myers 2002, p. 1), though the species has been reported as
``abundant'' in the fine-grained mud of a 0.03-acre (ac) (0.01-hectare
(ha)) pond at Three Forks Springs (Taylor 1987, p. 32). Abundance has
been found to decrease downstream from springheads (Martinez and
Rogowski 2011, p. 218, 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 known to
occur in ponded springboxes and the big pond at Three Forks, prior to
extirpation. Although research indicates the species exhibits higher
density in shallower water, the species does not appear to be
intolerant of deeper ponded water. In captive settings, the number of
observed living springsnails declined along with decreasing water
temperature (Phoenix Zoo 2009, p. 2), and the species preferred
temperatures near 71.6 degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F) (22 degrees Celsius
([deg]C)) (Rogowski and Martinez 2010, p. 1; Rogowski 2011, p. 1).
The Three Forks springsnail was historically abundant within all
spring ecosystems where found, though with patchy micro-distribution.
Nelson et al. (2002, p. 5) reported Three Forks springsnail densities
of approximately 72 snails per square yard (60 snails per square meter)
at Three Forks Springs, and approximately 945 per square yard (790
snails per square meter) at Boneyard Bog Springs. The highest number
recorded at a single spring-brook occurred in a 254-square yards (213-
square meters) area at Three Forks Springs in 2002, where tens of
thousands of individual snails were estimated (Martinez 2009, pp. 31-
32). Unfortunately, the Three Forks springsnail was last documented at
Three Forks Springs in 2003. The AGFD has been conducting annual
surveys since 2001 (Nelson et al. 2002, entire), and they have been
reporting very low numbers of the springsnails at Three Forks Springs
since 2005 (Cox 2007, p. 1; Bailey 2008, p. 1; Grosch 2010, p. 1).
However, no voucher specimens (specimens collected to verify species
identification) were actually collected until 2011, when it was
discovered that the small snails from Three Forks Springs were not
Three Forks springsnails (Sorensen 2011a, p. 1), but rather air-
breathing, land snails belonging to the family Pupillidae. Based on
this new information, the species is not currently considered to be
extant at Three Forks Springs. Fortunately, the species continues to be
abundant at Boneyard Bog Springs and Boneyard Creek Springs.
San Bernardino Springsnail
The San Bernardino springsnail was originally described as
Yaquicoccus bernardinus by Taylor (1987, pp. 34-35) and later
Pyrgulopsis cochisi by Hershler and Landye (1988, p. 41) from a spring
in the San Bernardino Creek drainage, Cochise County, Arizona. The
species was renamed Pyrgulopsis bernardina by Hershler (1994, pp. 21-
22). 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; Varela Romero
and Myers 2010, p. 9), and conclude that San Bernardino springsnail is
a valid taxon. The San Bernardino springsnail has a narrow-conic shell
and a height of 0.05 to 0.07 in (1.3 to 1.7 mm). A detailed description
of the identifying characteristics of the San Bernardino springsnail is
found in Taylor (1987, pp. 35-35); Hershler and Landye (1988, p. 41),
and Hershler (1994, pp. 21-22).
The historical range of the San Bernardino springsnail in the
United States may have included several springs 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
around 3,806 ft (1,160 m) elevation on what is now the San Bernardino
National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) and the State-owned John Slaughter Ranch
Museum, including Snail Spring, Horse Spring, Goat Tank Spring, and
perhaps Tule Spring (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 in the United States is now
believed to be limited to two springs on the John Slaughter Ranch
Museum, Goat Tank Spring and Horse Spring (Martinez 2010, p. 2) (Table
2). Surveys by SBNWR staff confirmed the presence of San Bernardino
springsnails in Horse Spring in 2009 (Martinez 2010, p. 2). Also, Horse
Spring is now known to be directly connected via an underground
pipeline to Goat Spring (which is occupied by thousands of
springsnails), so the liklihood of springsnails being at both sites is
high.
The species was formerly collected and very abundant at Snail
Spring on the John Slaughter Ranch Museum (Malcom et al. 2003, p. 17;
Malcom et al. 2005, p. 74), but now appears to be extirpated having
last been confirmed from that site in 2005 (Cox et al. 2007, p. 1;
Malcom 2007, p. 1; Service 2007, p. 83; Martinez 2010, p. 1; Varela
Romero and Myers 2010, p. 2).

[[Page 23066]]

Table 2--Occupancy of San Bernardino Springsnail in Springs in the San Bernardino Basin, Arizona, and
Caj[oacute]n Bonito Basins, Mexico
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year of last verified
Spring or springs complex Number of springs Currently occupied occupancy
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Goat Tank........................... 1...................... Yes.................... 2010.
Horse............................... 1...................... Yes.................... 2009.
Snail............................... 1...................... No..................... 2002.
Tule................................ 1...................... No..................... Unknown.
Ojo El Chorro....................... At least 1............. Yes.................... 2010.
Los Ojitos.......................... At least 1............. Yes.................... 2010.
Ojo El Ojito........................ At least 2............. Yes.................... 2010.
Ojo Agua Fria....................... At least 2............. Yes.................... 2010.
Ojo Caliente........................ At least 3............. Yes.................... 2010.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

According to recent genetic studies, the San Bernardino springsnail
occurs at five sites in Sonora, Mexico, in the San Bernardino and
Caj[oacute]n Bonito Basins, including Ojo El Chorro, Los Ojitos, Ojo El
Ojito, Ojo Agua Fria, and Ojo Caliente (Liu and Hershler 2005, p. 293;
Varela and Myers 2010, pp. 5-9). All five of these sites are located on
privately owned ranches. The springs where the San Bernardino
springsnail is found at these sites are typical ci[eacute]nega
ecosystems (wet, marshy areas at the foot of a mountain, in a canyon,
or on the edge of a grassland where groundwater bubbles to the surface)
occurring near 3,806 ft (1,160 m) in elevation (Minckley and Brunelle
2007, pp. 421-422), and most of the sites contain several springheads
occupied by the species (Varela and Myers 2010, pp. 6-8) (Table 2).
Malcom et al. 2005 (pp. 71, 75-76) showed that density of San
Bernardino springsnail was positively associated with cobble
substrates, high vegetation density, faster water velocity, high
dissolved oxygen, water temperatures ranging from 57 to 72 [deg]F (14
to 22 [deg]C), 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).
Limited information is available on population sizes for the San
Bernardino springsnail. Malcom et al. (2003, p. 7; 2005, p. 74)
estimated former average springsnail density as 66,893 per square yard
(55,929 individuals per square meter) at Snail Spring from September
2001 to March 2002. The species formerly occurred in low population
numbers at Goat Tank Spring, but has since exhibited an increase in
abundance following the modification of a metal cover on the spring-box
(Radke 2010, p. 1; Service 2011, pp. 117-118).

Summary of Factors Affecting the Three Forks Springsnail

Section 4 of the Act and implementing regulations at 50 CFR 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 and Suppression
Fire frequency and intensity in southwestern forests are altered
from historical conditions (Dahms and Geils 1997, p. 34; Danzer et al.
1997, pp. 1-2). 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). An
absence of low-intensity ground fires allowed a buildup of woody fuels
that resulted in infrequent, but very hot, stand-replacing fires (fires
that kill all or most of above-ground parts of dominant vegetation,
changing the above-ground structure substantially) (Danzer et al. 1997,
p. 9; Dahm and Geils 1997, p. 34).
In the past decade, USFS's lands around, or adjacent to, Three
Forks springsnail habitats have been burned by wildfires, including the
Three Forks Fire in 2004, and the Wallow Fire in 2011. These fires
developed into hot crown fires (fires burning in tree canopies), while
the Wallow Fire also exhibited very hot, stand-replacing effects. The
lack of vegetation and forest litter following intense fires can expose
soils to surface erosion during storms, often causing sedimentation and
erosion in downstream drainages (DeBano and Neary 1996, pp. 70-75).
This can cause infilling of substrates and shifts in water chemistry
within spring systems.
We do not expect that surface erosion would have affected spring
ecosystems occupied by Three Forks springsnail following the Three
Forks Fire, because the spring areas did not burn. In contrast, most of
the areas around Boneyard Bog and Boneyard Creek Springs, which are
occupied by the species, were burned by the Wallow Fire in 2011, and
these occupied springs are at risk from ash and sediment erosion during
anticipated storm-water flows (USFS 2011a, pp. 65-69). We believe the
species evolved with frequent low-intensity wildfire, and likely
exhibits some resiliency. However, there is cause for concern as fire-
induced changes in habitat for the Koster's springsnail (Juturnia
kosteri) in New Mexico, resulted in lower springsnail densities post-
fire (Lang 2002, pp. 5-7; NMDGF 2006, p. 9). Conversely, Sada and
Vinyard (2002, p. 282) noted the presence of large populations of the
springsnail P. glibba in recently burned springs in Nevada. Initial
reports indicate that Three Forks

[[Page 23067]]

springsnails were not observed in at least one spring within Boneyard
Bog Springs that was affected by recent flooding and ash debris
(Sorensen 2011a, p. 1). Because the Wallow Fire exhibited very hot,
stand-replacing effects, and it burned around the entirety of the only
two spring complexes (consisting of several springs) known to be
occupied by the species, additional storm-water flows are likely to
cause erosion and sedimentation to flow into the springsnail's habitat,
thus potentially resulting in the species' decline to the point of
extinction.
Although the Three Forks Fire in 2004 did not directly burn Three
Forks springsnail habitats, fire suppression included application of
aerial fire retardants (chemicals used to suppress fire). Fire
retardants may be toxic to springsnails if 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. 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; Gaikowkski
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, wind drift, or runoff
from treated uplands.
During the 2004 fire season, it is suspected that surface waters
within the Three Forks Springs area were exposed to fire retardant that
could have drifted from high-elevation retardant releases from aircraft
(USFS 2005, pp. 4, 12). During fire suppression activities related to
the Three Forks Fire, approximately 54,122 gallons (204,874 liters) of
aerial fire retardant were applied from aircraft (USFS 2005, p. 4). 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. Available data indicate that the Three
Forks springsnail was still abundant in spring sites at Three Forks
Springs in 2002 and 2003, prior to the fire (AGFD 2008, entire;
Martinez 2009, pp. 31-32), but has not been detected since that time.
Although a definitive connection between extirpation and exposure to
fire retardant drift has not been made, it is reasonable to assume that
drift from the documented use of fire retardant chemicals during the
2004 fires caused retardant-related toxicity, and thus, the inability
of surveyors to locate the species at Three Forks Springs since.
Fortunately, the species still persists at Boneyard Bog Springs and
Boneyard Creek Springs, but there is the potential for future wildfires
to occur near these occupied sites. Because of the toxic effects to
springsnails from aerial fire retardant chemicals and the potential for
exposure during future wildfires, we consider the use of fire retardant
chemicals to be a threat to the Three Forks springsnail in the
foreseeable future.
Ungulates
High-intensity 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 Chupadera springsnail, (P.
chupaderae), endemic to Socorro County, New Mexico, was extirpated due
to the impacts of intensive livestock grazing on its habitat (Arritt
1998, p. 10; NMDGF 2006, p. 13). Even though other springsnails have
been impacted by high intensity ungulate grazing, we do not consider it
to be factor for the Three Forks springsnail. Livestock have been
fenced out of the springs where the Three Forks springsnail occurs
since the mid- to late 1990s.
Although fencing excludes livestock from springs where the Three
Forks springsnail occurs (USFS 2011b, p. 184), free-ranging elk (Cervus
elaphus) can access all the springs. Elk are able to jump or cross the
fencing in ways that livestock cannot. Because elk have been able to
access the springs, some habitat modification from elk wallowing has
been observed by Service personnel (Martinez 2000, p. 1; Nelson 2002,
p. 2). In 2007 and 2008, erosive soil conditions related to elk
wallowing were documented at Boneyard Bog Springs (Myers 2007, p. 2;
Martinez 2008, p. 1). Intensive elk wallowing causes muddy conditions,
soil loss, sparse grass, and stagnant, rather than flowing, water.
These habitat conditions created by elk wallowing are typically
unsuitable for the Three Forks springsnail, because the springsnail are
mostly found in habitats with gravel and pebble substrates, and shallow
running water (Martinez and Myers 2008, pp. 189-194). It appears that
elk wallowing prevents spring seepage from developing into free-flowing
spring-runs, which is the preferred habitat of the Three Forks
springsnail. Although elk wallowing is a factor that seems to be
impacting the Three Forks springsnail's habitat, it is not occurring at
a scale that would cause the extinction of Three Forks springsnail on
its own. However, in combination with the other threats identified in
this five-factor analysis, elk wallowing may be contributing to the
species' risk of extinction by reducing its long-term viability.
Importantly, the AGFD is partnering with the conservation community to
implement habitat improvements for the Three Forks springsnail,
including the construction of fenced elk exclosures around targeted
spring sites (Sorensen 2011b, p. 1).
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. As noted above in the
species description, the Three Forks springsnail was known to occur in
ponded springboxes and the big pond at Three Forks, prior to
extirpation. Although research indicates the species exhibits higher
density in shallower water, the species does not appear to be
intolerant of deeper ponded water. Thus springhead inundation is not a
threat for this particular species because it persists in deeper water
than many other springsnails.
Summary of Factor A: At this time, the primary threats to the only
known occupied habitats of Three Forks springsnails are soil erosion
resulting from the high-intensity Wallow Fire that occurred in 2011,
and the potential exposure of fire retardant chemicals during future
wildfires. Also, elk wallowing may be contributing to the species' risk
of extinction by reducing its long-term viability. However, springhead
inundation does not appear to be a threat. Based on the best available
information, the present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of the Three Forks springsnail's habitat and range poses a
significant threat to the species' continued existence across its
entire range now, and into the foreseeable future.

