[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 234 (Thursday, December 6, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 62778-62794]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-26388]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2017-0014; 4500090023]
RIN 1018-BD53
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of
Critical Habitat for Sonoyta Mud Turtle
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to
designate critical habitat for the Sonoyta mud turtle (Kinosternon
sonoriense longifemorale) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act). In total, approximately 12.28 acres (4.97 hectares) in
Pima County, Arizona, located entirely within Organ Pipe Cactus
National Monument, fall within the boundaries of the proposed critical
habitat designation. If we finalize this rule as proposed, it would
extend the Act's protections to this subspecies' critical habitat. We
also announce the availability of a draft economic analysis of the
proposed designation of critical habitat for the Sonoyta mud turtle.
DATES: We will accept comments on the proposed rule or draft economic
analysis that are received or postmarked on or before February 4, 2019.
Comments submitted electronically using the Federal eRulemaking Portal
(see ADDRESSES, below) must be received by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on
the closing date. We must receive requests for public hearings, in
writing, at the address shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by
January 22, 2019.
ADDRESSES: Written comments: You may submit comments on the proposed
rule
[[Page 62779]]
or draft economic analysis by one of the following methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter FWS-R2-ES-2017-0014,
which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, click on the
Search button. On the resulting page, in the panel on the left side of
the screen, under the Document Type heading, click on the Proposed
Rules link to locate this document. You may submit a comment by
clicking on ``Comment Now!''
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public
Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R2-ES-2017-0014, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, MS: BPHC, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.
We request that you send comments only by the methods described
above. We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide
us (see Information Requested, below, for more information).
Document availability: The draft economic analysis and the species
status assessment report (SSA Report) are available online at http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/ and at http://www.regulations.gov
under Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2017-0014, and at the Arizona Ecological
Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
The coordinates or plot points or both from which the map was
generated are included in the administrative record for this critical
habitat designation and are available online at http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/ and at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket
No. FWS-R2-ES-2017-0014, and in person at the Arizona Ecological
Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). Any
additional tools or supporting information that we may develop for this
critical habitat designation will also be available at the Fish and
Wildlife Service website and Field Office set out above, and may also
be available on http://www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Arizona Ecological Services Field Office, Fish and
Wildlife Office, 9828 North 31st Ave. #C3, Phoenix, AZ 85051-2517;
telephone 602-242-0210; facsimile 602-242-2513. If you use a
telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal Relay
Service at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
The basis for our action. Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that
the Secretary of the Interior shall designate and make revisions to
critical habitat on the basis of the best available scientific data
after taking into consideration the economic impact, the impact on
national security, and any other relevant impact of specifying any
particular area as critical habitat. The Secretary may exclude an area
from critical habitat if he determines that the benefits of such
exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying such area as part of the
critical habitat, unless he determines, based on the best scientific
data available, that the failure to designate such area as critical
habitat will result in the extinction of the species.
Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Act, any species that is
determined to be endangered or threatened requires critical habitat to
be designated, to the maximum extent prudent and determinable.
Designations and revisions of critical habitat can only be completed by
issuing a rule. This is a proposed rule to designate critical habitat
for the Sonoyta mud turtle under the Act. Supplemental documentation
includes a draft economic analysis and species status assessment.
Information Requested
We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule
will be based on the best scientific data available and be as accurate
and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request comments or
information from other concerned government agencies, the scientific
community, industry, or any other interested party concerning this
proposed rule. We particularly seek comments concerning:
(1) The reasons why we should or should not designate habitat as
``critical habitat'' under section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.) including whether there are threats to the subspecies from human
activity, the degree of which can be expected to increase due to the
designation, and whether that increase in threat outweighs the benefit
of designation such that the designation of critical habitat may not be
prudent.
(2) Specific information on:
(a) The amount and distribution of Sonoyta mud turtle habitat;
(b) What areas, occupied at the time of listing and that contain
the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of
the subspecies, should be included in the designation and why;
(c) Special management considerations or protection that may be
needed in critical habitat areas we are proposing, including managing
for the potential effects of climate change;
(d) What areas not occupied at the time of listing are essential
for the conservation of the subspecies and why; and
(e) Current habitat information within the Rio Sonoyta watershed
and whether any potential habitat areas there may be essential to the
conservation of the Sonoyta mud turtle.
(3) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the
subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat.
(4) Information on the projected and reasonably likely impacts of
climate change on the Sonoyta mud turtle and proposed critical habitat.
(5) Any probable economic, national security, or other relevant
impacts of designating any area that may be included in the final
designation, and the benefits of including or excluding areas that may
be impacted.
(6) Information on the extent to which the description of probable
economic impacts in the draft economic analysis is a reasonable
estimate of the likely economic impacts of the designation.
(7) Whether any specific areas we are proposing for critical
habitat designation should be considered for exclusion under section
4(b)(2) of the Act, and whether the benefits of potentially excluding
any specific area outweigh the benefits of including that area under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
(8) The likelihood of adverse social reactions to the designation
of critical habitat, as discussed in the draft economic analysis, and
how the consequences of such reactions, if likely to occur, would
relate to the conservation and regulatory benefits of the proposed
critical habitat designation.
(9) Whether we could improve or modify our approach to designating
critical habitat in any way to provide for greater public participation
and understanding, or to better accommodate public concerns and
comments.
You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed
rule by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We request that you
send comments only by the methods described in ADDRESSES.
All comments submitted electronically via http://www.regulations.gov will be presented on the website in their entirety
as submitted. For comments submitted via hard copy, we will post your
entire comment--including your personal identifying information--on
http://www.regulations.gov. You may request
[[Page 62780]]
at the top of your document that we withhold personal information such
as your street address, phone number, or email address from public
review; however, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be
available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov, or by
appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Arizona Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Previous Federal Actions
The final rule listing the Sonoyta mud turtle as endangered was
published in the Federal Register on September 20, 2017 (82 FR 43897).
All other previous Federal actions are described in the proposed rule
to list Sonoyta mud turtle as an endangered species under the Act,
published in the Federal Register on September 21, 2016 (81 FR 64829).
Background
Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as:
(1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the
species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which
are found those physical or biological features
(a) Essential to the conservation of the species, and
(b) Which may require special management considerations or
protection; and
(2) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the
species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas
are essential for the conservation of the species.
Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 define the geographical area
occupied by the species as an area that may generally be delineated
around species' occurrences, as determined by the Secretary of the
Interior (i.e., range). Such areas may include those areas used
throughout all or part of the species' life cycle, even if not used on
a regular basis (e.g., migratory corridors, seasonal habitats, and
habitats used periodically, but not solely by vagrant individuals).
Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means to use
and the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring
an endangered or threatened species to the point at which the measures
provided pursuant to the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods and
procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated
with scientific resources management such as research, census, law
enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live
trapping, and transplantation, and, in the extraordinary case where
population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise
relieved, may include regulated taking.
Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act
through the requirement that Federal agencies ensure, in consultation
with the Service, that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is
not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat. The designation of critical habitat does not affect
land ownership or establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or
other conservation area. Such designation does not allow the government
or public to access private lands. Such designation does not require
implementation of restoration, recovery, or enhancement measures by
non-Federal landowners. Where a landowner requests Federal agency
funding or authorization for an action that may affect a listed species
or critical habitat, the consultation requirements of section 7(a)(2)
of the Act would apply, but even in the event of a destruction or
adverse modification finding, the obligation of the Federal action
agency and the landowner is not to restore or recover the species, but
to implement reasonable and prudent alternatives to avoid destruction
or adverse modification of critical habitat.
Under the first prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat,
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time
it was listed are included in a critical habitat designation if they
contain physical or biological features (1) which are essential to the
conservation of the species and (2) which may require special
management considerations or protection. For these areas, critical
habitat designations identify, to the extent known using the best
scientific and commercial data available, those physical or biological
features that are essential to the conservation of the species (such as
space, food, cover, and protected habitat). In identifying those
physical or biological features within an area, we focus on the
specific features that support the life-history needs of the species,
including, but not limited to, water characteristics, soil type,
geological features, prey, vegetation, symbiotic species, or other
features. A feature may be a single habitat characteristic, or a more
complex combination of habitat characteristics. Features may include
habitat characteristics that support ephemeral or dynamic habitat
conditions. Features may also be expressed in terms relating to
principles of conservation biology, such as patch size, distribution
distances, and connectivity.
