20464 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2009–0083; 

92210–1117–0000–B4] 

RIN 1018–AV84 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Proposed Endangered 

Status for the Three Forks Springsnail 

and San Bernardino Springsnail, and 

Proposed Designation of Critical 

Habitat 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), propose to 

list the Three Forks springsnail 

(Pyrgulopsis trivialis) and the San 

Bernardino springsnail (Pyrgulopsis 

bernardina) as endangered under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act). If we finalize this rule 

as proposed, it would extend the Act’s 

protections to these species. We also 

propose to designate critical habitat for 

both species under the Act. In total, 

approximately 4.5 hectares (11.1 acres) 

are being proposed for designation as 

critical habitat for Three Forks 

springnail in Apache County, and 

approximately 0.815 hectares (2.013 

acres) for San Bernardino springsnail in 

Cochise County, Arizona. We seek 

information and comments from the 

public regarding the Three Forks and 

San Bernardino springsnails and this 

proposed rule. 

DATES: We will accept comments 

received or postmarked on or before 

June 13, 2011. We must receive requests 

for public hearings, in writing, at the 

address shown in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section by May 

27, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by one of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments 

for Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2009–0083. 

• U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public 

Comments Processing, Attn: Docket No. 

FWS–R2–ES–2009–0083; Division of 

Policy and Directives Management; U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. 

Fairfax Drive, Suite 222; Arlington, VA 

22203. 

We will not accept e-mail or faxes. We 

will post all comments on http:// 

www.regulations.gov. This generally 

means that we will post any personal 

information you provide us (see the 

Public Comments Solicited section 

below for more information). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Steve Spangle, Field Supervisor, 

Arizona Ecological Services Field 

Office, 2321 West Royal Palm Road, 

Suite 103, Phoenix, Arizona, 85021; 

telephone 602–242–0210; facsimile 

602–242–2513. If you use a 

telecommunications device for the deaf 

(TDD), call the Federal Information 

Relay Service (FIRS) at 800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

document consists of: (1) A proposed 

rule to list the Three Forks Springsnail 

and San Bernardino Springsnail as 

endangered; and (2) proposed critical 

habitat designations for the two species. 

Previous Federal Actions 

We first identified the Three Forks 

springsnail as a candidate for listing on 

October 30, 2001 (66 FR 54808). We first 

identified the San Bernardino 

springsnail as a candidate for listing on 

December 6, 2007 (72 FR 69034). 

Candidates are those fish, wildlife, and 

plants for which we have on file 

sufficient information on biological 

vulnerability and threats to support 

preparation of a listing proposal, but for 

which development of a listing 

regulation is precluded by other higher 

priority listing activities. 

On May 4, 2004, the Center for 

Biological Diversity petitioned the 

Service to list 225 species of plants and 

animals as endangered under the 

provisions of the Endangered Species 

Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 

seq.), including the Three Forks 

springsnail. On June 25, 2007, we 

received a petition from Forest 

Guardians to list 475 species in the 

southwestern United States as 

threatened or endangered under the 

provisions of the Act, including the San 

Bernardino springsnail. In our most 

recent annual Candidate Notice of 

Review dated November 10, 2010 (75 FR 

69222), we retained a listing priority 

number (LPN) of 2 for the Three Forks 

springsnail and the San Bernardino 

springsnail in accordance with our 

priority guidance published on 

September 21, 1983 (48 FR 43098). An 

LPN of 2 reflects threats that are both 

imminent and high in magnitude, as 

well as the taxonomic classification as 

a full species. 

Public Comments 

We intend that any final action 

resulting from this proposed rule will be 

based on the best scientific and 

commercial data available and be as 

accurate and as effective as possible. 

Therefore, we request comments or 

information from the public, other 

concerned governmental and tribal 

agencies, the scientific community, 

industry, or any other interested party 

concerning this proposed rule. We 

particularly seek comments concerning: 

(1) Biological, commercial trade, or 

other relevant data concerning any 

threats (or lack thereof) to these species 

and regulations that may be addressing 

those threats. 