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

The Three Forks springsnail has been subjected to a limited number
of

[[Page 23068]]

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 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 the Three Forks springsnail.
In summary, the best available information indicates that the Three
Forks springsnail is not threatened by overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational purposes now, and we do not
have any information to indicate that this will likely become a
significant threat in the foreseeable future in any portion of its
range.

C. Disease or Predation

Exceptionally heavy parasitism on the female reproductive system of
the Three Forks springsnail has been observed on specimens from the
extirpated Three Forks Springs population (Taylor 1987, p. 31).
However, we have no information that parasitism exists in the remaining
Three Forks springsnail populations at Boneyard Creek Springs and
Boneyard Bog Springs.
In general, springsnails are vulnerable to predation by a variety
of fish, amphibians, reptiles, mammals, and macroinvertebrates (Dillon
2000, p. 273; Raisanen 1991, p. 71). Nonnative crayfish are known
predators of aquatic snails (Fernandez and Rosen 1996, pp. 24-25;
Parkyn et al. 1997, p. 690), and are relatively recent invaders of
Three Forks springsnail habitats. In a laboratory aquaria experiment
that mimicked stream conditions found at Three Forks Springs, crayfish
consumed snails and their eggs in the family Physidae (which occupy
similar habitats as springsnails) within 1 week of introduction
(Fernandez and Rosen 1996, pp. 24-25).
Prior to total extirpation at Three Forks Springs, Three Forks
springsnails were no longer being found in concrete-boxed springheads
where they had previously been observed in abundance (Myers 2000, p. 1;
Martinez and Myers 2008, p. 191). The localized extirpation of the
species from concrete-boxed springheads coincided with an invasion by
nonnative crayfish. Because Arizona has no native crayfish species
(Inman 1999, p. 6), the Three Forks springsnail likely did not evolve
in the presence of crayfish predation. Therefore, the springsnail
probably does not have an evolutionary mechanism to escape this type of
predation. Recognizing the impact that nonnative crayfish were having
on the Three Forks springsnail, AGFD personnel conducted an intensive
crayfish trapping program aimed at reducing predatory pressure at Three
Forks Springs (Nelson et al. 2002, pp. 4, 6). However, complete
elimination of crayfish from an aquatic system is usually not possible
(Helfrich et al. 2001, p. 4). This has been the case with the trapping
effort at Three Forks Springs. More recently, crayfish have also been
found in Boneyard Creek Springs and Boneyard Bog Springs. These efforts
have not eliminated crayfish or prevented their spread along Boneyard
Creek.
In summary, parasitism is not currently known to be a threat to the
Three Forks springsnail, but this factor may need to be investigated
further considering that it was observed on specimens in the past, and
it has the potential to contribute to population declines (Dillon 2000,
pp. 270-272). At this time, we have no information to indicate that
parasitism is occurring within the remaining populations or that it
might occur at a level in the future that affects the species'
continued existence. On the other hand, we consider predation by
nonnative crayfish to be a threat to the Three Forks springsnail across
its entire range, because the springsnail has been locally extirpated
from concrete-boxed springheads after the nonnative crayfish invaded.

D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

The primary causes of the Three Forks springsnail's decline are
soil erosion following high-intensity wildfire, application of aerial
fire retardant, and predation by nonnative crayfish. Existing Federal,
State, and local laws have been unable to prevent loss of habitat or
populations, and the existing regulatory mechanisms are not expected to
prevent causes of Three Forks springsnail decline in the future.
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; NIFC 2011). 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, aquatic
areas at Three Forks are suspected to have been affected by fire
retardant drift.
In addition to the 300-ft (91-m) buffer, the USFS recently adopted
a policy of establishing avoidance areas specifically for listed
species (USFS 2011c, p. 6). Although the implementation of an avoidance
zone will likely reduce the probability of exposure to aerial fire
retardants, it cannot entirely eliminate the possibility of an
accidental catastrophic event. Furthermore, although fire retardants
containing sodium ferrocyanide are no longer used, USFS (2011c, pp.
121-123) acknowledges that fire retardants currently in use still
contain substances toxic to aquatic invertebrates, including mollusks.
Take of the Three Forks 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 2010,
p. 29). Although Order 42 prohibits direct taking of individuals, it
does not prohibit habitat modification. The species is also identified
as a priority species in the State Wildlife Action Plan prepared by
AGFD (AGFD 2006, pp. 136, 419). This plan helps guide AGFD and other
agencies in determining what biotic resources should receive priority
management consideration, but this plan is not legally binding on any
agency.
In summary, current regulatory mechanisms are inadequate to protect
Three Forks springsnail habitat from modification or destruction due to
the threats of accidental application of aerial fire retardant. The
USFS and State regulatory mechanisms are adequate to control scientific
collecting, but this does not appear to be a threat to the species.

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,

[[Page 23069]]

including springsnails (Lysne and Koetsier 2008, pp. 103, 105; Lysne et
al. 2007, p. 6). There is potential for mudsnail invasion into spring
ecosystems, because the mudsnail can be easily transported and
unintentionally introduced into aquatic environments via birds, hikers,
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).
Mudsnails were discovered in Utah in 2001, and since have dispersed
rapidly through that State (Vinson 2004, p. 9). Since 2002, New Zealand
mudsnails have been detected in Arizona along the Colorado River at
Lees Ferry, Diamond Creek, Lake Mead, and Willow Beach Fish Hatchery
(AGFD 2002, p. 1, Olson 2008, pp. 1-2, Montana State University 2008,
p. 1, Sorensen 2010, p. 3).
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
(system with organisms that create organic molecules that serve as food
for other organisms), 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, such as springsnails (Hall et al. 2003, p. 409).
Invasion by mudsnails is not a current threat to the Three Forks
springsnail. However, the New Zealand mudsnail is spreading throughout
the State of Arizona. If they were to be introduced into the spring
systems harboring the Three Forks springsnail, the effect could be
devastating. Additionally, control would be difficult because mudsnails
are small and cryptic, and chemical treatment to eradicate them would
also eradicate springsnails. Because the New Zealand mudsnail can out-
compete and replace native springsnails, we consider this nonnative
competitor to be a potential threat to the Three Forks springsnail's
continued existence in the foreseeable future.
Climate Change and Drought
Our analyses under the Act include consideration of ongoing and
projected changes in climate. The terms ``climate'' and ``climate
change'' are defined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC). ``Climate'' refers to the mean and variability of different
types of weather conditions over time, with 30 years being a typical
period for such measurements, although shorter or longer periods also
may be used (IPCC 2007, p. 78). The term ``climate change'' thus refers
to a change in the mean or variability of one or more measures of
climate (e.g., temperature or precipitation) that persists for an
extended period, typically decades or longer, whether the change is due
to natural variability, human activity, or both (IPCC 2007, p. 78).
Various types of changes in climate can have direct or indirect effects
on species. These effects may be positive, neutral, or negative and
they may change over time, depending on the species and other relevant
considerations, such as the effects of interactions of climate with
other variables (e.g., habitat fragmentation) (IPCC 2007, pp. 8-14, 18-
19). In our analyses, we use our expert judgment to weigh relevant
information, including uncertainty, in our consideration of various
aspects of climate change.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC 2007, p. 7)
summarized the likelihood of future trends in global climatic variables
over most land areas, predicting: (1) Warmer and fewer cold days and
nights, (2) warmer and more frequent hot days and nights, (3) more
frequent warm spells and heat waves or both, (4) changes in
precipitation patterns favoring an increased frequency of heavy
precipitation events, and (5) an increase in area affected by drought.
These global climate changes are expected to influence climatic
patterns at regional and local scales.
At a regional scale, there is broad consensus among climate models
that the southwestern United States and northern Mexico will become
drier in the twenty-first century and that the trend is already
underway (Seager et al. 2007). Seager 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, while 1 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 southwestern
United States as early as 2021-2040 (Seager et al. 2007, p. 1181).
Wetlands in the southwestern United States and northern Mexico are
predicted to be at risk of drying (Seager et al. 2007, pp. 1183-1184),
which has severe implications for aquatic ecosystems.
The current, multiyear drought in the southwestern United States is
the most severe drought recorded since 1900 (Overpeck and Udall 2010,
p. 1642). Numerous models predict a decrease in annual precipitation in
the southwestern United States and northern Mexico. Solomon et al.
(2009, p. 1707) predicted precipitation in the southwestern United
States and northern Mexico will decrease by 9 to 12 percent.
Christensen et al. (2007, p. 888) contend the projection of smaller
warming over the Pacific Ocean than over the continent is likely to
induce a decrease in annual precipitation in the southwestern United
States and northern Mexico.
Maximum summer temperatures in the southwestern United States are
expected to increase over time in response to changes in the climate
system (Christensen et al. 2007, p. 887). Weiss and Overpeck (2005, p.
2075) examined low-temperature data over a 40-year timeframe from
numerous weather stations in the Sonoran desert ecoregion and found:
(1) Widespread warming trends in winter and spring, (2) decreased
frequency of freezing temperatures, (3) lengthening of the freeze-free
season, and (4) increased minimum temperatures per winter year.
Additionally, the timing of precipitation may be altered, contributing
to significant changes in vegetation communities. The IPCC (2007, p.
20) found that winter precipitation in the southwestern United States
is predicted to decline by as much as 20 percent as a result of climate
change, while summer precipitation may increase slightly.
Arid environments can be especially sensitive to climate change,
because the biota that inhabit these areas are often near their
physiological tolerances for temperature and water stress. Slight
changes in temperature and rainfall, along with increases in the
magnitude and frequency of extreme climatic events, can significantly
alter species distributions and abundance (Archer and Predick 2008, p.
23). Nonnative plant species may respond positively, out-competing
native vegetation (Smith et al. 2000, p. 79; Lioubimsteva and Adams
2004, p. 401), thereby increasing the risk of wildfire. Seasonal
changes in rainfall may contribute to the spread of

[[Page 23070]]

invasive species, which are often capable of explosive growth, and able
to out-compete native species (Barrows et al. 2009, p. 673).
There are three hydrologic predictions for anticipated effects from
climate change in the southwestern United States. 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. 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) may alter
spring habitats by altering surface water flow and ground water supply.
In addition, increases in riverine system temperatures in drier
climates 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 ranges of nonnative aquatic species to the
detriment of native species.
Climate change and drought could eventually exacerbate existing
threats to spring habitats in the southwestern United States. Increased
and prolonged drought associated with changing climatic patterns could
adversely affect spring habitats by reducing water availability, and
altering food availability and predation rates. Drying of spring flow
is of particular concern because springsnails depend on permanent
flowing water for survival. At this time we have no specific
information indicating that any springs occupied, or formerly occupied,
by the Three Forks springsnail have experienced a decline in water flow
due to climate change or drought. However, the best available
information indicates that climate change and drought may be a factor
in the foreseeable future that could adversely alter the Three Forks
springsnail's habitat. Therefore, the potential impacts from climate
change and drought could affect the Three Forks springsnail's continued
existence in the future.
Endemism
Endemic species (organisms with narrowly distributed isolated
populations) are often more susceptible to extinction from localized,
catastrophic 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). The Three Forks springsnail is a
highly endemic species. It occurs only within two spring complexes with
a very restricted distribution, has limited mobility, and is a strict
aquatic specialist requiring spring systems to complete its life
history function. Endemism is not a threat in and of itself, but the
Three Forks springsnail's endemic nature may make them more vulnerable
to extinction from other existing or potential threats. The remaining
populations of Three Forks springsnail are less than 1 mi (1.6 km)
apart, and their total overall range is approximately 11.1 ac (4.5 ha)
in size. Because their range is so small, one catastrophic event, such
as a high-intensity wildfire, could potentially result in the entire
loss of the species.