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. We will determine whether unoccupied areas are essential for
the conservation of the species by considering the life-history,
status, and conservation needs of the species. This will be further
informed by any generalized conservation strategy, criteria, or outline
that may have been developed for the species to provide a substantive
foundation for identifying which features and specific areas are
essential to the conservation of the species and, as a result, the
development of the critical habitat designation. 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.
Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on
the basis of the best scientific data available. Further, our Policy on
Information Standards Under the 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 from the species status assessment document and information
developed during the listing process for the species. Additional
information sources may include any generalized conservation strategy,
criteria, or outline that may have been developed for the species, the
[[Page 62781]]
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 ensure their actions are not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened
species, and (3) section 9 of the Act's prohibitions on taking any
individual of the species, including taking caused by actions that
affect habitat. 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 the
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.
Prudency Determination
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, and implementing
regulations (50 CFR 424.12), require that, to the maximum extent
prudent and determinable, the Secretary shall designate critical
habitat at the time the species is determined to be an endangered or
threatened species. Our regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) state that
the designation of critical habitat is not prudent when one or both of
the following situations exist:
(1) The species is threatened by taking or other human activity,
and identification of critical habitat can be expected to increase the
degree of threat to the species, or
(2) Such designation of critical habitat would not be beneficial to
the species. In determining whether a designation would not be
beneficial, the factors the Service may consider include but are not
limited to: Whether the present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of a species' habitat or range is not a
threat to the species, or whether any areas meet the definition of
``critical habitat.''
As discussed in the final rule listing the Sonoyta mud turtle as an
endangered species (82 FR 43897; September 20, 2017), there is
currently no imminent threat of take attributed to collection or
vandalism identified under Factor B (overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational purposes) for this subspecies,
and identification and mapping of critical habitat is not expected to
initiate any such threat. In the absence of finding that the
designation of critical habitat would increase threats to a species, we
next determine whether such designation of critical habitat would not
be beneficial to the species. As discussed in our final listing rule,
we determined that the present destruction, modification, or
curtailment of a species' habitat or range is a threat to the Sonoyta
mud turtle. Therefore, because we have determined that the designation
of critical habitat will not likely increase the degree of threat to
the subspecies and would be beneficial, we find that designation of
critical habitat is prudent for the Sonoyta mud turtle.
Critical Habitat Determinability
Having determined that designation is prudent, under section
4(a)(3) of the Act, we must find whether critical habitat for the
Sonoyta mud turtle is determinable. Our regulations at 50 CFR
424.12(a)(2) state that critical habitat is not determinable when one
or both of the following situations exist:
(1) Data sufficient to perform required analyses are lacking, or
(2) The biological needs of the species are not sufficiently well
known to identify any area that meets the definition of ``critical
habitat.''
On September 20, 2017, our final listing rule (82 FR 43897)
concluded that critical habitat was not determinable at that time. When
critical habitat is not determinable at the time of listing, the Act
allows the Service an additional year to publish a critical habitat
designation (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(6)(C)(ii)). Therefore, the Act requires
that we publish a rule for critical habitat by September 20, 2018. As
required by section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we use the best scientific data
available to designate critical habitat after taking into consideration
the economic impact, national security impact, and any other relevant
impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. We have
reviewed the available information pertaining to the biological needs
of the subspecies and habitat characteristics where this subspecies is
located. This and other information represent the best scientific data
available for the proposed designation of critical habitat for the
Sonoyta mud turtle.
Physical or Biological Features
In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and regulations at
50 CFR 424.12(b), in determining which areas within the geographical
area occupied by the species at the time of listing to designate as
critical habitat, we consider the physical or biological features that
are essential to the conservation of the species and which may require
special management considerations or protection. For example, physical
features might include gravel of a particular size required for
spawning, alkali soil for seed germination, protective cover for
migration, or susceptibility to flooding or fire that maintains
necessary early-successional habitat characteristics. Biological
features might include prey species, forage grasses, specific kinds or
ages of trees for roosting or nesting, symbiotic fungi, or a particular
level of nonnative species consistent with conservation needs of the
listed species. The features may also be combinations of habitat
characteristics and may encompass the relationship between
characteristics or the necessary amount of a characteristic needed to
support the life history of the species. In considering whether
features are essential to the conservation of the species, the Service
may consider an appropriate quality, quantity, and spatial and temporal
arrangement of habitat characteristics in the context of the life-
history needs, condition, and status of the species. These
characteristics include, but are not limited to, space for individual
and population growth and for normal behavior; food, water, air, light,
minerals, or other nutritional or physiological requirements; cover or
shelter; sites for breeding, reproduction, or rearing (or development)
of offspring; and habitats that are protected from disturbance.
We conducted a species status assessment for Sonoyta mud turtle,
which is an evaluation of the best available scientific and commercial
data on the status of the subspecies. The
[[Page 62782]]
species status assessment report (SSA Report; Service 2017, which is
available at https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/Sonoyta.html and
at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2017-0014) is
based on a thorough review of the natural history, habitats, ecology,
populations, and range of the Sonoyta mud turtle, and risks to the
subspecies. The SSA Report provides the scientific information upon
which this proposed critical habitat designation is based.
The Sonoyta mud turtle is a freshwater turtle encountered in or
near water in an otherwise arid environment that commonly experiences
drought and extreme heat (ambient temperatures can exceed 45 degrees
Celsius ([deg]C) (113 degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F)). Sonoyta mud turtles
depend on aquatic habitat with adjacent terrestrial habitat for life-
history functions. Aquatic habitat consists of streams and natural and
manmade ponds with perennial or near-perennial (water present more than
11 months of the year for multiple years) sources of water. Terrestrial
habitat consists of riparian areas along water sources that maintain
moist soil and a cooler environment than adjacent uplands. Much of the
information on resource needs of the Sonoyta mud turtle subspecies is
inferred from work on the nominate subspecies, Sonora mud turtle
(Kinosternon sonoriense sonoriense), and noted accordingly in the text
that follows.
Aquatic habitat in ponds and streams is usually shallow water to 2
meters (m) (7 feet (ft)) deep, with a rocky, muddy, or sandy substrate,
and emergent or submergent vegetation, or both (NPS 2015, p. 2;
Paredes-Aguilar and Rosen 2003, pp. 5-7; Rosen 2003, p. 5; Rosen et al.
207, p. 14). Sonoyta mud turtles need perennial or near-perennial
surface water for feeding, for protection from predators, to prevent
desiccation, and for mating. Hatchling, juvenile, and sub-adult turtles
prefer aquatic habitat with shallow water and dense emergent vegetation
that provides foraging opportunities as well as protection from
predators (Rosen 1986, pp. 14, 36; Rosen and Lowe 1996, p. 11).
Emergent aquatic vegetation includes plants such as cattail (Typha
domingensis), spikerush (Eleocharis geniculata), and travelling
spikerush (Eleocharis rostellata) (Felger et al. 1992, pp. 33, 36).
Adults will also use shallow water habitat, but prefer aquatic habitat
with deeper (up to 2 m (7 ft)) open water (with no or little vegetation
growing in the water column), and submerged vegetation for feeding on
benthic and plant-crawling invertebrates along the substrate (Rosen
1986, pp. 14, 16; Rosen and Lowe 1996, p. 11). American bulrush
(Schoenoplectus americanus), an introduced nonnative plant species, and
the native cattails can encroach into open water used by Sonoyta mud
turtles. Historically, Sonoyta mud turtles occurred in rivers or
cienegas with a natural ecosystem that maintained aquatic vegetation
suitable to the Sonoyta mud turtle's needs. However, habitat at some
Sonoyta mud turtle locations has been altered from this natural
ecosystem to ponded water maintained by water control structures.
American bulrush and cattails encroach these ponded sites such that
open water is eliminated. Consequently, mechanical removal of American
bulrush and cattails may be needed periodically to maintain patches of
open water. The submerged aquatic vegetation required for prey includes
plants such as holly-leaved water nymph (Najas marina), slender
pondweed (Potamogeton pectinatus), ditch-grass (Ruppia maritima), and
horned pondweed (Zannichellia palustris) (Felger et al. 1992, p. 36).
Reduced water levels would reduce overall habitat amount (water and
vegetation) and quality, causing crowding and increased competition for
remaining, limited resources such as cover and prey (Stanila 2009, p.