(2) Additional information concerning 

the range, distribution, and population 

size of these species, including the 

locations of any additional populations. 

(3) Any information on the biological 

or ecological requirements of these 

species. 

(4) The reasons why we should or 

should not designate habitat as ‘‘critical 

habitat’’ under section 4 of the Act 

including whether there are threats to 

the species from human activity which 

are expected to increase due to the 

designation, and whether that increase 

in threat outweighs the benefit of 

designation such that the designation of 

critical habitat may not be prudent. 

(5) Specific information on: 

• The amount and distribution of 

habitat for each species, 

• What areas occupied at the time of 

listing and that contain features 

essential to the conservation of these 

species should be included in the 

designation and why, 

• Special management considerations 

or protections that the features essential 

to the conservation of both species that 

have been identified in this proposal 

may require, including managing for the 

potential effects of climate change, and 

• What areas not occupied at the time 

of listing are essential for the 

conservation of the species and why. 

(6) Land use designations and current 

or planned activities in the subject areas 

and their possible impacts on proposed 

critical habitat. 

(7) Any probable economic, national 

security, or other relevant impacts of 

designating any area that may be 

included in the final designation. We 

are particularly interested in any 

impacts on small entities or families, 

and the benefits of including or 

excluding areas that exhibit these 

impacts. 

(8) Whether we could improve or 

modify our approach to designating 

critical habitat in any way to provide for 

greater public participation and 

understanding, or to better 

accommodate public concerns and 

comments. 

(9) Information on the projected and 

reasonably likely impacts of climate 

change on both species and the critical 

habitat areas we are proposing. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2011 / Proposed Rules 20465 

You may submit your comments and 

materials concerning this proposed rule 

by one of the methods listed in the 

ADDRESSES section. 

We will post your entire comment— 

including your personal identifying 

information—on http:// 

www.regulations.gov. If you provide 

personal identifying information, such 

as your street address, phone number, or 

e-mail address, you may request at the 

top of your document that we withhold 

this information from public review. 

However, we cannot guarantee that we 

will be able to do so. 

Comments and materials we receive, 

as well as supporting documentation we 

used in preparing this proposed rule, 

will be available for public inspection 

on http://www.regulations.gov at Docket 

No. FWS–R2–ES–2009–0083, or by 

appointment, during normal business 

hours, at the Arizona Ecological 

Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section). 

Background 

Both the Three Forks springsnail and 

San Bernardino springsnail are members 

of the genus Pyrgulopsis in the family 

Hydrobiidae. In the arid Southwest, 

springsnails in this family are largely 

relicts of the wetter Pleistocene Epoch 

(2.5 million to 10,000 years ago) and are 

typically distributed across the 

landscape as geographically isolated 

populations exhibiting a high degree of 

endemism (found only in a particular 

area or region) (Bequart and Miller 1973, 

p. 214; Taylor 1987, pp. 5–6; Shepard 

1993, p. 354; Hershler and Sada 2002, 

p. 255). Springsnails are strictly aquatic 

and respiration occurs through an 

internal gill. Springsnails in the genus 

Pyrgulopsis are egg-layers (Hershler 

1998, p. 14). The larval stage is 

completed in the egg capsule and, upon 

hatching, tiny snails emerge into their 

adult habitat (Brusca and Brusca 1990, 

p. 759; Hershler and Sada 2002, p. 256). 

The sexes are separate and physical 

differences are noticeable between 

them, with females being larger than 

males. Mobility is limited, and 

significant migration likely does not 

occur, although aquatic snails have been 

known to disperse by becoming 

attached to the feathers of migratory 

birds (Roscoe 1955, p. 66; Dundee et al. 

1967, pp. 89–90). 

Springsnails in the family 

Hydrobiidae feed primarily on 

periphyton, which is a complex mixture 

of algae, detritus, bacteria, and other 

microbes that live upon submerged 

surfaces in aquatic environments 

(Mladenka 1992, pp. 46, 81; Hershler 

and Sada 2002, p. 256; Lysne et al. 2007, 

p. 649). The life span of most aquatic 

snails is 9 to 15 months (Pennak 1989, 

p. 552); survival of one species in the 

genus Pyrgulopsis in the laboratory was 

12.7 months (Lysne et al. 2007, p. 3). 