Listing Determination for the Three Forks Springsnail

Section 3 of the Act defines an endangered species as any species
that is ``in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range'' and a threatened species as any species that
``is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable
future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.'' We find
that the Three Forks springsnail is presently in danger of extinction
throughout its entire range, based on the immediacy, severity, and
extent of the threats described above. We have carefully assessed the
best scientific and commercial information available regarding the
past, present, and future threats to the species, and have determined
that the Three Forks springsnail meets the definition of endangered
under the Act, rather than a threatened species, because significant
threats are occurring now and in the foreseeable future, at a high
magnitude, and across the species' entire range, making the species in
danger of extinction at the present time.
Based on the best scientific and commercial information available
regarding the threats to the species, we have found that some serious
threats are occurring now, while some will negatively impact the
species in the foreseeable future. For instance, the high-intensity
2011 Willow Fire that burned around the only remaining populations of
the Three Forks springsnail has caused the habitat of the species to be
currently threatened with destruction, modification, and curtailment
due to soil erosion and sedimentation during storm events. Also, we
have found that predation by nonnative crayfish is currently
threatening the Three Forks springsnail across its entire range. In
addition to the current threats, the Three Forks springsnail is also at
a high risk of extinction due to threats that could affect the species
in the foreseeable future, such as the use of fire retardant chemicals
during future wildfires, the potential spread and competition with New
Zealand springsnails, and the potential for climate change and drought
to dry its springhead habitat. Due to its endemic nature, the Three
Forks springsnail may be more vulnerable to extinction from both
present and future threats.
Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may
warrant listing if it is endangered or threatened throughout all or a
significant portion of its range. We find that the threats to the Three
Forks springsnail occur at relatively high magnitudes throughout its
entire range. Historically, the Three Forks springsnail is known to
have occurred in numerous springs and seeps along Boneyard Creek and
its confluence with the North Fork East Fork Black River in the White
Mountains on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, in Apache County,
Arizona. In recent years, the species'

[[Page 23071]]

range has been reduced to the point that it has only been found at two
spring complexes. These two remaining sites are restricted to less than
1 mi (1.6 km) along Boneyard Creek. Because the species is so limited
in range, the magnitude of threats that are occurring now are high, and
those that may impact the species in the foreseeable future are high as
well. For example, one catastrophic event, such as a high-intensity
wildfire, could potentially result in the entire loss of the species.
Accordingly, our assessment and determination applies to the species
throughout its entire range. In conclusion, based on the immediacy,
severity, and extent of the threats, we have determined that the Three
Forks springsnail meets the definition of endangered under the Act.

Summary of Factors Affecting the San Bernardino Springsnail

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

Wildfire and Suppression
Wildfires are common in southern Arizona along the border with
Mexico (U.S. Government Accountability Office 2011, pp. 9-12), though
we have limited information on wildfire frequency or intensity in the
San Bernardino or Caj[oacute]n Bonito Basins where the San Bernardino
springsnail occurs. Even so, nonnative buffelgrass (Pennisetum ciliare
[= Cenchrus ciliare]) is a concern, because of its potential to occur
in this area and its ecological effects related to wildfire. Since its
introduction in the 1940s, buffelgrass has become widespread in
southeastern Arizona and northeastern Sonora, Mexico (Stevens and Falk
2009, p. 417; Van Devender and Reina 2005, p. 161; Cohn 2005, pp. 1-2,
Yetman 1994, pp. 1, 8). The introduction of this invasive species is
known to result in the addition of fire as an ecological process in the
normally fire-intolerant Sonoran desert ecosystems, changing the
natural fire regime from infrequent, low-intensity, localized fires, to
frequent, high-intensity, spreading fires (Van Devender and Reina 2005,
p. 161; Stevens and Falk 2009, p. 418; Yetman 1994, pp. 8-9).
Buffelgrass has been documented up to 4,150 ft (1,265 m) in
elevation (Arizona Sonora Desert Musuem 2012, p. 2), but because it is
frost-intolerant, it is usually limited to elevations less than 3,300
ft (1,000 m) (Perramond 2000, p. 5). All the sites where the San
Bernardino springsnail is found in both the United States and Mexico
are near or above 3,806 ft (1,160 m) in elevation, suggesting that most
spring sites where the springsnail occurs may be protected from
buffelgrass invasion. However, climatic warming trends (see Climate
Change discussion, below) may facilitate future invasion by
buffelgrass, increasing the potential for high-intensity wildfire
around spring sites occupied by San Bernardino springsnail. At this
time, the best available information indicates that wildfire is not a
current threat to the species. We have no information relating to
actual impacts of wildfire on the San Bernardino springsnail or its
habitat.
If a wildfire were to occur in the greater San Bernardino Basin,
Arizona, we suspect suppression efforts in the United States could
include the application of fire retardant chemicals via aircraft,
because this is one of the methods typically used to fight wildfires in
this region. Should San Bernardino springsnails be exposed to fire
retardants, we would expect them to react negatively, for the same
reasons discussed under Factor A of the Three Forks springsnail, above.
Wind drift of fire retardant has been noted in an unconfirmed report up
to five miles from a drop site. So if there were a fire in the San
Bernardino Valley, and the U.S. used retardant tankers, drift of the
chemicals might reach San Bernardino springsnail sites in Mexico,
although we have no confirmation of this occurring.
Further, we have no information indicating that aerial fire
retardants have been used in the area around the two spring sites at
the John Slaughter Ranch Museum. We anticipate the probability of
exposure to fire retardant to be low, because the two spring sites are
surrounded by a substantial area of well-tended lawn turf, and this
area is unlikely to burn. Should there be a fire near the John
Slaughter Ranch Museum, we expect that conventional fire-fighting
techniques, utilizing fire engines and ground-based suppression
activities, would most likely be employed in fighting any fires near
the two springs. Further, concerning the populations of San Bernardino
springsnails recently discovered in Sonora, Mexico, we expect that
similar on-the-ground fire-fighting techniques would be employed, as
opposed to the application of fire retardant chemical from aircraft.
However, there is a possibility that wildfire may occur in the San
Bernardino Basin at some point in the future, and fire retardant
exposure could happen. As such, exposure to fire retardant chemicals,
especially exposure resulting from wind drift, could represent a threat
to the species in the future.
Controlled Burning
Varela Romero and Myers (2010, pp. 7, 10) indicate that the Los
Ojitos ci[eacute]nega in Sonora, Mexico, has been exposed to fire
intentionally set to control cattails (Typha sp.). They noted ash and
loss of water flow post-fire, and could not locate springsnails in an
area where springsnails had occurred a few months prior (Varela Romero
and Myers, 2010, p. 7). As noted above, fire-induced changes in spring
habitats can result in lower springsnail densities post-fire (Lang
2002, pp. 5-7; NMDGF 2006, p. 9). Although the available information is
unclear regarding the relationship between fire at Los Ojitos and
springsnail population viability, it appears that a controlled burn may
have contributed to a decrease in springsnail abundance. It is
premature to conclude that the species has been extirpated from Los
Ojitos, considering that survey efforts have been limited and the genus
appears to exhibit some resiliency to fire. Controlled burns are
probably low-intensity wetland fires that do not exhibit the same
effects as very hot, high-intensity, stand-replacing fires. Also, it is
not clear if controlled burning is a regular management tool employed
by the landowner that we can reasonably anticipate will reoccur with
any frequency. However, controlled burning does seem likely to reoccur,
considering that management of cattails with fire requires regular
treatment. Although controlled burning likely impacts the species, we
are unable to determine the long-term impacts on the San Bernardino
springsnail or its habitat. We do not have any additional information
on controlled burning at any other locality where San Bernardino
springsnail occurs.
Ungulates
The general effects of ungulate grazing on springsnails and their
habitats are discussed under Factor A for the Three Forks springsnail.
As previously noted, high-intensity ungulate grazing at spring
ecosystems can alter or remove springsnail habitat and limit the
distribution of springsnails, or result in their extirpation (Arritt
1998, p. 10; Bruce and White 1998, pp. 3-4; NMDGF 2006, p. 13). For the
San Bernardino springsnail, we do not consider ungulate grazing to be a
threat. Cattle grazing does not currently occur on the San Bernardino
NWR. A small number of cattle graze on the John Slaughter Ranch Museum,
but they do not have access to 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. Low-

[[Page 23072]]

intensity cattle grazing does occur on the private ranches in Mexico,
but the cows are removed from areas if they start impacting an area
(Cuenca Los Ojos 2012, p. 1; Bodner 2005, p. 6). The San Bernardino
Valley historically supported extensive cattle ranching (Hendrickson
and Minckley 1984, pp. 142-144; Service 2007, pp. iii-iv), and
livestock likely had access to all spring habitats within the Rio San
Bernardino watershed at that time. At this time, we do not consider
ungulate grazing to be a threat to the San Bernardino springsnail,
because there is no information that the limited exposure of cattle
grazing within the springsnail's range is affecting the species'
continued existence.
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. As previously noted,
the San Bernardino springsnail is mainly found near spring vents and in
association with shallow water, but high velocity. Inundation can alter
springsnail habitats by causing shifts in water depth, velocity,
substrate composition, vegetation, and water chemistry. These changes
in springhead habitat can cause reductions in the San Bernardino
springsnail's distribution and abundance.
Springhead inundation has affected the San Bernardino springsnail's
habitat on the John Slaughter Ranch Museum. Cox et al. (2007, p. 1)
speculated that the species previously occurred in the springs now
inundated by House Pond. But, we have no evidence to confirm that they
actually occurred in these springs, nor do we have information that
they currently exist in the pond. As such, we cannot verify that
inundation has affected the species there. However, because the San
Bernardino springsnail currently exists in Goat Tank and Horse Springs,
which both are within several hundred feet (meters) of House Pond, it
is reasonable to assume that the San Bernardino springsnail occurred in
the springs now inundated by House Pond. Thus, based on the altered
habitat caused by inundation, it is reasonable to assume that
inundation does affect the species' continued existence in such areas.
Springs in Sonora, Mexico, appear to have been impounded, including
springs at Los Ojitos ci[eacute]nega and Ojo El Chorro (Varela Romero
and Myers 2010, pp. 6, 7, 10). But fortunately, springsnails have been
found in spring-runs draining into impounded ponds and in the outflows
at these sites. Because springsnails seem to prefer flowing, rather
than pooled water, it is possible that impoundments have affected the
species at these sites. Springhead inundation appears to be a threat
that has altered the San Bernardino springsnail's habitat in the past,
but at this time we do not consider this threat to be ongoing. However,
because of its ability to alter the springsnail's preferred habitat in
such a way that could affect the species continued existence,
springhead inundation could be a threat to the San Bernardino
springsnail in the foreseeable future.
Water Depletion and Diversion
Spring ecosystems rely on water discharged at the surface from
underground aquifers, and depletion of the underground aquifers can
result in the drying of springs. The drying of springs can be severe
for springsnails, because they are strictly aquatic organisms.
Groundwater depletion has been recognized as a threat to the continued
existence of other biota occurring in the Rio San Bernardino and
associated springs, such as the Yaqui fishes (49 FR 34490, August 31,
1984; Service 1994, p. 17). Several populations of San Bernardino
springsnail are believed to have been extirpated as water was depleted
and diverted for domestic water use (Landye 1973, p. 34; Malcom et al.
2003, p. 2), though the springsnail's actual occurrence in these
springs prior to desiccation was never verified by field surveys.
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 different chemical
compositions from one another, as well as from other springs in the
area (Earman et al. 2003, p. 166). A study using radioactive isotopes
to trace water flow into the springs indicated that some springs appear
to be fed by the deep aquifer, some by the shallow aquifer and
groundwater, and others are influenced by a mixing of the two water
sources (Earman et al. 2003, p. 166).
The John Slaughter Ranch Museum has an irrigation system that
relies on the shallow aquifer and surface water from House Pond to
provide water for turf grass and 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
Spring and Tule Spring when this irrigation system was running. This
indicates that House Pond is hydrologically connected to Snail Spring
and Tule Spring. However, we have no hydrologic data verifying that
this is the case. Regardless, Snail Spring no longer discharges flowing
water from the springhead, and the San Bernardino springsnail is now
extirpated from that site (Martinez 2010, p. 1; Varela Romero and Myers
2010, p. 2).
The cessation of water flow at Snail Spring dates back to 2002.
Following several years of below-average precipitation, Arizona faced
extreme drought during 2002, which was the driest year on record for
many parts of the State (McPhee et al. 2004, p. 1). At that time, the
San Bernardino NWR staff and the John Slaughter Ranch Museum manager
tapped into the domestic water supply from House Spring to try to
maintain the springsnail's habitat at Snail Spring (Smith 2003, p. 1;
Malcom 2003, p. 18; Malcom 2007, p. 1). Use of this domestic water
supply for maintaining springsnail habitat was intended as an emergency
measure only, and ultimately could not be sustained. Since 2002,
surface flows at Snail Spring were periodically augmented by water
diverted from House Pond. Unfortunately, consistent water flow has not
been maintained at Snail Spring since 2005, and the San Bernardino
springsnail has not been found at that site since then (Cox et al.
2007, p. 1; Malcom 2007, p. 1; Service 2007, p. 83; Martinez 2010, p.
1).
The Service has the right to control the use of water on the John
Slaughter Ranch Museum, through a warranty deed that reserves water
rights to The Nature Conservancy (TNC 1982, pp. 1-20). The Nature
Conservancy deeded the water rights on the John Slaughter Ranch Museum
to the Service, but also deeded ``water use'' rights to the John
Slaughter Ranch Museum itself, with a stipulation that the ranch use
should not adversely affect wildlife. Therefore, the Service can
withhold its consent for planned water uses and other activities by the
owner and managers of the John Slaughter Ranch Museum if it determines
that such activities may have an adverse effect on the fish and snail
species occurring on the ranch. However, such action appears
unnecessary at this time, as the San Bernardino NWR is proactively
working with the John Slaughter Ranch Museum to moderate use of
irrigation water and to find an alternative water source to restore
flow at Snail Spring. To offset the John Slaughter Ranch Museum's