45). A reduction in water and emergent vegetation would likely reduce
the amount of space and invertebrate prey for Sonoyta mud turtles.
Large adult Sonora mud turtles have exhibited site fidelity to specific
pools in a stream channel (Hall and Steidl, 2007, p. 410), and although
not studied, this could also be true for the Sonoyta mud turtle. As a
result, lower water levels could reduce carrying capacity and increase
overlap of adult Sonoyta mud turtle territory. Adequate prey allows
juvenile turtles to grow rapidly and allows adults to have sufficient
lipid content to support reproduction. Poor body condition (i.e., low
lipids) may be associated with lower clutch size (total number of eggs
produced) and, therefore, lower population growth (Rosen and Lowe 1996,
pp. 40-43). Sonoyta mud turtles in dry or low surface water reaches
would burrow in channels to escape desiccation for a short period of
time. Over time, however, burrows themselves may become too dry;
turtles will lose fat reserves due to lack of foraging opportunity. If
adult Sonoyta mud turtles mate during or after losing fat reserves,
females may not have viable eggs due to lack of nutrition and fat
reserves, and eventually turtles will die from either starvation or
desiccation. Potential population-level impacts include lower
reproductive rates, reduced recruitment, reduced population growth
rate, and changes in distribution.
Sonoyta mud turtles are opportunistic carnivores, feeding primarily
on aquatic invertebrates that live on emergent and submergent
vegetation or the substrate of ponds and streams (Rosen 1986, pp. 14,
31; Rosen and Lowe 1996, pp. 32-35). Sonoyta mud turtle hatchlings and
juveniles feed on littoral invertebrate fauna, while subadults and
adults prefer benthic and plant-crawling invertebrates (Hulse 1974, pp.
197-198; Lovich et al. 207, pp. 135-136; Rosen 1986, pp. 14, 31; Rosen
and Lowe 1996, pp. 32-35; Stanila et al. 2008, p. 42). In habitats with
poor aquatic invertebrate faunas, Sonoyta mud turtles will shift to
omnivorous feeding, including plants and vertebrates such as fish
(Rosen and Lowe 1996, pp. 32-35). However, where fish are abundant,
Sonoyta mud turtles catch few of them (Rosen and Lowe 1996, p. 32).
Sonora mud turtles are also known to consume other vertebrates
including toads, and even reptiles and birds when available for capture
(Ligon and Stone 2003, entire; Stone et al. 2005, entire). Analysis of
stomach contents of the Sonora mud turtle revealed animal material
represented 69.0-93.6 percent total volume, with plant material making
up the remaining volume (Hulse 1974, p. 197). Aquatic invertebrates
found in the stomach contents of Sonora mud turtles included members of
11 invertebrate orders such as dragonflies (Anisoptera), caddisflies
(Trichoptera), flies (Diptera), beetles (Coleoptera), and aquatic snail
species (Basommatophora). Aquatic invertebrates require submergent or
emergent vegetation and a variety of prey, such as algae, diatoms, and
other microorganisms.
Sonoyta mud turtles need aquatic habitat free of nonnative
predators and competitors. Aquatic habitat with nonnative predators,
including crayfish (Orconectes spp. and Cherax spp.), American
bullfrogs (Lithobates catesbeianus), and sunfish (centrarchids), could
decrease population stability or potentially decimate populations of
the Sonoyta mud turtle (Drost et al. 207, pp. 33-34; Hensley et al.
207, pp. 186-187; Fernandez and Rosen 1996, pp. 39-41). These species,
along with black bullheads (Ameiurus melas), African cichlid fishes
(tilapia), western mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis), and exotic turtles,
compete with mud turtles for food or disrupt the food chain, which
could alter the invertebrate community (Taylor et al. 1984, pp. 330-
[[Page 62783]]
331; Fernandez and Rosen 1996, pp. 39-40; Duncan 2013, p. 1). Such
competition, in turn, could decrease type and amount of aquatic
invertebrate prey available to Sonoyta mud turtles (Fernandez and Rosen
1996, pp. 39-40).
Because high average annual juvenile survivorship is required for
populations of long-lived organisms to maintain population stability
(Congdon et al. 1993, pp. 831-832; Congdon et al. 1994, pp. 405-406),
nonnative predators that reduce recruitment into Sonoyta mud turtle
populations could cause population declines. Bullfrogs and crayfish are
known predators of hatchling and juvenile turtles of the Sonora mud
turtle (Fernandez and Rosen 1996, pp. 33-43; Akins and Jones 207, p.
343; Hensley et al. 207, pp. 186-187; Schwendiman 2001, p. 39), and
would likely eat hatchling Sonoyta mud turtles if introduced.
Populations of the Sonora mud turtle have coexisted with moderate and
high densities of bullfrogs (Rosen and Schwalbe 2002, p. 230). However,
a high density of bullfrogs may reduce population density of mud
turtles (van Lobel Sells 1997, p. 343). Crayfish are detrimental to
populations of the Sonora mud turtle and not only prey on small mud
turtles, but likely compete with them for native aquatic invertebrate
food sources (Fernandez and Rosen 1996, pp. 39-40). One study
documented cessation of Sonora mud turtle recruitment 2 years after
crayfish introduction to an area that had supported a population of
approximately 1,000 Sonora mud turtles (Fernandez and Rosen 1996, pp.
40-41). Large sunfish, such as largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides),
also have the potential to reduce recruitment in populations of Sonora
mud turtles because their large gape (external mouth width) makes it
possible for them to prey on hatchling and juvenile Sonoyta mud turtles
(Stanila 2009, p. 50). Largemouth bass are known to eat other aquatic
turtle species, and Rosen (1987, p. 6) reported the lowest population
densities of Sonora mud turtles in habitats with largemouth bass.
Adult and juvenile Sonoyta mud turtles use aquatic habitat with
complex structure that provides protection from predators such as root
masses, rock features, and undercut banks (Rosen 1986, pp. 14, 16;
Rosen and Lowe 1996, p. 11). Shallow water areas with dense emergent
vegetation also provides protection from predators for hatchlings,
juveniles, and adults. Overhanging riparian vegetation along the stream
channel or pond margin and soil burrows under overhanging banks provide
some protection from predators for turtles in the water near the
shoreline. Riparian vegetation may also provide some level of
protection from terrestrial predators while turtles are out of the
water.
Terrestrial habitat that maintains soil moisture for Sonoyta mud
turtles occurs in riparian areas along the banks of ponds and streams,
and in intermittently dry sections of stream channels. Riparian habitat
provides shadier, cooler, and moister conditions than the adjacent
upland areas. Sonoyta mud turtles require moist soil for nesting to
prevent desiccation of eggs and for estivation (a state of dormancy)
sites to prevent desiccation of hatchlings, juveniles, and adults.
Riparian vegetation includes plants such as Fremont cottonwood (Populus
fremontii), Goodding willow (Salix gooddingii), honey mesquite
(Prosopis glandulosa), screwbean mesquite (P. pubescens), seepwillow
(Baccharis salicifolia), greythorn (Ziziphus obtusifolia), wolfberry
(Lycium spp.), salt grass (Distichlis spicata), and arrowweed (Pluchea
sericea) (Felger et al. 1992, p. 4).
Sonoyta mud turtles need accessible shoreline without
insurmountable rock or artificial vertical barriers to allow for
movement between wetted sites, between aquatic habitat and terrestrial
nest sites, and between water and estivation (dormancy during drought)
sites. Sonora mud turtles in dry or low surface water conditions may
either travel along dry intermittent sections of a stream to find water
or they will estivate (Hall and Steidl 2007, p. 406; Hensley et al.
207, pp. 181-182; Ligon and Stone 2003, pp. 752-753; Stone 2001, pp.
46-49). Sonora mud turtles that live in permanent bodies of water have
shown highly aquatic behavior with little terrestrial behavior or
movement between water sources, while Sonora mud turtles in more
ephemeral habits have been documented moving through or out of dry
stream beds to reach wetted pools, for winter hibernation, or for
estivation during drought as a drought-survival strategy (Hall and
Steidl 2007, pp. 406-408; Hensley et al. 207, pp. 181-182; Ligon and
Stone 2003, pp. 752-753; Stone 2001, pp. 46-51).