Both the Three Forks springsnail and 

San Bernardino springsnail occur in 

springs, seeps, spring runs, and a variety 

of waters, but particularly rheocrene 

systems (water emerging from the 

ground as a free-flowing stream). In the 

desert Southwest, these spring 

ecosystems are commonly referred to as 

cienegas (Hendrickson and Minckley 

1984, pp. 133, 169; Minckley and Brown 

1994, pp. 223–287). Snails in the genus 

Pyrgulopsis are rarely found in mud or 

soft sediments (Hershler 1998, p. 14) 

and are typically more abundant in 

gravel to cobble size substrates (Frest 

and Johannes 1995, p. 203; Malcom et 

al. 2005, p. 75; Martinez and Thome 

2006, pp. 12–13; Lysne et al. 2007, p. 

650). These substrate types provide a 

suitable surface for springsnails to graze 

and lay eggs (Taylor 1987, p. 5; Hersler 

1998, p. 14). 

Proximity to springheads, where 

water emerges from the ground, plays a 

key role in the life history of 

springsnails. Many springsnail species 

exhibit decreased abundance further 

away from spring vents, presumably due 

to their need for stable water chemistry 

and flow regime provided by spring 

waters (Hershler 1984, p. 68; Hershler 

1998, p. 11; Hershler and Sada 2002, p. 

256; Martinez and Thome 2006, p. 14; 

Tsai et al. 2007, p. 216). Several habitat 

parameters of springs, such as substrate, 

dissolved carbon dioxide, dissolved 

oxygen, temperature, conductivity, and 

water depth, have been shown to 

influence the distribution and 

abundance of Pyrgulopsis snails 

(O’Brien and Blinn 1999, p. 231–232; 

Mladenka and Minshall 2001, pp. 209– 

211; Malcom et al. 2005, p. 75; Martinez 

and Thome 2006, pp. 12–15; Lysne et al. 

2007, p. 650; Tsai et al. 2007, p. 2006). 

Dissolved salt may also be an important 

factor, because it is essential for shell 

formation (Pennak 1989, p. 552). 

Three Forks Springsnail 

The Three Forks springsnail was 

described as Pyrgulopsis trivialis by 

Hershler (1994, pp. 68–69). We have 

carefully reviewed the available 

taxonomic information (Landye 1973, p. 

49; Taylor 1987, pp. 30–32; Hershler 

and Landye 1988, pp. 32–35; Hershler 

1994, pp. 68–69; Hurt 2004, p. 1176) 

and conclude that Three Forks 

springsnail is a valid taxon. The Three 

Forks springsnail is a variably sized 

species, with a shell height (length) of 

1.5 to 4.8 millimeters (mm) (0.06 to 0.19 

in). A detailed description of the 

identifying characteristics of the Three 

Forks springsnail is found in Taylor 

(1987, pp. 30–32) and Hershler and 

Landye (1988, pp. 32–35). 

The Three Forks springsnail is known 

to occur in two separate spring 

complexes, Three Forks Springs and 

Boneyard Bog Springs in the North Fork 

East Fork Black River Watershed of the 

White Mountains on the ApacheSitgreaves National Forests in Apache 

County, east-central Arizona (Myers 

2000, p. 1; Nelson et al. 2002, p. 5). 

These spring complexes are found in 

open mountain meadows at 2,500 

meters (m) (8,200 feet (ft)) elevation and 

are separated by 6 kilometers (km) (3.7 

miles (mi)) of perennial flowing stream 

(Martinez and Myers 2008, p. 189). The 

species has been found in free-flowing 

springheads, concrete boxed 

springheads, spring runs, spring seeps, 

and shallow ponded water at Three 

Forks Springs and Boneyard Bog 

Springs (Martinez and Myers 2008, p. 