[[Page 23073]]

domestic water supply from House Spring, the San Bernardino NWR is
working with the ranch to moderate use of irrigation water and to find
an alternative water source to restore flow at Snail Spring. Two wells
were drilled during December 2011 that are helping with restoration of
flow at the spring. One well, a shallow well at the head of Snail
Spring on the Slaughter Ranch, directly supplements Snail Spring to
provide year round habitat for the springsnail. A second (off-site)
deep well, located on San Bernardino NWR adjacent to Slaughter Ranch,
will be used to augment the amount of water available for domestic
water needs at Slaughter Ranch (Arizona Department of Water Resources
2012, p. 1; Service 2012, p. 1). Preliminary analysis indicates that
water quality between the well and Snail Spring is similar (Service
2012, p. 1).
In 2010, loss of water flow was noted and reported for the Los
Ojitos ci[eacute]nega in Sonora (Varela Romero and Myers 2010, p. 7).
The factors contributing to the loss of flow at that site are unknown,
and may include manipulation of water control devices by land managers
or extended drought conditions. We do not know if this loss of flow at
Los Ojitos is temporary or permanent. At another site occupied by the
San Bernardino springsnail, Varela Romero and Myers (2010, p. 10) noted
water flow interruption at Ojo El Chorro and recommended monitoring of
groundwater pumping and water diversions to determine if these were
causing flow water loss. The water flow interruption at Ojo El Chorro
must not be severe, because Varela Romero and Myers (2010, p. 10)
reported a functioning spring system at that site. Water harvesting
efforts (construction of structures that capture stormwater runoff) are
ongoing on the Austin Ranch in the San Bernardino watershed in Mexico
(Cuenca de Los Ojos 2012, entire). However, water depletion is still a
threat to spring ecosystems throughout the watershed (Earman et al.
2003, p. 259; Earman et al. 2008, p. 15; Hadley 2006, p. 13; Varela-
Romero and Myers 2010, p. 10).
We have no information indicating that other springs in the San
Bernardino or Caj[oacute]n Bonito Basins where the San Bernardino
springsnail occurs have experienced water loss or reduced water flow.
However, the San Bernardino ground water table is a desirable domestic
water source, particularly in Mexico, and ground water use could
eventually have severe negative consequences on the viability of
springs and wetlands in the San Bernardino watershed (Earman et al.
2003, p. 259; Earman et al. 2008, p. 15; Hadley 2006, p. 13). Water
depletion from future groundwater use could eventually contribute to
the drying of springs throughout the range of the San Bernardino
springsnail, placing the species at increased risk of extinction.
Pesticides
Pesticides, including glyphosate, the active ingredient in the
herbicides Roundup[supreg] and Rodeo[supreg], have been reportedly used
adjacent to spring ecosystems on the John Slaughter Ranch Museum
(Malcom et al. 2003, p. 17; Service 2005, p. 6). 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.
In the proposed rule, we discussed results presented by Tate et al.
(1997, pp. 287-288) indicating that long-term exposure to glyphosate in
a laboratory affected growth and development, egg-laying capacity, and
hatching of the mimic lymnaea (Pseudosuccinea columella), an unrelated
freshwater snail. As such, we were concerned that sublethal, as well as
lethal, effects from the use of glyphosate or other pesticides used on
the John Slaughter Ranch Museum may be affecting the San Bernardino
springsnail. However, upon further evaluation, we found that, for
freshwater mollusks, the aquatic formulation of glyphosate
(Rodeo[supreg]) has an ecotoxicity rating of Class 0 (practically
nontoxic), while the nonaquatic formulation (Roundup[supreg]) has a
rating of Class 1 (slightly-to-moderately toxic) (White 2007, pp. 158,
198). Although glyphosate can be slightly-to-moderately toxic to
aquatic organisms, particularly zooplankton (Montenegro-Rayo 2004, p.
34), and impacts including mortality have been documented in other
snail species, Tate et al. (1997, pp. 287-288) found that glyphosate
stimulates growth and development of snails at different
concentrations. Normal use of glyphosate is not expected to
detrimentally affect aquatic biota.
In the proposed rule, we also presented our concern that the
pesticide may contaminate the food base for the springsnail. Upon
further review, we find contamination of the food base to be unlikely.
Glyphosate adsorbs strongly to sediments and soils, and would not be
expected to leach to surface waters at high levels through surface
runoff (USEPA 2008, pp. 8, 25). Although direct exposure from spray
drift is a possibility, we do not anticipate adverse effects to the San
Bernardino springsnail or its food base, because long-term exposure is
unlikely to occur in a natural spring setting, as flowing water should
allow for dissipation. Accordingly, we do not consider the proper use
of the pesticide to threaten the San Bernardino springsnail's continued
existence.
Sunlight Inhibition
Goat Tank Spring box is covered with a heavy metal lid that
previously prevented significant sunlight penetration. The San
Bernardino springsnail formerly occurred in very low population numbers
at Goat Tank Spring, but has exhibited an increase in abundance
following the modification of this cover to allow sunlight to enter the
spring-box (Radke 2010, p. 1, Service 2011, pp. 117-118). Although this
effort has successfully resulted in an increase in the abundance of
springsnails, a large portion of the spring-box is still covered. The
lack of direct sunlight into the aquatic environment likely inhibits
primary production resulting in reduced availability of periphytic
diatoms and algae, key habitat elements required by the San Bernardino
springsnail. Radke (2010, p. 1) noted that the side of the spring-box,
where the modified lid allows more light to enter, had a larger number
of snails than the dark side of the spring-box. Although we do not
believe this situation will result in the loss of the springsnail
population at Goat Tank Spring, the continued maintenance of this lid
likely prevents the population from realizing its full potential
productivity.
Summary of Factor A: We have identified a number of impacts to the
San Bernardino springsnail's habitat, which have operated in the past
or that could impact the species in the foreseeable future. On the
basis of this analysis, the potential use of fire retardant chemicals
to fight wildfires, springhead inundation, and water depletion and
diversion could result in destruction, modification, or curtailment of
the San Bernardino springsnail's habitat throughout all of its range in
the foreseeable future.

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

Purposes
Like the Three Forks springnsail, the San Bernardino springsnail
has been subjected to a limited number of scientific studies aimed at
determining taxonomy, distribution, and habitat use. The impacts to
springsnails from collection are described under Factor B for the Three
Forks springsnail. At this

[[Page 23074]]

time, there is no documentation of collection being a significant
threat to the San Bernardino springsnail.
In summary, the best available information indicates that the San
Bernardino springsnail is not threatened by overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes now, and
we do not have any information to indicate that this will likely become
a significant threat in the foreseeable future in any portion of its
range.

C. Disease or Predation

We have no information regarding parasites on the San Bernardino
springsnail. Also, we are unaware of the presence of nonnative
predators within springs occupied by the San Bernardino springsnail.
Field surveys have not detected the presence of nonnative crayfish
within springs occupied by the San Bernardino springsnail, nor or we
aware of any information indicating that crayfish have or will
potentially invade the watersheds where the springsnail occurs.
Additionally, current management activities are conducted on the
private, State, and Federal lands to prevent the spread of nonnative
species. Therefore, we do not consider disease or predation to be
threats to the San Bernardino springsnail, now or in the future.

D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

In the proposed rule, we found the label restriction on
Rodeo[supreg] (glyphosate) inadequate to protect the San Bernardino
springsnail, because it does not restrict use within and near aquatic
sites (DowAgroSciences 2006, p. 11). However, the low toxicity rating
(as noted above in the Factor A discussion), and the fact that
Rodeo[supreg] is an aquatic formulation, explains the lack of
restrictions near aquatic sites. As such, we find the label restriction
is adequate to protect the springsnail. Even so, Rodeo[supreg] still
has the potential to negatively impact the springsnail if misused, but
we have no evidence that it is being misused or is impacting the
species. Although glyphosate is believed to be used on the John
Slaughter Ranch Museum property, we have no reliable information
regarding user application practices that would lead us to believe this
pesticide is a threat to the San Bernardino springsnail.
Take of 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 2010,
p. 29). Although Order 42 prohibits direct taking of individuals, it
does not prohibit habitat modification. The species is also identified
as a 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, this plan is not legally binding on any agency.
In Mexico, the Secretaria de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales
has authority to designate species as threatened, or ``Amenzadas,''
based on recommendations from the Instituto Nacional de
Ecolog[iacute]a. Based on the best available information, the San
Bernardino springsnail does not have special status in Mexico that
would protect it from water depletion and diversion, controlled
burning, or springhead inundation. Varela Romero and Myers (2010, p.
10) reported that these springsnails are not protected in Mexico,
except that Mexican Federal permits are required to intentionally
collect specimens for scientific study.
In summary, the primary factors likely to affect the San Bernardino
springsnail's continued existence include the fire retardant chemicals,
springhead inundation, and water depletion and diversion. Based on our
analysis of the best available information, current regulatory
mechanisms are inadequate to protect the San Bernardino springsnail's
habitat from these threats in the United States and Mexico.