Sonora mud turtles can endure lack of surface water for a short
time and have been documented estivating in the wild for 11 to 34 days
(Ligon and Stone 2003, p. 752), and once for up to 68 days (Ligon and
Stone 2002, entire; Ligon and Stone 2003, p. 753). However, prolonged
and recurrent estivation is expected to reduce fitness and increase
mortality (Peterson and Stone 2000, pp. 692-698). Terrestrial
estivation sites consisted of depressions under vegetation, soil, or
organic matter; in rock crevices; or in soil burrows under overhanging
banks of streams or ponds. One study found Sonora mud turtles
estivating up to 79 m (259 ft) from a streambed during summer even when
water was available, with mud turtles using clumps of vegetation or
spaces under large rocks in the terrestrial environment (Ligon and
Stone 2003, pp. 752-753).
Estivation has not been verified in the Sonoyta mud turtle, and
physiological tolerances for estivation are unknown. However, Sonoyta
mud turtles have been found in burrows up to 1 m (3.3 ft) deep in
stream banks, presumably using these burrows to escape from predators
(Paredes-Aguilar and Rosen 2003, p. 8) or for drought refuge. Further,
based on the physiological requirements of the Sonora mud turtle and
the arid environment in which the Sonoyta mud turtle lives, we believe
that they estivate during times of little or no surface water.
Long-distance movements of Sonora mud turtles exceeding 7
kilometers (5 miles) in straight-line distance occurred between aquatic
habitats. Such movements may reduce reproductive isolation and lower
the probability of extirpation of populations (Hall and Steilde 2007,
p. 408; Hensley et al. 207, pp. 181-182; Stone et al. 2015, p. 736).
Although not well-studied, no movement of Sonoyta mud turtles of these
magnitudes has been documented, and restrictions associated with their
extreme arid environment may reduce such movements (P. Rosen 2016,
pers. comm.). Dispersal habitat along drainages is likely needed to
maintain connectivity between populations of the Sonoyta mud turtle on
a rangewide scale.
The Sonora mud turtle is known to mate from April to October, and
female Sonora and Sonoyta mud turtles lay eggs from mid to late July
through September in vegetation litter, soil burrows, and rock crevices
up to 52 m (171 ft) away from water (Rosen and Lowe 1996, pp. 21, 23;
Stone et al. 2015, p. 735; D. Hall 2016, pers. comm.; Rosen 1986, p. 7;
A. Owens 2007, pers. comm.; P. Holm 2016, pers. comm.). Eggs may
undergo embryonic diapause in the nest for 11 months after being laid,
with hatchlings emerging the following year (van Loben Sels et al.
1997, p. 343; Ernst and Lovich 2009, p. 497; Stone et al. 2015, p.
735). In mid to late July through September, females leave the water
briefly to lay eggs in terrestrial nests that maintain some level of
moisture. Three presumed nest sites have been observed for the Sonoyta
mud turtle that indicate this subspecies uses nest sites similar to
[[Page 62784]]
the Sonora mud turtle. The only potential nesting behavior of the
Sonoyta mud turtle observed was a gravid female, ``apparently preparing
to lay eggs,'' digging 15 centimeters (cm) (6 inches (in)) into the
soil in a mesquite bosque (cluster of trees along a stream) 9 m (30 ft)
from the edge of the pond at Quitobaquito Springs (Rosen and Lowe 1996,
p. 23). A second turtle nest site was found in a small cavity (5 by 5
cm (2 by 2 in)) within a 3 m (10 ft) high soil bank that runs next to
the spring-fed channel leading to the pond at Quitobaquito Springs (A.
Owens 2007, pers. comm.). The third nest site was found in a small
depression in soil beneath a piece of tree bark on top of an undercut
bank at the edge the pond at Quitobaquito Springs (P. Holm 2016, pers.
comm.).
Summary of Essential Physical or Biological Features
We derive the specific physical or biological features essential
for Sonoyta mud turtle from studies of the Sonora mud turtle, used as a
proxy, of this subspecies' habitat, ecology, and life history, as
described above. Additional information can be found in the proposed
listing rule (81 FR 64829; September 21, 2016). We have determined that
the following physical or biological features are essential to the
conservation of Sonoyta mud turtle:
(1) Aquatic habitat, such as streams and natural or manmade ponds,
with perennial or near-perennial sources of water, containing or
including:
(a) Surface water to 2 m (7 ft) deep, with a rocky, muddy, or sandy
substrate, and emergent or submergent vegetation, or both;
(b) Surface water free of nonnative predators and competitors,
including crayfish, American bullfrogs, and large sunfish;
(c) Shallow water areas with dense emergent vegetation (e.g.,
cattail, spikerush, and travelling spikerush);
(d) Access to deeper open water in ponds, and submerged vegetation
(e.g., holly-leaved water nymph, slender pondweed, ditch-grass, and
horned pondweed); and
(e) Areas with complex structure, including protective shelter
sites such as root masses, rock features, and undercut banks.
(2) Aquatic invertebrate prey base (e.g., Anisoptera, Trichoptera,
Diptera, Coleoptera, aquatic snail species) and their corresponding
habitat, including submergent or emergent vegetation and a variety of
forage, and prey such as algae, diatoms, other microorganisms.
(3) Terrestrial, riparian habitat, adjacent to suitable aquatic
habitat, containing or including:
(a) Accessible shoreline for Sonoyta mud turtles without
insurmountable rock or artificial vertical barriers to allow movement
between wetted sites, between aquatic habitat and terrestrial nest
sites, and between aquatic habitat and estivation sites;
(b) Riparian areas that maintain soil moisture to prevent
desiccation of eggs and provide estivation sites, located along the
banks of ponds and streams with riparian vegetation (e.g., cottonwood,
willow, seepwillow, mesquite, greythorn, wolfberry, salt grass,
arroweed); and
(c) Estivation and nesting sites, including depressions under
vegetation, soil, or organic matter; rock crevices; and soil burrows
under overhanging banks of streams or ponds, that are available year-
round.
Special Management Considerations or Protection
When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the specific
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time
of listing contain features which are essential to the conservation of
the species and which may require special management considerations or
protection. The features essential to the conservation of the Sonoyta
mud turtle may require special management considerations or protection
to reduce the following threats: (1) Water loss; (2) loss of riparian
habitat; (3) reduction of invertebrate prey; (4) presence of nonnative
species; and (5) land management activities incompatible with
maintaining needed habitat (such as dredging).
Management activities that could ameliorate these threats and
protect the quantity and quality of the aquatic and riparian habitat
include, but are not limited to: (1) Maximizing surface water and
aquatic habitat available through structure maintenance, such as berms,
lining ponds and spring runs, and removing sediment; (2) decreasing
groundwater pumping to maintain surface water that supports aquatic and
riparian habitat, as well as the invertebrate prey base; (3)
controlling and removing introduced nonnative plant species, such as
American bulrush, to maintain aquatic habitat; and (4) controlling and
removing introduced nonnative predators and competitors, such as
crayfish, American bullfrogs, and large sunfish.
Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat
As required by section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we use the best
scientific data available to designate critical habitat. In accordance
with the Act and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(b), we
review available information pertaining to the habitat requirements of
the species and identify specific areas within the geographical area
occupied by the species at the time of listing and any specific areas
outside the geographical area occupied by the species that are
essential for the species' conservation to be considered for
designation as critical habitat. We are proposing to designate critical
habitat in areas within the United States that are occupied by Sonoyta
mud turtle at the time we published the final rule to list the
subspecies as endangered (September 20, 2017). For purposes of this
proposed rule, we define ``occupied habitat'' for Sonoyta mud turtle as
areas with a positive survey records since 2000. This definition of
occupied is based on the average life span of the subspecies (ranging
from 12 to 17 years). Since Sonoyta mud turtles live approximately 12
to 17 years, we used records from this time period and concluded that a
portion of the turtles found during this time would still be alive,
and, therefore, we consider the site occupied. We are not currently
proposing to designate any areas outside the geographical area occupied
by the subspecies because we did not find any such areas that were
essential for the conservation of the subspecies, as we are not aware
of any other areas within the historic range of the subspecies that
maintain perennial or nearly perennial surface water.
Sources of occupancy data on the Sonoyta mud turtle are monitoring
data from Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument (NPS 2002-2016, p. 1). We
obtained information on ecology and habitat requirements of the Sonoyta
mud turtle from multiple sources, as identified in the SSA Report. For
mapping of proposed critical habitat, we used Organ Pipe Cactus
National Monument geo-referenced data of the water features used by
Sonoyta mud turtles at Quitobaquito. In addition, we used satellite
imagery available in ArcGIS to delineate riparian areas surrounding the
surface water habitat.