189). A springsnail of the same genus 

was recently found in a spring along 

Boneyard Creek between Three Forks 

Springs and Boneyard Bog Springs 

(Myers 2010, p. 1). Although the locality 

of this new site suggests it is likely the 

same species, additional analysis will be 

needed for a definitive determination of 

its taxonomy. 

Martinez and Myers (2008, p. 189– 

194) found the presence of Three Forks 

springsnail was associated with gravel/ 

pebble substrates, shallow water up to 6 

centimeters (cm) (2.4 in) deep, high 

conductivity, alkaline waters of pH 8, 

and the presence of pond snails, Physa 

gyrina. It has also been shown that 

density of Three Forks springsnail is 

significantly greater on gravel/cobble 

substrates (Martinez and Myers 2002, p. 

1; Nelson 2002, p. 1), though the species 

has been reported as ‘‘abundant’’ in the 

fine-grained mud of a 0.01 hectare (ha) 

(0.025 acre (ac)) pond at Three Forks 

(Taylor 1987, p. 32). Abundance has 

been found to decrease downstream 

from springheads (Nelson et al. 2002, p. 

11), consistent with studies of other 

springsnails (Hershler 1984, p. 68; 

Hershler 1998, p. 11; Hershler and Sada 

2002, p. 256; Martinez and Thome 2006, 

p. 14; Tsai et al. 2007, p. 216). 

The Three Forks springsnail was 

historically abundant at both Three 

Forks and Boneyard Bog springs (Myers 

2000, p. 1; Nelson et al. 2002, p. 5). 

Nelson et al. (2002, p. 5) reported Three 

Forks springsnail densities of 

approximately 60 snails per square 

meter (72 per square yard) at Three 

Forks and approximately 790 snails per 

square meter (945 per square yard) at 

Boneyard Bog Springs. The number at a 

single springbrook, with an area of 213 

square meters (254 square yards), at 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2
20466 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

Three Forks Springs in 2002 was 

estimated at tens of thousands of 

individual snails (Martinez 2009, pp. 

31–32). The Three Forks springsnail no 

longer occurs in abundance at Three 

Forks Springs. Since 2004, annual 

surveys at Three Forks have detected 

very low numbers of the species, 

including two individuals found in 

August 2005 (Cox 2007, p. 1) and three 

individuals found in July 2008 (Bailey 

2008, p. 1). Reasons for the decline are 

discussed in the Threats section of this 

proposed rule. The species continues to 

be abundant at Boneyard Bog Springs 

(Cox 2007, p. 1). 

San Bernardino Springsnail 

The San Bernardino springsnail was 

described by Hershler (1994, pp. 21–22) 

as Pyrgulopsis bernardina from 

specimens collected at the type locality 

(site of original collection) from two 

springs on San Bernardino Ranch 

(including Snail Spring), Cochise 

County, Arizona. We have reviewed the 

available taxonomic information 

(Landye 1973, p. 34; Landye 1981, p. 21; 

Hershler and Landye 1988, p. 41; Taylor 

1987, p. 34; Hershler 1994, p. 21; Hurt 

2004, p. 1176) and conclude that San 

Bernardino springsnail is a valid taxon. 

The San Bernardino springsnail has a 

narrow-conic shell and a height of 1.3 

to 1.7 mm. A detailed description of the 

identifying characteristics of the San 

Bernardino springsnail is found in 

Hershler (1994, pp. 21–22). 

The historical range of the San 

Bernardino springsnail in the United 

States may have included at least six 

populations within a complex of spring 

ecosystems along the Rio San 

Bernardino (also known as San 

Bernardino Creek or Black Draw) within 

the headwaters of the Rio Yaqui in 

Cochise County, southern Arizona, on 

what is now the San Bernardino 

National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) and the 

adjacent, private John Slaughter Ranch, 

including Snail Spring, House Spring, 

Horse Spring, Goat Tank Spring, House 

Pond, Tule Spring, and Mesa Seep (Cox 

et al. 2007, pp. 1–2; Service 2007, pp. 