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence

Invasive Competitors
The potential threat to springsnails from New Zealand mudsnails is
described under Factor E for the Three Forks springsnail. Although
invasion by New Zealand mudsnails is not considered an immediate
threat, they are spreading into Arizona from Utah. If New Zealand
mudsnails were to be spread into the spring systems harboring the San
Bernardino springsnail, the effect could be devastating. Additionally,
control would be difficult because mudsnails are small and cryptic, and
chemical treatment to eradicate them would also eradicate springsnails.
Because the New Zealand mudsnail can outcompete and replace native
springsnails, we consider this nonnative competitor to be a potential
threat to the San Bernardino springsnail's continued existence in the
foreseeable future.
Climate Change and Drought
The same potential effects of climate change described under Factor
E for the Three Forks springsnail apply to the San Bernardino
springsnail. Loss of water flow has already manifested itself within
the range of the San Bernardino springsnail, coinciding with extreme
drought in the case of Snail Spring. Continued drying related to
drought will likely exacerbate potential drying of springs and may lead
to population declines and localized extirpations. In addition to loss
of water flow, continued drying trends could exacerbate the terrestrial
spread of buffelgrass, making San Bernardino springsnail habitats
vulnerable to wildfires in the future. As such, we find that climate
change and drought could threaten the San Bernardino springsnail in the
future throughout its entire range.
Endemism
The increased vulnerability posed by endemism as described under
Factor E for the Three Forks springsnail applies to the San Bernardino
springsnail. Basically, the San Bernardino springsnail has suffered
reductions in overall distribution and abundance, as evidenced at Snail
Spring and Los Ojitos. We consider the San Bernardino springsnail to be
an endemic species, because it only occurs at two sites in the United
States and five sites in Mexico. Also, their populations are very
restricted in distribution, have limited mobility, and are strictly
aquatic specialists of spring ecosystems. Endemism is not a threat to
the species in and of itself, but the San Bernardino springsnail's
endemic nature may make them more vulnerable to extinction from other
potential threats in the future.

Listing Determination for the San Bernardino Springsnail

[[Page 23075]]

threatened under the Act, rather than endangered, because significant
threats are not operative now, but are likely to cause the species to
become in danger of extinction in the foreseeable future. Thus the San
Bernardino springsnail meets the definition of a threatened species,
because it is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
Based on the best scientific and commercial information available
regarding the threats to the species, we have found that threats do not
rise to the level such that the San Bernardino springsnail is in danger
of extinction now. However, significant threats may rise to a level in
the foreseeable future that the species is likely to become an
endangered species throughout all or a significant portion of its
range. The species' habitat is likely to be threatened in the
foreseeable future with destruction, modification, and curtailment in
part of its range due to the potential use of fire retardant chemicals
in the United States, and throughout its entire range in both the
United States and Mexico due to potential springhead inundation, and
water depletion and diversion. Also, we found that the San Bernardino
springsnail is likely to become in danger of extinction in the
foreseeable future throughout its entire range due to the potential
invasion and predation by nonnative crayfish, invasion and competition
with New Zealand springsnails, and climate change and drought drying
its springhead habitat. Due to the species' endemic nature, the San
Bernardino springsnail may be more vulnerable to extinction in the
foreseeable future from these potential threats throughout its entire
range.
Unlike the Three Forks springsnail, there are more currently
occupied sites with San Bernardino springsnail populations, and the
current severe threats of fire and crayfish predation identified for
the Three Forks springsnail are not currently operative on the San
Bernardino springsnail. The site locations in the United States for the
two species are separated by over 125 mi (200 km); the environmental
conditions are different for the two species (i.e. landscape setting),
and the threat type, magnitude, and immediacy are different for the
two. Therefore, while the Three Forks springsnail meets the definition
of an endangered species under the Act, we have determined that the San
Bernardino springsnail meets the definition of threatened under the
Act, rather than endangered, because significant threats are not
immediately affecting the species and are not at a high enough
magnitude that they are causing the species to be presently in danger
of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may
warrant listing if it is endangered or threatened throughout all or a
significant portion of its range. The San Bernardino springsnail is an
endemic species occurring at two sites in the United States and five
sites in Mexico. We find that all threats to the San Bernardino
springsnail could potentially occur throughout its entire range in the
foreseeable future. Accordingly, our assessment and determination
applies to the species throughout its 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 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 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 (comprising 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, nongovernmental 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.
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. Information on our grant programs that
are available to aid species recovery can be found at: http://www.fws.gov/grants.
Please let us know if you are interested in participating in
recovery efforts for the Three Forks springsnail and the San Bernardino
springsnail. Additionally, we invite you to submit any new information
on these 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

[[Page 23076]]

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. A
captive refugium for Three Forks springsnail has been established at
the Phoenix Zoo, in coordination with USFS and AGFD. We intend to
continue working with the USFS, AGFD, the Phoenix Zoo, and a private
landowner who owns property near Boneyard Bog Springs to develop
conservation actions for the Three Forks springsnail.
Efforts to rehabilitate habitat on the San Bernardino NWR at Tule
Spring were initiated (Service 2003, p. 2), with the intention of
potentially introducing San Bernardino springsnails. However, the
inconsistency of water flow complicated the habitat reestablishment
effort. There was not enough free-flowing water to support San
Bernardino springsnail reintroduction at Tule Spring. The San
Bernardino NWR is currently looking for opportunities to augment the
water supply to complete the habitat restoration efforts at Tule Spring
and reintroduce springsnails. Also, the Service is seeking to acquire,
through donation, the John Slaughter Ranch Museum 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 is
continuing to work with AGFD and the John Slaughter Ranch Museum to
develop conservation actions for the San Bernardino springsnail,
including the development of a domestic water well to augment surface
water flow.
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 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 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) 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 or 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 or 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:
(1) 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
(a) Essential to the conservation of the species and
(b) Which may require special management considerations or
protection; and
(2) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by 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.

[[Page 23077]]

Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act
through the requirement that Federal agencies ensure, in consultation
with the Service, that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is
not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat. The designation of critical habitat does not affect
land ownership or establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or
other conservation area. Such designation does not allow the government
or public to access private lands. Such designation does not require
implementation of restoration, recovery, or enhancement measures by
non-Federal landowners. Where a landowner requests Federal agency
funding or authorization for an action that may affect a listed species
or critical habitat, the consultation requirements of section 7(a)(2)
of the Act would apply, but even in the event of a destruction or
adverse modification finding, the obligation of the Federal action
agency and the landowner is not to restore or recover the species, but
to implement reasonable and prudent alternatives to avoid destruction
or adverse modification of critical habitat.
Under the first prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat,
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time
it was listed are included in a critical habitat designation if they
contain physical or biological features (1) which are essential to the
conservation of the species and (2) which may require special
management considerations or protection. For these areas, critical
habitat designations identify, to the extent known using the best
scientific and commercial data available, those physical or biological
features that are essential to the conservation of the species (such as
space, food, cover, and protected habitat). In identifying those
physical and biological features within an area, we focus on the
principal biological or physical constituent elements (primary
constituent elements, such as roost sites, nesting grounds, seasonal
wetlands, water quality, tide, soil type) that are essential to the
conservation of the species. Primary constituent elements are the
specific elements of physical or biological features that, together,
provide for a species' life-history processes and are essential to the
conservation of the species.
Under the second prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat,
we can designate critical habitat in areas outside the geographical
area occupied by the species at the time it is listed, upon a
determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the
species. For example, an area currently occupied by the species, but
that was not occupied at the time of listing, may be essential to the
conservation of the species and may be included in the critical habitat
designation. We designate critical habitat in areas outside the
geographical area occupied by a species at its time of listing only
when a designation limited to its then current range would be
inadequate to ensure the conservation of the species.
Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on
the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.
Further, our Policy on Information Standards Under the Endangered
Species Act (published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR
34271)), the Information Quality Act (section 515 of the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L.
106-554; H.R. 5658)), and our associated Information Quality
Guidelines, provide criteria, establish procedures, and provide
guidance to ensure that our decisions are based on the best scientific
data available. They require our biologists, to the extent consistent
with the Act and with the use of the best scientific data available, to
use primary and original sources of information as the basis for
recommendations to designate critical habitat.
When we are determining which areas should be designated as
critical habitat, our primary source of information is generally the
information developed during the listing process for the species.
Additional information sources may include the recovery plan for the
species, articles in peer-reviewed journals, conservation plans
developed by States and counties, scientific status surveys and
studies, biological assessments, other unpublished materials, or
experts' opinions or personal knowledge.
Habitat is dynamic, and species may move from one area to another
over time. We recognize that critical habitat designated at a
particular point in time may not include all of the habitat areas that
we may later determine are necessary for the recovery of the species.
For these reasons, a critical habitat designation does not signal that
habitat outside the designated area is unimportant or may not be needed
for recovery of the species. Areas that are important to the
conservation of the species, both inside and outside the critical
habitat designation, will continue to be subject to: (1) Conservation
actions implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act, (2) regulatory
protections afforded by the requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act
for Federal agencies to insure their actions are not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened
species, and (3) the prohibitions of section 9 of the Act if actions
occurring in these areas may affect the species. Federally funded or
permitted projects affecting listed species outside their designated
critical habitat areas may still result in jeopardy findings in some
cases. These protections and conservation tools will continue to
contribute to recovery of this species. Similarly, critical habitat
designations made on the basis of the best available information at the
time of designation will not control the direction and substance of
future recovery plans, habitat conservation plans (HCPs), or other
species conservation planning efforts if new information available at
the time of these planning efforts calls for a different outcome.

Physical or Biological Features

In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) and 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act and
regulations at 50 CFR 424.12, in determining which areas within the
geographical area occupied at the time of listing to designate as
critical habitat, we consider the physical or biological features
(PBFs) 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 PBFs from studies of the species' habitats,
ecology, and life history as described below. We have determined that
the Three Forks springsnail and San Bernardino springsnail require the
following physical or 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 free-flowing springs and spring runs. Within
spring ecosystems, proximity to springheads is important due to their
need for

[[Page 23078]]

appropriate water chemistry, substrate, and flow characteristics of
springheads. The Three Forks springsnail inhabits free-flowing springs,
concrete boxed springheads, spring runs, spring seeps, and shallow pond
water. In the United States, the San Bernardino springsnail inhabits
free-flowing springs, a concrete boxed springhead, and spring runs.
Therefore, based on the information above, we identify free-flowing
springs, spring runs, spring seeps, and shallow pond water to be
physical or biological features for both species.
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 Rogowski 2011, p. 220; Martinez and Myers
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). Flowing water is essential to provide for the
species' life-history processes.
The density of San Bernardino springsnails is positively associated
with cobble substrates, higher vegetation density, faster water
velocity, higher dissolved oxygen, water temperature of 57 to 72 [deg]F
(14 to 22 [deg]C), 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). Flowing water is essential to
provide for the species' life-history processes.
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. Production of
periphyton is essential to provide forage to support physiological
health. Therefore, based on the information above, we identify
substrates with periphyton to be a physical or biological feature for
both species.
Cover and Shelter
Three Forks springsnail and San Bernardino springsnail utilize
cobble, gravel, sand, woody debris, aquatic vegetation, and leaf matter
for cover and shelter. These features are necessary to provide some
protection from predators and competitors. Therefore, we identify
cobble, gravel, sand, woody debris, aquatic vegetation, and leaf matter
for cover and shelter to be a physical or biological feature for both
species.
Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, and Rearing and Development of
Offspring
Substrate characteristics can 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. Therefore, based on the
information above, we identify substrates with cobble, gravel, pebble,
sand, silt, and aquatic vegetation, for egg laying, maturing, feeding,
and escape from predators to be physical or biological features for
both species.
Habitats That Are Protected From Disturbance or Are 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 nonrandom catastrophic natural or
human-caused events. Therefore, it is essential to maintain the spring
systems upon which the species' depend. Adequate spring sites, free of
disturbance, must exist to promote population expansion and viability.
This means reasonable protection from disturbance caused by soil
erosion following wildfires, exposure to fire retardant, water
depletion and diversion, springhead inundation, and nonnative species.
Therefore, based on the information above, we identify spring sites
free of disturbance to be a physical or biological feature for both
species.

Primary Constituent Elements for the Three Forks and San Bernardino
Springsnails

Under the Act and its implementing regulations, we are required to
identify the physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the Three Forks springsnail and San Bernardino
springsnail in areas occupied at the time of listing, focusing on the
features' primary constituent elements. We consider primary constituent
elements to be the specific elements of physical or biological features
that, together, provide for a species' life-history processes and are
essential to the conservation of the species.
Based on the above needs and our current knowledge of the life
history, biology, and ecology of these species and the habitat
requirements for sustaining the essential life-history functions of
these species, we have determined that the PCEs specific to the Three
Forks springsnail and San Bernardino springsnail 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 specific
areas within the geographic area occupied by the species at the time of
listing contain features that are essential to the conservation of the
species and which may require special management considerations or
protections. The features essential to the conservation of the Three
Forks springsnail and San Bernardino springsnail may require special
management considerations or protections to reduce the following
threats: Soil erosion following high-intensity wildfires, exposure to
fire retardant, springhead inundation, water depletion and diversion,
and the introduction of nonnative predators and competitors.
For these springsnails, special management considerations or
protection are needed both within and outside of critical habitat areas
to

[[Page 23079]]

address threats. Management activities that could ameliorate threats
include (but are not limited to) protecting against: (1) Wildfire and
fire retardant used to fight wildfires, (2) predation by nonnative
crayfish, (3) water depletion and diversion, (4) potential competition
from nonnative New Zealand mudsnails or predation by nonnative
crayfish, and (5) harm from livestock and other ungulates through
fencing to protect spring habitats from damage. Special management is
also needed for the purposes of adaptive management, and includes
continuing to conduct research on the springsnails, and on critical
aspects of their biology (for example, reproduction, sources of
mortality, sensitivity to contaminants, dispersal behavior, anti-
predator behavior, etc.).

Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat

As required by section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act, we used the best
scientific and commercial data available to designate critical habitat.
We reviewed available information pertaining to the habitat
requirements of the Three Forks springsnail and San Bernardino
springsnail. In accordance with the Act and its implementing regulation
at 50 CFR 424.12(e), we considered whether designating additional
areas--outside those currently occupied as well as those occupied at
the time of listing--are necessary to ensure the conservation of the
species. We are designating critical habitat in areas within the
geographical area occupied by the species at the time of this final
listing rule. We also are designating specific areas outside the
geographical area occupied by the species at the time of this final
listing rule that were historically occupied, but are presently
unoccupied, because we have determined that such areas are essential
for the conservation of the species. We are designating all habitat in
the United States containing PCEs that we consider to be currently
occupied, and unoccupied springs that are essential for the
conservation of the species. We are not designating critical habitat in
Sonora, Mexico, 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, and used this
information to identify which areas to designate as critical 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 egg-
laying, maturing, feeding, and escape from predators; and absence or
tolerable levels of nonnative predators and competitors. The areas
designated as critical habitat for the Three Forks springsnail and the
San Bernardino springsnail contain these PCEs that are essential to
these life-history processes of the species.
Units were designated based on sufficient elements of physical or
biological features being present to support the Three Forks
springsnail's and San Bernardino springsnail's life-history processes.
Some units contain all of the identified elements of physical or
biological features and supported multiple life processes. Some units
contain only some elements of the physical or biological features
necessary to support the Three Forks springsnail's and San Bernardino
springsnail's particular use of that habitat. Each specific area will
be described below, including a discussion of why that area meets the
definition of critical habitat.
When determining critical habitat boundaries within this final
rule, we made every effort to avoid including developed areas such as
lands covered by buildings, pavement, and other structures because such
lands lack physical or biological features for the Three Forks
springsnail and San Bernardino springsnail. The scale of the maps we
prepared under the parameters for publication within the Code of
Federal Regulations may not reflect the exclusion of such developed
lands. Any such lands inadvertently left inside critical habitat
boundaries shown on the maps of this final rule have been excluded by
text in the rule and are not designated as critical habitat. Therefore,
a Federal action involving these lands will not trigger a section 7
consultation with respect to critical habitat and the requirement of no
adverse modification unless the specific action would affect the
physical or biological features in the adjacent critical habitat.

Final Critical Habitat Designation

For the Three Forks springsnail, we are designating critical
habitat in two areas currently occupied, and one area currently
unoccupied by the species, but considered to have been historically
occupied. We have determined that the unoccupied unit, Three Forks
Springs, is essential for the conservation of the species, because the
geographic area occupied at the time of this final listing rule is not
sufficient for recovery. The currently occupied areas represent a
portion of the former range and are vulnerable to a single catastrophic
event. 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).
For the San Bernardino springsnail, we are designating critical
habitat in two springs currently occupied and two springs not currently
occupied by the species. The unoccupied springs are essential to the
conservation of the species, because the geographic area that is
currently occupied is not sufficient for recovery. Even though five
additional sites have been recently discovered in Sonora, Mexico, there
are currently only two occupied units in the United States and all
seven sites where the species occurs are close enough in they are
vulnerable to a single catastrophic event. So, we are designating the
unoccupied units of Snail and Tule Springs to increase species'
redundancy, resiliency, and representation. (Resiliency of a species
allows the species to recover from periodic disturbance. Redundancy of
populations may be needed to provide a margin of safety for the species
to withstand catastrophic events. Adequate representation ensures that
the species' adaptive capabilities are conserved and genetic diversity
is maintained.)
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 3 summarizes the threats and current occupancy of
the designated critical habitat units. Table 4 provides approximate
areas (ac/ha) and land ownership of the units.

[[Page 23080]]

Table 3--Threats and Occupancy in Areas Containing Features Essential to the Conservation of the Three Forks and
San Bernardino Springsnails
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Threats requiring special management or
Critical habitat unit protections Currently occupied
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Three Forks springsnail
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Three Forks Springs Unit................. Soil erosion following wildfires, fire No.
retardant use, nonnative predators,
drought, and potential introduction of
nonnative snails.
Boneyard Bog Springs Unit................ Soil erosion following wildfires, fire Yes.
retardant use, nonnative predators,
drought, and potential introduction of
nonnative snails.
Boneyard Creek Springs Unit.............. Soil erosion following wildfires, fire Yes.
retardant use, nonnative predators,
drought, and potential introduction of
nonnative snails.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
San Bernardino springsnail
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Snail Spring Unit........................ Water depletion, drought, potential No.
introduction of nonnative snails, and
potential exposure to fire retardant
chemicals through wind drift.
Goat Tank Spring Unit.................... Water depletion, drought, potential Yes.
introduction of nonnative snails, and
potential exposure to fire retardant
chemicals through wind drift.
Horse Spring Unit........................ Water depletion, drought, potential Yes.
introduction of nonnative snails, and
potential exposure to fire retardant
chemicals through wind drift.
Tule Spring Unit......................... Fire retardant use, water depletion, No.
drought, and potential introduction of
nonnative snails.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 4--Ownership and Approximate Area of Critical Habitat Units for the Three Forks and San Berdardino
Springsnails
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Critical habitat unit Ownership Total area in acres (hectares)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Three Forks springsnail
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Three Forks Springs Unit................. Federal..................... 6.1 ac (2.5 ha)
Boneyard Bog Springs Unit................ Federal..................... 5.3 ac (2.1 ha)
Boneyard Creek Springs Unit.............. Federal..................... 5.8 ac (2.3 ha)
----------------------------------------
Total................................ ............................ 17.2 ac (6.9 ha)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
San Bernardino springsnail
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Snail Spring Unit........................ State....................... 1.129 ac (0.457 ha)
Goat Tank Spring Unit.................... State....................... 0.005 ac (0.002 ha)
Horse Spring Unit........................ State....................... 0.078 ac (0.032 ha)
Tule Spring Unit......................... Federal..................... 0.801 ac (0.324 ha)
----------------------------------------
Total................................ ............................ 2.013 ac (0.815 ha)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We present brief descriptions of all units, and reasons why they
meet the definition of critical habitat for the Three Forks springsnail
and San Bernardino springsnail, below. Unit descriptions are presented
separately for each species.

Three Forks Springsnail

Three Forks Springs Unit
The 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 a single,
contiguous unit of approximately 6.1 ac (2.5 ha) in the vicinity of UTM
Zone 12 coordinate 655710, 3747260 in Apache County, Arizona. The
entire unit is in Federal ownership and managed by the Apache-
Sitgreaves National Forests. The unit encompasses eight major
springheads and spring runs, each flowing a short distance of several
meters to an unnamed tributary of the Black River. Two of the spring
runs flow into a shallow pond and has an outflow run to the unnamed
tributary. The springs complex contains spring seeps along the spring
runs and the tributary. The tributary itself provides habitat
connectivity. The area within the designated 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 3.3 ft (1.0 m) from surface water)
produce periphyton (food for snails) and protect the substrate.
Currently, the Three Forks Springs Unit is not occupied. However,
the Three Forks Springs' first documented occupancy was in 1973 (Landye
1973, p. 49), and the species was abundant here until 2004 (AGFD 2008,
entire), at which time the waters are suspected to have been
contaminated by wildfire retardant drift. The last documented
occurrence of the Three Forks springsnail at Three Forks Springs was in
2003 (AGFD 2008, entire). Fire retardant becomes nontoxic within a few
days of contact with water, so currently, the Three Forks Springs Unit
contains all of the PCEs. The unit is essential for the conservation of
the species, because: (1) It has the ability to support all of the
Three Forks springsnail life processes, (2) the geographic area
occupied at the time of this final listing rule is not sufficient for
recovery, and (3) it increases the species' population redundancy.
There are only two currently occupied areas representing a portion of
the species' former range, and these two small areas

[[Page 23081]]

cause the species to be vulnerable to extinction from a single,
catastrophic event.
Threats to the Three Forks springsnail in this unit include the
soil erosion following wildfires, fire retardant chemicals, drought,
nonnative crayfish, and potential introduction of nonnative New Zealand
mudsnails.
Boneyard Bog Springs Unit
The Boneyard Bog Springs Unit is a complex of springs, spring runs,
spring seeps, and the segment of Boneyard Creek connecting them, and a
small amount of upland area encircling them to make them a single unit
of approximately 5.3 ac (2.1 ha), in the vicinity of UTM Zone 12
coordinate 659970, 3750730, in Apache County, Arizona. The entire unit
is in Federal ownership and managed by the Apache-Sitgreaves National
Forests. The unit encompasses eight major springheads and spring runs,
each of which flows several yards (meters) to Boneyard Creek, a
tributary of the Black River. The spring complex contains spring seeps
along the spring runs and the tributary. We are designating a
contiguous critical habitat unit that includes the springheads, spring
runs, seeps, and that portion of Boneyard Creek that connects the
spring runs. Boneyard Creek is occupied where spring seeps are present
along it, and the unit will provide for springsnail movement
downstream, and is essential for habitat connectivity. This unit
contains approximately 3.3 ft (1.0 m) in width of upland area on each
side of the springheads, spring runs, spring seeps, and tributary
segment, because the moist soils and vegetation in the adjacent uplands
provide food for the snails.
This unit is currently occupied and contains all the PBFs essential
for the conservation of the species. Also, the PBFs that may require
special management are adequately flowing springs, runs, and seeps that
are free of contaminants and disturbance from nonnative species.
Special management is needed to protect against the threats of
wildfire, fire retardant used to fight wildfires, elk wallowing,
predation by nonnative crayfish, drought, and potential competition
from nonnative New Zealand mudsnails.
Boneyard Creek Springs Unit
The Boneyard Creek Springs Unit is a complex of springs, spring
runs, spring seeps, and the segment of Boneyard Creek connecting them,
and a small amount of upland area encompassing them, in a single,
contiguous unit of approximately 5.8 ac (2.3 ha), in the vicinity of
UTM Zone 12 coordinate 658300, 3749790, in Apache County, Arizona. The
entire unit is in Federal ownership and managed by the Apache-
Sitgreaves National Forests. The unit encompasses at least 11 major
springheads and spring runs, which each flow a distance of several
meters (yards) to Boneyard Creek, a tributary of the Black River. The
spring complex contains spring seeps along the spring runs and the
tributary. We are designating as critical habitat a contiguous unit
that includes the springheads, spring runs, seeps, and that portion of
Boneyard Creek that connects the spring runs. Boneyard Creek is
occupied where there are spring seeps along it, and it should provide
for springsnail movement downstream and is essential for habitat
connectivity. The area within the unit contains approximately 3.3 ft
(1.0 m) in width of upland area on each side of the springheads, spring
runs, spring seeps, and tributary segment. The moist soils and
vegetation in the adjacent uplands produce food for the snails and
protect the substrate they use.
The Boneyard Creek Springs Unit is currently occupied and contains
all the PBFs essential for the conservation of the species. The PBFs
that may require special management are adequately flowing springs,
runs, and seeps that are free of contaminants and disturbance from
nonnative species. Threats to the Three Forks springsnail in this unit
that may require special management include wildfire, fire retardant
used to fight wildfires, predation by nonnative crayfish, drought, and
potential competition from nonnative New Zealand mudsnails.