Areas Occupied at the Time of Listing
We are proposing for designation as critical habitat lands that we
have determined are occupied at the time of listing (in this case, the
date we published the final listing rule:
[[Page 62785]]
September 20, 2017) and contain one or more of the physical or
biological features to support life-history processes essential to the
conservation of the subspecies. The proposed critical habitat
designation includes the only known extant population of Sonoyta mud
turtles in the Unites States, within the Organ Pipe Cactus National
Monument. This is also the only known population in the United States.
We propose to designate one critical habitat unit based on one or
more of the physical or biological features being present to support
the life-history processes of the Sonoyta mud turtle.
The proposed critical habitat designation is defined by the map or
maps, as modified by any accompanying regulatory text, presented at the
end of this document in the Proposed Regulation Promulgation section.
We include more detailed information on the boundaries of the critical
habitat designation in the Proposed Critical Habitat Designation
section, below. We will make the coordinates or plot points or both on
which the map is based available to the public on http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2017-0014, on our internet
site at http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona, and at the field
office responsible for the designation (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT, above).
When determining proposed critical habitat boundaries, 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 necessary for the Sonoyta mud turtle.
However, manmade water conveyance structures within the proposed
designated critical habitat are part of the designation and are needed
to manage the existing habitat. The current occupied unit includes a
manmade spring enclosure and spring channel that convey water to a
manmade pond surrounded by a manmade berm. The spring channel not only
conveys water to the pond but also serves as habitat for the
subspecies. Therefore, all of these manmade features are considered
critical habitat. The scale of the map we prepared under the parameters
for publication within the Code of Federal Regulations may not reflect
the exclusion of developed lands otherwise excluded from critical
habitat. Any such lands inadvertently left inside critical habitat
boundaries shown on the map of this proposed rule have been excluded by
text in the proposed rule and are not proposed for designation as
critical habitat. Therefore, if the critical habitat is finalized as
proposed, a Federal action involving these lands would not trigger
section 7 consultation with respect to critical habitat and the
requirement of no adverse modification unless the specific action would
affect the physical or biological features in the adjacent critical
habitat.
Proposed Critical Habitat Designation
We are proposing to designate approximately 12.28 acres (ac) (4.97
hectares (ha)) in one unit as critical habitat for the Sonoyta mud
turtle. The critical habitat areas we describe below constitute our
current best assessment of areas that meet the definition of critical
habitat for Sonoyta mud turtle.
Table 1--Occupancy, Land Ownership, and Size of Sonoyta Mud Turtle Proposed Critical Habitat
[Area estimates reflect all land within critical habitat unit boundaries]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit name Occupied at time of listing? Currently occupied? Ownership Size (ha) Size (ac)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quitobaquito...................... Yes.......................... Yes.......................... National Park 4.97 12.28
Service.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below, we present a brief description of the Quitobaquito Unit, and
reasons why it meets the definition of critical habitat for the Sonoyta
mud turtle.
Quitobaquito Unit
This unit consists of 12.28 ac (4.97 ha) in the Rio Sonoyta
watershed of Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument. This unit is within
the geographic area occupied by the subspecies at the time of listing
and contains at least one of the physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the Sonoyta mud turtle.
Aquatic habitat within this unit consists of the two Quitobaquito
springs, the piped water that connects the two springs, a manmade
spring channel that connects the springs to Quitobaquito pond, and a
manmade pond with a perennial source of water. The spring channel and
pond both have shallow water habitat, an aquatic invertebrate prey
base, and no nonnative predators. The pond includes surface water up to
107 cm (42 in) deep with a muddy substrate; dense emergent and
submergent vegetation; access to deeper open water in a pond for
feeding along the substrate; and areas with complex structure and
protective shelter sites, including root masses and undercut banks.
Terrestrial habitat within this unit consists of adjacent,
accessible shoreline along the stream channel and around Quitobaquito
pond without insurmountable rock or artificial vertical barriers to
movement of the Sonoyta mud turtle, as well as riparian areas, located
along the banks of the pond, stream channel, and berm around the pond.
These terrestrial habitat components maintain soil moisture to prevent
desiccation of eggs and estivating turtles, and include estivation and
nesting sites, including depressions under vegetation, soil, organic
matter, and soil burrows under overhanging banks of the pond, that are
available year-round.
The physical or biological features in this unit may require
special management considerations or protection to address threats from
loss of surface water due to groundwater pumping, berm leaking, aquatic
vegetation control, and sedimentation removal in the pond. This unit is
entirely within the Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, and the
National Park Service (NPS) manages the habitat to support the Sonoyta
mud turtle population. This unit is not being considered for exclusion
or exemption.
Effects of Critical Habitat Designation
Section 7 Consultation
Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the
Service, to ensure that any action they fund, authorize, or carry out
is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered
species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse
modification of designated critical habitat of such species. In
addition, section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to
confer with the Service on any agency action which is likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of any species proposed to be listed
under the Act or result in the destruction or adverse modification of
proposed critical habitat.
[[Page 62786]]
We published a final rule adopting a new definition of
``destruction or adverse modification'' on February 11, 2016 (81 FR
7214). Destruction or adverse modification means a direct or indirect
alteration that appreciably diminishes the value of critical habitat
for the conservation of a listed species. Such alterations may include,
but are not limited to, those that alter the physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of a species or that preclude or
significantly delay development of such features.
If a Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical
habitat, the responsible Federal agency (action agency) must enter into
consultation with us. Examples of actions that are subject to the
section 7 consultation process are actions on State, tribal, local, or
private lands that require a Federal permit (such as a permit from the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or a permit from the Service under section 10
of the Act) or that involve some other Federal action (such as funding
from the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Aviation
Administration, or the Federal Emergency Management Agency). Federal
actions not affecting listed species or critical habitat, and actions
on State, tribal, local, or private lands that are not federally funded
or authorized, do not require section 7 consultation.
As a result of section 7 consultation, we document compliance with
the requirements of section 7(a)(2) through our issuance of:
(1) A concurrence letter for Federal actions that may affect, but
are not likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat;
or
(2) A biological opinion for Federal actions that may affect, and
are likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat.
When we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species and/or
destroy or adversely modify critical habitat, we provide reasonable and
prudent alternatives to the project, if any are identifiable, that
would avoid the likelihood of jeopardy and/or destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat. We define ``reasonable and prudent
alternatives'' (at 50 CFR 402.02) as alternative actions identified
during consultation that:
(1) Can be implemented in a manner consistent with the intended
purpose of the action,
(2) Can be implemented consistent with the scope of the Federal
agency's legal authority and jurisdiction.
(3) Are economically and technologically feasible, and
(4) Would, in the Service Director's opinion, avoid the likelihood
of jeopardizing the continued existence of the listed species and/or
avoid the likelihood of destroying or adversely modifying critical
habitat.
Reasonable and prudent alternatives can vary from slight project
modifications to extensive redesign or relocation of the project. Costs
associated with implementing a reasonable and prudent alternative are
similarly variable.
Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require Federal agencies to reinitiate
consultation on previously reviewed actions in instances where we have
listed a new species or subsequently designated critical habitat that
may be affected and the Federal agency has retained discretionary
involvement or control over the action (or the agency's discretionary
involvement or control is authorized by law). Consequently, Federal
agencies sometimes may need to request reinitiation of consultation
with us on actions for which formal consultation has been completed, if
those actions with discretionary involvement or control may affect
subsequently listed species or designated critical habitat.
Application of the ``Adverse Modification'' Standard
The key factor related to the adverse modification determination is
whether, with implementation of the proposed Federal action, the
affected critical habitat would continue to serve its intended
conservation role for the species. Activities that may destroy or
adversely modify critical habitat are those that result in a direct or
indirect alteration that appreciably diminishes the value of critical
habitat for the conservation of the Sonoyta mud turtle. Such
alterations may include, but are not limited to, those that alter the
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of this
subspecies or that preclude or significantly delay development of such
features. As discussed above, the role of critical habitat is to
support physical or biological features essential to the conservation
of a listed species and provide for the conservation of the species.
Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to briefly evaluate and
describe, in any proposed or final regulation that designates critical
habitat, activities involving a Federal action that may destroy or
adversely modify such habitat, or that may be affected by such
designation.