82–83; Malcom et al. 2005, p. 75; 

Malcom et al. 2003, p. 2; Velasco 2000, 

p. 1). The current range of the species 

is limited to two or possibly three 

springs, all located on the John 

Slaughter Ranch. The San Bernardino 

springsnail has recently been confirmed 

in Goat Tank Spring and Horse Spring 

(Martinez 2010, p. 2), though the species 

appears to exhibit low population 

numbers at these two sites. The species 

was formerly very abundant at Snail 

Spring on the John Slaughter Ranch 

(Malcom et al. 2003, p. 17; Malcom et 

al. 2005, p. 74) and was last confirmed 

from that site in 2005 (Cox et al. 2007, 

p. 1). 

In Sonora, Mexico, a springsnail in 

the same family as the San Bernardino 

springsnail occurs in the San 

Bernardino and Los Ojitos cienegas on 

the private Rancho San Bernardino 

within 0.25 mi (0.4 km) of San 

Bernardino NWR (Service 2007, p. 82; 

Malcom et al. 2005, p. 75). The snails 

found in Mexico are likely to be San 

Bernardino springsnails, since they 

occur in the same drainage; however, 

additional research is needed to verify 

if this is the case (Hershler 2009, p. 1; 

Hershler 2008, p. 1). 

Malcom et al. 2005 (pp. 71, 75–76) 

showed that the density of San 

Bernardino springsnail was positively 

associated with cobble substrates, 

higher vegetation density, faster water 

velocity, higher dissolved oxygen, water 

temperatures of 14 to 22 degrees 

Celsius, and pH values between 7.6 and 

8.0. San Bernardino springsnail density 

exhibited positive relationships to sand 

and cobble substrates, vegetation 

density, and water velocity, and 

negative relationships to silt and organic 

substrates, and water depth (Malcom et 

al. 2005, pp. 75–76). Substrates with 

higher silt content typically support 

fewer springsnails. No studies have 

been conducted to determine the 

species’ limits or tolerances to specific 

habitat thresholds. 

Limited information is available on 

population sizes for the San Bernardino 

springsnail. Malcom et al. (2003, p. 7; 

2005, p. 74) estimated average 

springsnail density as 55,929 

individuals per square meter (66,893 per 

square yard) at Snail Spring from 

September 2001 to March 2002. The 

species appears to occur in low 

population numbers at Goat Tank 

Spring and Horse Spring, often making 

detection difficult. 

Summary of Factors Affecting the 

Species 

Section 4 of the Act and 

implementing regulations at 50 CFR part 

424 set forth procedures for adding 

species to the Federal Lists of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants. A species may be 

determined to be an endangered or 

threatened species due to one or more 

of the five factors described in section 

4(a)(1) of the Act: (A) The present or 

threatened destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) 

overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) 

the inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms; and (E) other natural or 

manmade factors affecting its continued 

existence. Listing actions may be 

warranted based on any of the above 

threat factors, singly or in combination. 

Each of these factors is discussed below. 

A. The Present or Threatened 

Destruction, Modification, or 

Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range 

Wildfire Suppression 

Fire frequency and intensity in 

southwestern forests are altered from 

historical conditions (Dahms and Geils 

1997, p. 34; Danzer et al. 1997, p. 1). 

Before the late 1800s, surface fires 

generally occurred at least once per 

decade in montane forests with a pine 

component (Swetnam and Baisan 1996, 

p. 15), landscapes similar to those 

within which the Three Forks 

springsnail occurs. During the early 

1900s, frequent widespread ground fires 

ceased to occur due to intensive 

livestock grazing that removed fine 

fuels, such as grasses. Coupled with fire 

suppression, changes in fuel load began 

to alter forest structure and natural fire 

regime (Dahms and Geils 1997, p. 34). 

Absence of low-intensity ground fires 

allowed a buildup of woody fuels that 

resulted in infrequent, but very hot, 

stand replacing fires (very hot fires 

which kill all or most of aboveground 

parts of the dominant vegetation, 

changing the aboveground structure 

substantially) (Danzer et al. 1997, p. 9; 

Dahm and Geils 1997, p. 34). 