San Bernardino Springsnail

Snail Spring Unit
The Snail Spring Unit encompasses 1.129 ac (0.457 ha) in Cochise
County, Arizona. The entire unit is owned by the State of Arizona and
managed by the John Slaughter Ranch Museum. The spring is approximately
16 ft (5 m) in diameter, and has a spring run that goes south from the
spring approximately 77 ft (23 m) to a manmade ditch, which runs 34 ft
(10 m) to a dirt road. It passes under the road in a 12-ft (4-m)
culvert, then flows approximately 56 ft (17 m) below the road. We are
not designating the road as critical habitat, but we are designating
the culvert beneath the road, because it contains flowing water that
provides PCE 1. The spring and spring run down to the ditch are dry and
unoccupied, though they contain PCE 3, substrate. The ditch is
unoccupied, though all the PCEs are present. We are including as part
of this critical habitat designation a 3.3-ft (1-m) upland area on each
side of the spring, spring run and ditch, because moist soils and
upland vegetation are necessary to 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 critical habitat is the spring,
spring run, ditch and buffer within the 249-ft (76-m) diameter circle
centered on UTM coordinate 663858, 3468182 in Zone 12.
The Snail Spring Unit is currently unoccupied by the San Bernardino
springsnail, but it was historically occupied. This Snail Spring Unit
is essential for the conservation of the species, because it will
provide population redundancy following future reintroduction of the
species.
Goat Tank Spring Unit
This unit encompasses 0.005 ac (0.002 ha) in Cochise County,
Arizona. The entire unit is in State ownership and managed by the John
Slaughter Ranch Museum. The spring is contained within a square
concrete box approximately 2 ft by 3 ft (0.6 m by 0.9 m). There is also
some spring seepage emanating from the base of a cottonwood tree about
6.6 ft (2 m) from the spring-box. We are designating as critical
habitat a 3.3-ft (1-m) upland area on each side of the springbox and
spring seepage, because it has moist soils and vegetation that produces
food for the snails and protects the substrate the snails use. Because
of the small size of the spring-box 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 critical
habitat designation is the spring-box, spring seepage, and buffer
within the 16-ft (5-m) diameter circle centered on UTM coordinate
663725, 3468162 in Zone 12.
This unit is occupied at the time of this final listing rule, and
contains all the PBFs essential for the conservation of the species.
The PBFs which may require special management are free-flowing springs
and habitat free of disturbance from nonnative competitors. Threats to
the San Bernardino springsnail in this unit that may require special
management include water depletion and drought. Water depletion has
affected the species with a loss of flowing water at nearby

[[Page 23082]]

Snail Spring in the recent past (Cox et al. 2007, p. 2; Smith et al.
2003, p. 1; Malcom et al. 2003, p. 18). Also, potential threats may be
posed by nonnative snails, should they be introduced, and by fire
retardant chemicals, should they be applied in other portions of the
San Bernardino Valley and carried into this unit by wind drift.
Horse Spring Unit
This unit encompasses 0.078 ac (0.032 ha) in Cochise County,
Arizona. The entire unit is State-owned and managed by the John
Slaughter Ranch Museum. The spring emerges from a PVC pipe, which is
enclosed in a spring-box, and water flows out in a spring-run that is
approximately 1.6 ft (0.5 m) wide and 51 ft (16 m) in length. We are
designating as critical habitat a 3.3-ft (1-m) buffer of upland area on
each side of the springhead and spring-run, 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
spring-run, 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 designated critical habitat is the spring-box,
spring seepage, and buffer within the 66 ft (20 m) diameter circle
centered on UTM coordinate 663772, 3468091 in Zone 12.
The Horse Spring Unit is occupied at the time of this listing, and
contains all the PBFs essential for the conservation of the species.
The PBFs which may require special management are free-flowing springs
and habitat free of disturbance from nonnative competitors. Threats to
the San Bernardino springsnail in this unit that may require special
management include groundwater depletion and drought. 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 may threaten this site
in the future. Also, potential threats may be posed by nonnative
snails, should they be introduced, and by fire retardant chemicals,
should they be applied in other portions of the San Bernardino Valley
and carried into this unit by wind drift.
Tule Spring Unit
This unit encompasses 0.801 ac (0.324 ha) in Cochise County,
Arizona. The entire unit is in Federal ownership and managed by the San
Bernardino NWR. The spring forms a pond approximately 75 ft (23 m)
north-south and 43 ft (13 m) east-west, and it has a spring-run that is
approximately 71 ft (22 m) in length. The spring run emerges from the
southeastern side of the spring pond, runs northeast for approximately
41 ft (13 m) to a manmade ditch, which runs southeast 30 ft (9 m). We
are designating as critical habitat a 3.3-ft (1-m) buffer of upland
area on each side of 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. Although there is a pond at this location, the
seeps where the water emerges are not located within the pond. The pond
is included in the designation, because, along with the spring, seeps,
spring run, ditch, and upland buffer, it comprises an inter-related,
functioning aquatic system important for the springsnails and the fish.
The water from the pond will maintain a springbrook, and the
springbrook will drain into other ponds.
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
critical habitat is the spring, spring-run, ditch and buffer within the
210-ft (64-m) diameter circle centered on UTM coordinate 664259,
3468499 in Zone 12.
The Tule Spring Unit is currently unoccupied by the San Bernardino
springsnail at the time of this listing, but is considered to have been
historically occupied (Malcom et al. 2003, p. 19), and shares a common
aquifer and similarities in water chemistry, temperature, and hydrology
with Snail Spring. We consider the Tule Spring Unit to be essential to
the conservation of the species, because it contains all the PCEs
necessary for the life-history processes, and it provides population
redundancy following future reintroduction of the species.
Threats to the San Bernardino springsnail in this unit include the
potential use of fire retardant chemicals, water depletion, drought,
and the potential introduction of nonnative snails.

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
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 may affect, or
are likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat.
When we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species 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:
(1) Can be implemented in a manner consistent with the intended
purpose of the action;
(2) Can be implemented consistent with the scope of the Federal
agency's legal authority and jurisdiction;
(3) Are economically and technologically feasible; and
(4) Would, in the Director's opinion, avoid jeopardizing the
continued existence of the listed species or

[[Page 23083]]

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 in the
United States, 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 designated as critical habitat.
(2) Actions that would result in the inundation of springheads
within the spring systems designated as critical habitat.
(3) Actions that would degrade water quality within the spring
systems designated as critical habitat.
(4) Actions that would reduce the availability of course, firm
aquatic substrates within the spring systems that are designated as
critical habitat.
(5) Actions that would reduce the occurrence of native aquatic
macrophytes, algae, and/or periphyton within the spring systems
designated 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 designated 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 resources management plan (INRMP) by
November 17, 2001. An INRMP integrates implementation of the military
mission of the installation with stewardship of the natural resources
found on the base. Each INRMP includes:
(1) An assessment of the ecological needs on the installation,
including the need to provide for the conservation of listed species;
(2) A statement of goals and priorities;
(3) A detailed description of management actions to be implemented
to provide for these ecological needs; and
(4) A monitoring and adaptive management plan.
Among other things, each INRMP must, to the extent appropriate and
applicable, provide for fish and wildlife management; fish and wildlife
habitat enhancement or modification; wetland protection, enhancement,
and restoration where necessary to support fish and wildlife; and
enforcement of applicable natural resource laws.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Pub.
L. 108-136) amended the Act to limit areas eligible for designation as
critical habitat. Specifically, section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (16
U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) now provides: ``The Secretary shall not
designate as critical habitat any lands or other geographical areas
owned or controlled by the Department of Defense (DOD), 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 DOD lands with a completed INRMP within the critical
habitat designation. Therefore, we are not exempting lands from this
final designation of critical habitat for the San Bernardino or Three
Forks springsnails pursuant to section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act.

Exclusions

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

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary must designate
and revise critical habitat on the basis of the best available
scientific data after taking into consideration the economic impact,
national security impact, and any other relevant impact of specifying
any

[[Page 23084]]

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. The statute on
its face, as well as the legislative history, is clear that the
Secretary has broad discretion regarding which factor(s) to use and how
much weight to give to any factor in making that determination.
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, the Secretary may exclude an area
from designated critical habitat based on economic impacts, impacts on
national security, or any other relevant impacts. In considering
whether to exclude a particular area from the designation, we identify
the benefits of including the area in the designation, identify the
benefits of excluding the area from the designation, and evaluate
whether the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion.
If the analysis indicates that the benefits of exclusion outweigh the
benefits of inclusion, the Secretary may exercise his discretion to
exclude the area only if such exclusion would not result in the
extinction of the species.
Exclusions Based on Economic Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider the economic impacts
of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. In order to
consider economic impacts, we prepared a draft economic analysis of the
proposed critical habitat designation and related factors (Industrial
Economics 2011). The draft economic analysis, dated October 24, 2011,
was made available for public review on November 17, 2011 (76 FR
71300). We accepted comments on the draft analysis until December 19,
2011. Following the close of the comment periods, a final analysis of
the potential economic effects of the designation was completed on
January 11, 2012, taking into consideration the public comments and any
new information (Industrial Economics 2012).
The intent of the final economic analysis (FEA) is to quantify the
economic impacts of all potential conservation efforts for Three Forks
springsnail and San Bernardino springsnail; some of these costs will
likely be incurred regardless of whether we designate critical habitat
(baseline). The economic impact of the final critical habitat
designation is analyzed by comparing scenarios both ``with critical
habitat'' and ``without critical habitat.'' The ``without critical
habitat'' scenario represents the baseline for the analysis,
considering protections already in place for the species (e.g., under
the Federal listing and other Federal, State, and local regulations).
The baseline, therefore, represents the costs incurred regardless of
whether critical habitat is designated. The ``with critical habitat''
scenario describes the incremental impacts associated specifically with
the designation of critical habitat for the species. The incremental
conservation efforts and associated impacts are those not expected to
occur absent the designation of critical habitat for the species. In
other words, the incremental costs are those attributable solely to the
designation of critical habitat above and beyond the baseline costs;
these are the costs we consider in the final designation of critical
habitat. The analysis forecasts both baseline and incremental impacts
likely to occur with the designation of critical habitat.
The FEA also addresses how potential economic impacts are likely to
be distributed, including an assessment of any local or regional
impacts of habitat conservation and the potential effects of
conservation activities on government agencies, private businesses, and
individuals. The FEA measures lost economic efficiency associated with
residential and commercial development and public projects and
activities, such as economic impacts on water management and
transportation projects, Federal lands, small entities, and the energy
industry. Decision-makers can use this information to assess whether
the effects of the designation might unduly burden a particular group
or economic sector. Finally, the FEA considers economic impacts to
activities from 2012 (the year of this final critical habitat
designation) through 2024 (the length of guidance and information for
project and activity decisionmaking for the Apache-Sitgreaves National
Forest's Land Management Plan). The FEA quantifies economic impacts of
Three Forks springsnail and San Bernardino springsnail conservation
efforts associated with the following categories of activity: pesticide
use, wildfire suppression, and ungulate grazing (Industrial Economics
2012, p. ES-1).
Only minor administrative impacts are likely to result from the
designation of critical habitat. This result is attributed to several
factors, including: (1) Four of the seven proposed units already
receive extensive protection from the Federal agencies managing the
parcels; (2) three of the four federally-owned units are occupied, and
thus, will require consultation regardless of the designation; (3)
reintroduction of the San Bernardino springsnail to the unoccupied
units is planned regardless of critical habitat designation; and (4)
project modifications necessary to avoid adverse modification are
indistinguishable from those necessary to avoid jeopardizing the
species, because the species' existence heavily depends upon the spring
systems in which they occur.
We anticipate seven potential section 7 consultations related to
activities on federally managed lands. Both the Apache-Sitgreaves
National Forests and San Bernardino NWR will need to address the
springsnails in their management plans to prevent adverse modification
of these units. Given the presence of springsnails in the Apache-
Sitgreaves National Forests, the five consultations would occur without
the designation. We anticipate the U.S. Forest Service will reinitiate
two programmatic consultations, one for the Apache-Sitgreaves National
Forests' Management Plan, and one for its nationwide plan on the use of
fire retardants across national forests. Additionally, we anticipate up
to three formal consultations, one for the response to the 2011 Wallow
Fire, one for potential long-term burn area rehabilitation after the
Wallow Fire, and one for salvaging trees within the fire perimeter.
Incremental impacts are limited to the additional administrative costs
(approximately $48,500) of considering the potential for the plans and
projects to adversely modify critical habitat.
The San Bernardino NWR will likely reinitiate one programmatic
consultation with the Service regarding its management plan, and
participate in one formal consultation to reintroduce the springsnail
to the Tule Spring Unit. Because the Service plans to reintroduce the
springsnail at this site regardless of whether critical habitat is
designated, incremental costs are limited to the administrative costs
($22,200) of considering adverse modification during the consultations.
Because we do not have information regarding the timing of likely
consultations, we conservatively assume costs are incurred immediately
following promulgation of this final rule. Total undiscounted costs are
$70,700. In conformance with the Office of Management and Budget
guidance, we also report present-value impacts and impacts on an
annualized basis applying real discount rates of 3 and 7 percent. No
small entities are anticipated to be affected by the designation. Also,
we do not anticipate

[[Page 23085]]

impacts to the supply, distribution, or use of energy related to this
critical habitat designation.
Our economic analysis did not identify any disproportionate costs
that are likely to result from the designation. Consequently, the
Secretary is not exerting his discretion to exclude any areas from this
designation of critical habitat for the Three Forks and San Bernardino
springsnails based on economic impacts. A copy of the final economic
analysis with supporting documents may be obtained by contacting the
Arizona Ecological Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES) or by
downloading from the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.
Exclusions Based on National Security Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider whether there are
lands owned or managed by the DOD where a national security impact
might exist. In preparing this rule, we have determined that the lands
within the designated critical habitat for the Three Forks and San
Bernardino springsnails are not owned or managed by the DOD, and
therefore, anticipate no impact to national security. There are no
areas excluded 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 determined that the designation does not include any Tribal
lands. We anticipate no impact to Tribal lands, partnerships, or HCPs
from this critical habitat designation. Additionally, there are
currently no conservation plans for the private lands containing
springs occupied by the San Bernardino springsnail. Accordingly, the
Secretary is not exercising his discretion to exclude any areas from
this designation based on other relevant impacts.