Activities that may affect critical habitat, when carried out,
funded, or authorized by a Federal agency, should result in
consultation for the Sonoyta mud turtle. These activities include, but
are not limited to:
(1) Actions that would decrease the amount of water available to to
ponds and streams used by Sonoyta mud turtles. Such actions could
include, but are not limited to, groundwater pumping. Groundwater
pumping could decrease the amount of groundwater that infiltrates
streamflow so that streams become smaller, intermittent, or dry, and
thereby could reduce the amount of space, prey, nest sites, and cover
available for Sonoyta mud turtles.
(2) Actions that would maintain habitat for the Sonoyta mud
turtles. Such actions could include the maintenance of springheads,
stream or channel courses, and ponds. Maintaining springheads and
manmade or natural spring channels will maximize the amount of surface
water available to Sonoyta mud turtles. All ponds that support Sonoyta
mud turtles are manmade and require constant management to remove
sediment that builds up and to stop encroaching vegetation from
completely filling in the ponds.
Exemptions
Application of Section 4(a)(3) of the Act
Section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i))
provides that: ``The Secretary shall not designate as critical habitat
any lands or other geographical areas owned or controlled by the
Department of Defense, or designated for its use, that are subject to
an integrated natural resources management plan [INRMP] prepared under
section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a), if the Secretary
determines in writing that such plan provides a benefit to the species
for which critical habitat is proposed for designation.'' There are no
Department of Defense lands with a completed INRMP within the proposed
critical habitat designation.
Consideration of Impacts Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary shall
designate and make revisions to critical habitat on the basis of the
best available scientific data after taking into consideration the
economic impact, national security impact, and any other relevant
impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat.
[[Page 62787]]
The Secretary may exclude an area from critical habitat if he
determines that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of
specifying such area as part of the critical habitat, unless he
determines, based on the best scientific data available, that the
failure to designate such area as critical habitat will result in the
extinction of the species. In making that determination, the statute on
its face, as well as the legislative history, are clear that the
Secretary has broad discretion regarding which factor(s) to use and how
much weight to give to any factor.
We have not considered any areas for exclusion from critical
habitat. However, the final decision on whether to exclude any areas
will be based on the best scientific data available at the time of the
final designation, including information obtained during the comment
period and information about the economic impact of designation.
Accordingly, we have prepared a draft economic analysis (DEA)
concerning the proposed critical habitat designation, which is
available for review and comment (see ADDRESSES, above).
Consideration of Economic Impacts
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act and its implementing regulations require
that we consider the economic impact that may result from a designation
of critical habitat. To assess the probable economic impacts of a
designation, we must first evaluate specific land uses or activities
and projects that may occur in the area of the critical habitat. We
then must evaluate the impacts that a specific critical habitat
designation may have on restricting or modifying specific land uses or
activities for the benefit of the species and its habitat within the
areas proposed. We then identify which conservation efforts may be the
result of the species being listed under the Act versus those
attributed solely to the designation of critical habitat for this
particular species. The probable economic impact of a proposed 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,
which includes the existing regulatory and socio-economic burden
imposed on landowners, managers, or other resource users potentially
affected by the designation of critical habitat (e.g., under the
Federal listing as well as other Federal, State, and local
regulations). The baseline, therefore, represents the costs of all
efforts attributable to the listing of the species under the Act (i.e.,
conservation of the species and its habitat 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 would not be expected
without 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 use when evaluating the benefits of inclusion
and exclusion of particular areas from the final designation of
critical habitat should we choose to conduct a discretionary section
4(b)(2) exclusion analysis.
For this particular designation, we developed an incremental
effects memorandum (IEM) considering the probable incremental economic
impacts that may result from this proposed designation of critical
habitat. The information contained in our IEM was then used to develop
a screening analysis of the probable effects of the designation of
critical habitat for the Sonoyta mud turtle (IEc 2017, entire). We
began by conducting a screening analysis of the proposed designation of
critical habitat in order to focus our analysis on the key factors that
are likely to result in incremental economic impacts. The purpose of
the screening analysis is to filter out the geographic areas in which
the critical habitat designation is unlikely to result in probable
incremental economic impacts. In particular, the screening analysis
considers baseline costs (i.e., absent critical habitat designation)
and includes probable economic impacts where land and water use may be
subject to conservation plans, land management plans, best management
practices, or regulations that protect the habitat area as a result of
the Federal listing status of the subspecies. The screening analysis
filters out particular areas of critical habitat that are already
subject to such protections and are, therefore, unlikely to incur
incremental economic impacts. Ultimately, the screening analysis allows
us to focus our analysis on evaluating the specific areas or sectors
that may incur probable incremental economic impacts as a result of the
designation. The screening analysis also assesses whether units are
unoccupied by the subspecies and may require additional management or
conservation efforts as a result of the critical habitat designation
for the subspecies, which may incur incremental economic impacts. This
screening analysis, combined with the information contained in our IEM,
is what we consider our DEA of the proposed critical habitat
designation for the Sonoyta mud turtle and is summarized in the
narrative below.
Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct Federal agencies to
assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives in
quantitative (to the extent feasible) and qualitative terms. Consistent
with the E.O. regulatory analysis requirements, our effects analysis
under the Act may take into consideration impacts to both directly and
indirectly affected entities, where practicable and reasonable. If
sufficient data are available, we assess to the extent practicable the
probable impacts to both directly and indirectly affected entities. As
part of our screening analysis, we considered the types of economic
activities that are likely to occur within the areas likely affected by
the critical habitat designation. In our evaluation of the probable
incremental economic impacts that may result from the proposed
designation of critical habitat for the Sonoyta mud turtle, first we
identified, in the IEM (Service 2017), probable incremental economic
impacts associated with the following categories of activities: (1)
Federal lands management (National Park Service, Organ Pipe Cactus
National Monument); (2) groundwater pumping; and (3) Customs and Border
Protection. We considered each industry or category individually.
Additionally, we considered whether their activities have any Federal
involvement. Critical habitat designation generally will not affect
activities that do not have any Federal involvement; the Act's
designation of critical habitat only affects activities conducted,
funded, permitted, or authorized by Federal agencies. In areas where
the Sonoyta mud turtle is present, Federal agencies already are
required to consult with the Service under section 7 of the Act on
activities they fund, permit, or implement that may affect the
subspecies, because the subspecies is listed as an endangered species.
If we finalize this proposed critical habitat designation,
consultations to avoid the destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat would be incorporated into the existing consultation
process.
In our IEM, we attempted to clarify the distinction between the
effects that result from the subspecies being listed and those that
would be attributable to the critical habitat designation (i.e.,
difference between the jeopardy and adverse modification standards) for
the Sonoyta mud turtle's critical habitat. Because the designation of
critical
[[Page 62788]]
habitat for the Sonoyta mud turtle is being proposed soon after the
listing, it has been our experience that it is more difficult to
discern which conservation efforts are attributable to the subspecies
being listed and those which would result solely from the designation
of critical habitat. However, the following specific circumstances in
this case help to inform our evaluation: (1) The essential physical or
biological features identified for critical habitat are the same
features essential for the life requisites of the subspecies; and (2)
any actions that would result in sufficient harm or harassment to
constitute jeopardy to the Sonoyta mud turtle would also likely
adversely affect the essential physical or biological features of
critical habitat. The IEM outlines our rationale concerning this
limited distinction between baseline conservation efforts and
incremental impacts of the designation of critical habitat for this
subspecies. This evaluation of the incremental effects has been used as
the basis to evaluate the probable incremental economic impacts of this
proposed designation of critical habitat.
The proposed critical habitat designation for the Sonoyta mud
turtle consists of a single unit currently occupied by the subspecies.
We are not proposing to designate any units of unoccupied habitat. The
proposed Quitobaquito critical habitat unit totals 12.28 ac (4.97 ha)
and is entirely contained within federally owned land at Organ Pipe
Cactus National Monument. In this area, any actions that may affect the
subspecies or its habitat would also affect designated critical
habitat, and it is unlikely that any additional recommendations or
project modifications to avoid adversely modifying critical habitat
above those we would recommend for avoiding jeopardy. Therefore, only
administrative costs of conducting any section 7 consultation are
expected in all of the proposed critical habitat designation. While
this additional analysis will require time and resources by both the
Federal action agency and the Service, it is believed that, in most
circumstances, these costs would predominantly be administrative in
nature and would not be significant.
We anticipate minimal change in behavior at Organ Pipe Cactus
National Monument if we designate critical habitat for the Sonoyta mud
turtle. Based on Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument's history of
consultation under section 7 of the Act and on the consultation history
of the most comparable species, desert pupfish (Cyprinodon macularius),
we anticipate that this critical habitat designation may result in a
maximum of two additional consultations per decade.
As we stated earlier, we are soliciting data and comments from the
public on the draft economic analysis, as well as all aspects of the
proposed rule and our amended required determinations. We may revise
the proposed rule or supporting documents to incorporate or address
information we receive during the public comment period. In particular,
we may exclude an area from critical habitat if we determine that the
benefits of excluding the area outweigh the benefits of including the
area, provided the exclusion will not result in the extinction of this
subspecies.
Exclusion
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 an analysis of the probable
economic impacts of the proposed critical habitat designation and
related factors. In our DEA, we did not identify any ongoing or future
actions that would warrant additional recommendations or project
modifications to avoid adversely modifying critical habitat above those
we would recommend for avoiding jeopardy to the subspecies, and we
anticipate minimal change in behavior at Organ Pipe Cactus National
Monument due to the designation of critical habitat for Sonoyta mud
turtle (IEc 2017).
At this time, we are not considering any exclusion based on
economic impacts from the proposed designation of critical habitat for
Sonoyta mud turtle. During the development of a final designation, we
will consider any additional economic impact information we receive
during the public comment period; as such, areas may be excluded from
the final critical habitat designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act
and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.19.
Exclusions Based on National Security Impacts or Homeland Security
Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider whether there are
lands owned or managed by the Department of Defense where a national
security impact might exist. In preparing this proposal, we have
determined that the lands within the proposed designation of critical
habitat for the Sonoyta mud turtle are not owned or managed by the
Department of Defense or Department of Homeland Security, and,
therefore, we anticipate no impact on national security. Consequently,
the Secretary does not intend to exercise his discretion to exclude any
areas from the final designation 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 there are
permitted conservation plans covering the subspecies in the area such
as HCPs, safe harbor agreements, or candidate conservation agreements
with assurances, or whether there are non-permitted conservation
agreements and partnerships that would be encouraged by designation of,
or exclusion from, critical habitat. In addition, we look at the
existence of tribal conservation plans and partnerships 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.
In preparing this proposal, we have determined that there are
currently no HCPs or other management plans on non-federal lands for
the Sonoyta mud turtle, and the proposed designation does not include
any tribal lands or trust resources. We anticipate no impact on tribal
lands, partnerships, or HCPs from this proposed critical habitat
designation. Accordingly, the Secretary does not intend to exercise his
discretion to exclude any areas from the final designation based on
other relevant impacts.
Peer Review
In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the
Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270) and our August 22, 2016,
memorandum updating and clarifying the role of peer review of listing
actions under the Act, we sought the expert opinions of at least three
appropriate and independent specialists regarding the SSA Report, which
informed this proposed rule. The purpose of peer review is to ensure
that our critical habitat designation is based on scientifically sound
data, assumptions, and analyses. The peer reviewers have expertise in
Sonoyta or Sonora mud turtle life history, needs, habitat, and
stressors (factors negatively affecting the species). We will consider
all comments and information we receive during the comment period on
this proposed rule during our preparation of a final designation.
[[Page 62789]]
Accordingly, the final decision may differ from this proposal.
Public Hearings
Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for one or more public hearings
on this proposal, if requested. Requests must be received by the date
specified above in DATES. Such requests must be sent to the address
shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. We will schedule public
hearings on this proposal, if any are requested, and announce the
dates, times, and places of those hearings, as well as how to obtain
reasonable accommodations, in the Federal Register and local newspapers
at least 15 days before the hearing.
Required Determinations
Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Orders 12866 and 13563)
Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) will review all significant rules. The Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this rule is
not significant.
Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while
calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote
predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most
innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends.
The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches
that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for
the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and
consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further
that regulations must be based on the best available science and that
the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open
exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent
with these requirements.
Executive Order 13771--Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory
Costs
This proposed rule is not an Executive Order (E.O.) 13771 (82 FR
9339, February 3, 2017) regulatory action because this proposed rule is
not significant under E.O. 12866.
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 of
1996 (SBREFA; 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), whenever an agency is required to
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 the RFA to require Federal agencies to provide a
certification statement of the factual basis for certifying that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
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; and small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). 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 considered the
types of activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under this
designation as well as 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.
The Service's current understanding of the requirements under the
RFA, as amended, and following recent court decisions, is that Federal
agencies are only required to evaluate the potential incremental
impacts of rulemaking on those entities directly regulated by the
rulemaking itself, and, therefore, are not required to evaluate the
potential impacts to indirectly regulated entities. The regulatory
mechanism through which critical habitat protections are realized is
section 7 of the Act, which requires Federal agencies, in consultation
with the Service, to ensure that any action authorized, funded, or
carried out by the agency is not likely to destroy or adversely modify
critical habitat. Therefore, under section 7, only Federal action
agencies are directly subject to the specific regulatory requirement
(avoiding destruction and adverse modification) imposed by critical
habitat designation. Consequently, it is our position that only Federal
action agencies would be directly regulated by this designation. There
is no requirement under RFA to evaluate the potential impacts to
entities not directly regulated. Moreover, Federal agencies are not
small entities. Therefore, because no small entities would be directly
regulated by this rulemaking, the Service certifies that, if adopted,
this proposed critical habitat designation will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
In summary, we have considered whether the proposed designation
would result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number
of small entities. For the above reasons and based on currently
available information, we certify that, if adopted, the proposed
critical habitat designation would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small business entities. Therefore,
an initial 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. In our economic analysis, we did not find that the
designation of this proposed critical habitat would significantly
affect energy supplies, distribution, or use because the proposed
critical habitat unit is entirely contained within Organ Pipe Cactus
National Monument. Therefore, this action is not a significant energy
action, and no Statement of Energy Effects is required. However, we
will further evaluate this issue as we conduct our economic analysis,
and review and revise this assessment as warranted.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)
In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501
et seq.), we make the following findings:
(1) This rule would not produce a Federal mandate. In general, a
Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or regulation
that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal
governments, or the private sector, and includes both ``Federal
intergovernmental mandates'' and ``Federal private sector mandates.''
These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C.
[[Page 62790]]
658(5)-(7). ``Federal intergovernmental mandate'' includes a regulation
that ``would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal
governments'' with two exceptions. It excludes ``a condition of Federal
assistance.'' It also excludes ``a duty arising from participation in a
voluntary Federal program,'' unless the regulation ``relates to a then-
existing Federal program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided
annually to State, local, and tribal governments under entitlement
authority,'' if the provision would ``increase the stringency of
conditions of assistance'' or ``place caps upon, or otherwise decrease,
the Federal Government's responsibility to provide funding,'' and the
State, local, or tribal governments ``lack authority'' to adjust
accordingly. At the time of enactment, these entitlement programs were:
Medicaid; Aid to Families with Dependent Children work programs; Child
Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social Services Block Grants; Vocational
Rehabilitation State Grants; Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, and
Independent Living; Family Support Welfare Services; and Child Support
Enforcement. ``Federal private sector mandate'' includes a regulation
that ``would impose an enforceable duty upon the private sector, except
(i) a condition of Federal assistance or (ii) a duty arising from
participation in a voluntary Federal program.''
The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally
binding duty on non-Federal Government entities or private parties.
Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must
ensure that their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat under section 7. While non-Federal entities that receive
Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that otherwise require
approval or authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be
indirectly impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the legally
binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical
habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to the
extent that non-Federal entities are indirectly impacted because they
receive Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal aid
program, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply, nor would
critical habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs
listed above onto State governments.