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. The 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. In this final rule,
we are certifying that the critical habitat designations for Three
Forks and San Bernardino springsnails will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The
following discussion explains our rationale.
According to the Small Business Administration, small entities
include small organizations, such as independent nonprofit
organizations; small governmental jurisdictions, including school
boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000
residents; as well as small businesses. Small businesses include
manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than 500 employees,
wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees, retail and
service businesses with less than $5 million in annual sales, general
and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5 million in
annual business, special trade contractors doing less than $11.5
million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with annual
sales less than $750,000. To determine if potential economic impacts to
these small entities are significant, we consider the types of
activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under this rule, as
well as the types of project modifications that may result. In general,
the term ``significant economic impact'' is meant to apply to a typical
small business firm's business operations.
To determine if the rule could significantly affect a substantial
number of small entities, we consider the number of small businesses
affected within particular types of economic activities. In Appendix A
of the FEA, the analysis did not anticipate impacts to small entities
as a result of this designation. We apply the ``substantial number''
test individually to each industry to determine if certification is
appropriate. However, the SBREFA does not explicitly define
``substantial number'' or ``significant economic impact.''
Consequently, to assess whether a ``substantial number'' of small
entities is affected by this designation, this analysis considers the
relative number of small entities likely to be impacted in an area. In
some circumstances, especially with critical habitat designations of
limited extent, we may aggregate across all industries and consider
whether the total number of small entities affected is substantial. In
estimating the number of small entities potentially affected, we also
consider whether their activities have any Federal involvement.
Designation of critical habitat only affects activities authorized,
funded, or carried out by Federal agencies. Some kinds of activities
are unlikely to have any Federal involvement and so will not be
affected by critical habitat designation. In areas where the species is
present, Federal agencies already are required to consult with us under
section 7 of the Act on activities they authorize, fund, or carry out
that may affect the Three Forks springsnail. Federal agencies also must
consult with us if their activities may affect critical habitat.
Designation of critical habitat, therefore, could result in an
additional economic impact on small entities due to the requirement to
reinitiate consultation for ongoing Federal activities (see Application
of the

[[Page 23086]]

``Adverse Modification'' Standard section).
In our final economic analysis of the critical habitat designation,
we evaluated the potential economic effects on small business entities
resulting from conservation actions related to the listing of the
species and the designation of critical habitat. The analysis is based
on the estimated impacts associated with the rulemaking as described in
the analysis and evaluates the potential for economic impacts. We did
not anticipate any activities occurring within the next 13 years within
or adjacent to the critical habitat we are designating that could
potentially affect small businesses.
We determined from our analysis (Appendix A in FEA) that there will
be no additional economic impacts to small entities resulting from the
designation of critical habitat, because almost all of the potential
costs of modification of activities and conservation identified in the
economic analysis represent baseline costs that would be realized in
the absence of critical habitat. The economic analysis estimates the
overall annual incremental costs associated with the designation of
critical habitat to be very modest, at approximately $70,700. All of
these costs would derive from the added effort associated with
considering adverse modification in the context of section 7
consultations.
In summary, we considered whether this designation would result in
a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small
entities. Based on our analysis and currently available information, we
concluded that this rule will not result in a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, we are
certifying that the designation of critical habitat for Three Forks and
San Bernardino springsnails will not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities, and a regulatory flexibility
analysis is not required.

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use--Executive Order 13211

Executive Order 13211 (Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use) requires
agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking
certain actions. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has provided
guidance for implementing this Executive Order that outlines nine
outcomes that may constitute ``a significant adverse effect'' when
compared to not taking the regulatory action under consideration. As
none of the outcomes that may constitute ``a significant adverse
effect'' are relevant to this analysis, energy-related impacts within
the critical habitat designation are not anticipated. The economic
analysis finds that extraction, energy production, and distribution are
not expected to be affected (Industrial Economics 2012, p. A-8). Thus,
based on information in the economic analysis, energy-related impacts
associated with Three Forks and San Bernardino springsnail conservation
activities within critical habitat are not expected. As such, the
designation of critical habitat is not expected to significantly affect
energy supplies, distribution, or use. Therefore, this action is not a
significant energy action, and no Statement of Energy Effects is
required.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501
et seq.), we make the following findings:
(1) This final 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.
(2) 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.

Takings--Executive Order 12630

In accordance with E.O. 12630 (Government Actions and Interference
with Constitutionally Protected Private Property Rights), we have
analyzed the potential takings implications of designating critical
habitat for the Three Forks springsnail and San Bernardino springsnail
in a takings implications assessment. Critical habitat designation does
not affect landowner actions that do not require Federal funding or
permits, nor does it preclude development of habitat conservation
programs or issuance of incidental take permits to permit actions that
do require Federal funding or permits to go forward. The takings
implications assessment concludes that this designation of critical
habitat does not pose significant takings implications for lands within
or affected by the designation.

Federalism--Executive Order 13132

In accordance with E.O. 13132 (Federalism), this final rule does
not have significant Federalism effects. A

[[Page 23087]]

federalism impact summary statement is not required. In keeping with
Department of the Interior and Department of Commerce policy, we
requested information from, and coordinated development of, this final
critical habitat designation with appropriate State resource agencies
in Arizona. We received comments from AGFD and have addressed them in
the Summary of Comments and Recommendations section of this rule. The
designation of critical habitat on Federal 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
or 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--Executive Order 12988

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 are designating critical habitat in accordance
with the provisions of the Act. This final rule uses standard property
descriptions and identifies the physical or 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 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)

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

National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)

We have determined that environmental assessments and environmental
impact statements, as defined under the authority of the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not be
prepared in connection with listing a species as endangered or
threatened under the Endangered Species Act. We published a notice
outlining our reasons for this determination in the Federal Register on
October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).
It is our position that, outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to prepare
environmental analyses pursuant to NEPA in connection with designating
critical habitat under the Endangered Species Act. We published a
notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the Federal
Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). This position was upheld by
the U.S. Court of the Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Douglas County v.
Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied 516 U.S. 1042
(1996)).

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 designated critical habitat on Tribal lands for the Three Forks
springsnail and San Bernardino springsnail.

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).

Authors

The primary authors of this document are the staff members of the
Arizona Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

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

Regulation Promulgation

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

PART 17--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:

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

0
2. 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) * * *

[[Page 23088]]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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............. T ........... 17.95(f) NA
bernardina. Mexico (Sonora)....

* * * * * * *
Springsnail, Three Forks......... Pyrgulopsis U.S.A. (AZ)........ Entire............. E ........... 17.95(f) NA
trivialis.

* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
3. In Sec. 17.95, amend paragraph (f) by adding entries for ``San
Bernardino Springsnail (Pyrgulopsis bernardina)'' and ``Three Forks
Springsnail (Pyrgulopsis trivialis)'' after the entry for ``Koster's
Springsnail (Juturnia Kosteri) and Roswell's Springsnail (Pyrgulopsis
Roswellensis),'' 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,
Arizona, on the map in paragraph (5) of this entry.
(2) Within these areas, the primary constituent elements of the
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the
San Bernardino springsnail consist of four components:
(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 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) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures other than
the road culvert and concrete spring-boxes, which are included to
protect the water flowing within them.
(4) Critical habitat map units. Data layers defining 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 23089]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17AP12.044

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
(6) Snail Spring Unit contains approximately 0.457 ha (1.129 ac) in
Cochise County, Arizona. This critical habitat 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 a 1-m (3.3-ft) upland area on each
side of the spring, spring run, and ditch. The critical habitat unit 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 contains approximately 0.002 ha (0.005
ac) in Cochise County, Arizona. The unit is a spring contained entirely
within a square concrete box approximately 0.61 by 0.91 m (2 by 3 ft)
and spring seepage emanating from the base of a cottonwood tree about 2
m (7 ft) from the spring-box. This unit includes a 1-m (3.3-ft) upland
area on each side of the spring box and spring. The critical habitat is
the spring-box, spring seepage,

[[Page 23090]]

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 contains approximately 0.032 ha (0.078 ac) in
Cochise County, Arizona. 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 a 1-m (3.3-ft) upland area on each side of the springhead and
spring-run. The designated critical habitat unit is the spring-box,
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 contains approximately 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 22 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). This unit includes a 1-m (3.3-ft) upland
area on each side of the spring, spring run, and ditch. The designated
critical habitat unit 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.
(2) Within these areas, the primary constituent elements of the
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the
San Bernardino springsnail consist of four components:
(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) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures other than
concrete spring-boxes, which are included to protect the flowing 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:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 23091]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17AP12.045

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

[[Page 23092]]

(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 (2.1 ha; 5.3 ac). The Boneyard Bog
Springs 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): 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; 659904, 3750662; 659889, 3750669; 659885, 3750687; 659902,
3750702; 659919, 3750712; Thence returning to 659968, 3750753.
(8) Boneyard Creek Springs Unit (2.3 ha; 5.8 ac). The Boneyard
Creek Springs 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): 658758, 3750008; 658765,
3749996; 658763, 3749984; 658732, 3749975; 658714, 3749981; 658698,
3749968; 658661, 3749971; 658655, 3749981; 658655, 3749998; 658642,
3750000; 658638, 3750024; 658623, 3750034; 658606, 3750036; 658580,
3750029; 658568, 3750020; 658553, 3750013; 658537, 3750005; 658519,
3749993; 658507, 3749985; 658492, 3749992; 658479, 3749976; 658469,
3749960; 658467, 3749945; 658460, 3749935; 658452, 3749913; 658405,
3749863; 658371, 3749841; 658343, 3749805; 658312, 3749789; 658273,
3749741; 658272, 3749733; 658268, 3749725; 658261, 3749722; 658254,
3749720; 658242, 3749699; 658211, 3749682; 658184, 3749655; 658140,
3749634; 658119, 3749610; 658074, 3749624; 658024, 3749603; 657999,
3749549; 657932, 3749492; 657916, 3749492; 657904, 3749509; 657912,
3749527; 657933, 3749545; 657982, 3749559; 658020, 3749623; 658072,
3749642; 658111, 3749632; 658129, 3749649; 658174, 3749667; 658201,
3749691; 658223, 3749705; 658246, 3749743; 658311, 3749811; 658336,
3749826; 658403, 3749893; 658410, 3749904; 658420, 3749908; 658434,
3749917; 658447, 3749962; 658473, 3749991; 658493, 3750013; 658509,
3750003; 658523, 3750019; 658528, 3750030; 658538, 3750043; 658564,
3750055; 658584, 3750053; 658598, 3750061; 658616, 3750068; 658657,
3750052; 658658, 3750032; 658656, 3750020; 658667, 3750002; 658666,
3749982; 658692, 3749984; 658712, 3749994; 658730, 3749994; Thence
returning to 658758, 3750008.
* * * * *

Dated: April 4, 2012.
Eileen Sobeck,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 2012-8811 Filed 4-16-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P