(2) We do not believe that this rule would significantly or
uniquely affect small governments because we are proposing to designate
only a single critical habitat unit that is entirely owned by the
National Park Service. 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 Sonoyta mud turtle in a takings implications
assessment. The Act does not authorize the Service to regulate private
actions on private lands or confiscate private property as a result of
critical habitat designation. Designation of critical habitat does not
affect land ownership, or establish any closures, or restrictions on
use of or access to the designated areas. Furthermore, the designation
of critical habitat 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. However, Federal agencies are prohibited from carrying out,
funding, or authorizing actions that would destroy or adversely modify
critical habitat. A takings implications assessment has been completed
and concludes that this proposed designation of critical habitat for
Sonoyta mud turtle 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 proposed rule does
not have significant Federalism effects. A federalism summary impact
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 proposed critical habitat designation
with, appropriate State resource agencies in Arizona. From a federalism
perspective, the designation of critical habitat directly affects only
the responsibilities of Federal agencies. The Act imposes no other
duties with respect to critical habitat, either for States and local
governments, or for anyone else. As a result, this proposed rule would
not have substantial direct effects either on the States, or on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of powers and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. The designation may have some benefit to these governments
because the areas that contain the features essential to the
conservation of the subspecies are more clearly defined, and the
physical or biological features of the habitat necessary to the
conservation of the subspecies are specifically identified. This
information does not alter where and what federally sponsored
activities may occur. However, it may assist these local governments in
long-range planning (because these local governments no longer have to
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 Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform),
the Office of the Solicitor has determined that the rule does not
unduly burden the judicial system and that it meets the requirements of
sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the E.O. We have proposed designating
critical habitat in accordance with the provisions of the Act. To
assist the public in understanding the habitat needs of the subspecies,
the proposed rule identifies the elements of physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of the subspecies. The proposed
areas of critical habitat are presented on a map, and the proposed rule
provides several options for the interested public to obtain more
detailed location information, if desired.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
This rule does not contain any new collections of information that
require approval by the Office of Management and Budget (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
[[Page 62791]]
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
It is our position that, outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to prepare
environmental analyses pursuant to the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) in connection with designating
critical habitat under the Act. We published a notice outlining our
reasons for this determination in the Federal Register on October 25,
1983 (48 FR 49244). This position was upheld by the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495
(9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied 516 U.S. 1042 (1996)). Because this
proposed critical habitat does not occur on lands within the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, we are not conducting an
environmental analysis.
Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994
(Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal
Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and
Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments), and the Department of the
Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with
Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights,
Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act),
we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with
tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge
that tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal
public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make
information available to tribes. The Quitobaquito Pond is a culturally
significant site for the Tohono O'odham. We will request a meeting with
the Tohono O'odham Nation to inform them of this proposed rule to
designate critical habitat.
We determined that there are no tribal lands that were occupied by
the Sonoyta mud turtle at the time of listing that contain the features
essential for conservation of the subspecies, and no tribal lands
unoccupied by the Sonoyta mud turtle that are essential for the
conservation of the subspecies. Therefore, we are not proposing to
designate critical habitat for the Sonoyta mud turtle on tribal lands.
Clarity of the Rule
We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the
Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain
language. This means that each rule we publish must:
(1) Be logically organized;
(2) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(3) Use clear language rather than jargon;
(4) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
(5) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us
comments by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To better help us
revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as possible. For
example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections or paragraphs
that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences are too long,
the sections where you feel lists or tables would be useful, etc.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited in this proposed rule is
available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov and upon
request from the Arizona Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Authors
The primary authors of this proposed rule are the staff members of
the Arizona Ecological Services Field Office.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Proposed Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter
I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS
0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245,
unless otherwise noted.
0
2. Amend Sec. 17.11(h) by revising the entry for ``Turtle, Sonoyta
mud'' under ``REPTILES'' in the List of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife to read as follows:
Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Listing citations and
Common name Scientific name Where listed Status applicable rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Reptiles
* * * * * * *
Turtle, Sonoyta mud............ Kinosternon Wherever found.... E 82 FR 43897, 9/20/
sonoriense 2017;
longifemorale. 50 CFR 17.95(c).\CH\
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
3. Amend Sec. 17.95(c) by adding an entry for ``Sonoyta Mud Turtle
(Kinosternon sonoriense longifemorale),'' immediately following the
entry for ``Plymouth Red-bellied Turtle (Chrysemys rubriventris
bangsi)'', to read as follows:
Sec. 17.95 Critical habitat--fish and wildlife.
* * * * *
(c) Reptiles.
* * * * *
Sonoyta Mud Turtle (Kinosternon sonoriense longifemorale)
(1) Critical habitat unit is depicted for Pima County, Arizona, on
the map below.
(2) Within this area, the physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the Sonoyta mud turtle consist of the following
components:
[[Page 62792]]
(i) Aquatic habitat, such as streams and natural or manmade ponds,
with perennial or near-perennial sources of water, containing or
including:
(A) Surface water to 2 meters (7 feet) deep, with a rocky, muddy,
or sandy substrate, and emergent or submergent vegetation, or both;
(B) Surface water free of nonnative predators and competitors,
including crayfish, American bullfrogs, and large sunfish;
(C) Shallow water areas with dense emergent vegetation (e.g.,
cattail, spikerush, and travelling spikerush);
(D) Access to deeper open water in ponds, and submerged vegetation
(e.g., holly-leaved water nymph, slender pondweed, ditch-grass, and
horned pondweed); and
(E) Areas with complex structure, including protective shelter
sites such as root masses, rock features, and undercut banks.
(ii) Aquatic invertebrate prey base (e.g., Anisoptera, Trichoptera,
Diptera, Coleoptera, aquatic snail species) and their corresponding
habitat, including submergent or emergent vegetation and a variety of
forage, and prey such as algae, diatoms, other microorganisms.
(iii) Terrestrial, riparian habitat, adjacent to suitable aquatic
habitat, containing or including:
(A) Accessible shoreline for Sonoyta mud turtles without
insurmountable rock or artificial vertical barriers to allow movement
between wetted sites, between aquatic habitat and terrestrial nest
sites, and between aquatic habitat and estivation sites;
(B) Riparian areas that maintain soil moisture to prevent
desiccation of eggs and provide estivation sites, located along the
banks of ponds and streams with riparian vegetation (e.g., cottonwood,
willow, seepwillow, mesquite, greythorn, wolfberry, salt grass,
arroweed); and
(C) Estivation and nesting sites, including depressions under
vegetation, soil, or organic matter; rock crevices; and soil burrows
under overhanging banks of streams or ponds, that are available year-
round.
(3) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures (such as
buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, and other paved areas) and the
land on which they are located existing within the legal boundaries on
[Insert effective date of final rule]. However, the spring enclosure,
the manmade pond, the manmade channel that connects the springs to the
pond, and the piped water that connects the two springs within the
designated critical habitat are part of the designation.
(4) Critical habitat map units. Data layers defining map unit were
developed using ESRI ArcGIS mapping software along with various spatial
layers. We used ground-truthed data provided by Organ Pipe Cactus
National Monument staff that depicts all aquatic habitat used by the
Sonoyta mud turtle, including Quitobaquito Pond and moat, the two
Quitobaquito springs, the manmade channel that connects the springs to
the pond, and the piped water that connects the two springs. For
terrestrial, we used satellite imagery available in ArcGIS to delineate
the riparian areas surrounding the surface water habitat. World Imagery
used from ArcGIS provides 1 meter or better satellite and aerial
imagery in many parts of the world and lower resolution satellite
imagery worldwide. The map includes 15m TerraColor 0.3m resolution
imagery at this map scale of 1:6,000. Additionally, imagery at
different resolutions has been contributed by the GIS User Community.
ArcGIS was also used to calculate area hectares and acres, and was used
to determine longitude and latitude coordinates in decimal degrees. The
coordinate system used in mapping and calculating area and locations
within the unit was Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) conformal
projection with 1983 North American Datum in Zone 12. The map in this
entry, as modified by any accompanying regulatory text, establishes the
boundaries of the critical habitat designation. The coordinates or plot
points or both on which the map is based are available to the public at
http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/, at http://www.regulations.gov
at Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2017-0014, and at the field office responsible
for this designation. You may obtain field office location information
by contacting one of the Service regional offices, the addresses of
which are listed at 50 CFR 2.2.
(5) Quitobaquito Unit, Pima County, Arizona.
(i) General description: This unit consists of approximately 12.28
acres (4.97 hectares) in the Rio Sonoyta watershed in Pima County, and
is composed entirely of Federal land owned by the National Park Service
on Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument. The unit includes Quitobaquito
Pond, the two Quitobaquito springs, the manmade channel that connects
the springs to the pond, and the piped water that connects the two
springs and surrounding riparian habitat.
(ii) Unit map follows:
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
[[Page 62793]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE18.002
[[Page 62794]]
* * * * *
Dated: October 11, 2018.
James W. Kurth,
Deputy Director, Exercising the Authority of the Director, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-26388 Filed 12-4-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-C