On May 17, 2004, and June 8, 2004, 

two wildfires, the KP and Three Forks 

fires, ignited near one another on U.S. 

Forest Service (USFS) lands and 

developed into hot crown fires (fires 

burning in tree canopies). Initial fire 

suppression efforts by the USFS were 

unsuccessful, and the USFS authorized 

additional actions to protect resources 

from what they considered to be 

extreme fire behavior (USFS 2005, p. 2– 

3). The additional actions included 

application of aerial fire retardants. 

Although this fire complex did not 

directly burn the Three Forks Springs 

area, surface waters within the Three 

Forks fire area were exposed to fire 

retardant (chemicals used to suppress 

fire) that likely drifted from high 

elevation retardant releases from aircraft 

(USFS 2005, pp. 4, 12). 

Fire retardants are toxic to 

springsnails when they enter the aquatic 

systems the snails occupy. Some fire 

retardant chemicals are ammonia-based, 

which are toxic to aquatic wildlife; 

however, many formulations also 

contain yellow prussiate of soda 

(sodium ferrocyanide), which is added 

as an anticorrosive agent. Such 

formulations are toxic for fish, aquatic 

invertebrates, and algae (Angeler et al. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2011 / Proposed Rules 20467 

2006, pp. 171–172; Calfee and Little 

2003, pp. 1527–1530; Little and Calfee 

2002, p. 5; Buhl and Hamilton 1998, p. 

1598; Hamilton et al. 1998, p. 3; 

Gaikwokski et al. 1996, pp. 1372–1373). 

Toxicity of these formulations is 

enhanced by sunlight (Calfee and Little 

2003, pp. 1529–1533). Contamination of 

aquatic sites can occur via direct 

application or runoff from treated 

uplands. 

During the fire suppression activities 

in the vicinity of Three Forks Springs, 

approximately 108,610 gallons (411,130 

liters) of aerial fire retardant were 

applied (USFS 2005, p. 3). The nearest 

documented release into a waterway 

was 0.65 mi (1.05 km) from Three Forks 

Springs, though other undocumented 

aerial releases in the area could have 

been closer. The USFS (2005, p. 12) 

concluded that lethal concentrations of 

retardant contaminated Three Forks 

Springs waters. This contamination 

resulted in the near disappearance of 

springsnails following the fire. 

Available data indicate that the species 

was still abundant in all historically 

occupied sites at Three Forks Springs in 

2002 and 2003, just prior to the fire 

(Arizona Game and Fish Department 

(AGFD) 2008, p. 57–70; Martinez 2009, 

pp. 31–32). Surveys in 2004, 

immediately following the fire, failed to 

locate any springsnails. 2005 surveys 

detected only two snails (Cox 2007, p. 

1), 2008 surveys detected only three 

snails (Bailey 2008, p. 1), 2009 surveys 

located only one snail (Grosch 2010, p. 

1), and 2010 surveys did not detect any 

snails (Sorensen 2010, p.1). Since these 

are short-lived species, finding even a 

few individuals 4 and 5 years after the 

fire seems to indicate that the species 

continues to persist, though 

precariously, at Three Forks Springs. 

Lack of vegetation and forest litter 

following intense crown fires can 

expose soils to surface erosion during 

storms, often causing sedimentation, 

and erosion in downstream drainages 

(DeBano and Neary 1996, pp. 70–75). 

Surface erosion could not have directly 

affected the Three Forks springsnail or 

its habitat because the spring area did 

not burn. We do not have information 

that surface erosion following any 

wildfires has affected the Three Forks 

springsnail or its habitat in the past. 

However, since both Three Forks and 

Boneyard Bog spring complexes are 

surrounded by dense coniferous forests, 

it is reasonable to expect that surface 

erosion from high intensity wildfires 

may threaten them in the future. 

Considering the toxic effect of fire 

retardant and the high potential for 

future wildfires in the area with 

exposure at both Three Forks and 

Boneyard Bog springs, we conclude 

there is a high risk that the Three Forks 

springsnail could become extinct due to 

exposure to fire retardant chemicals in 

its habitat. 

While fires occur within the range of 

the San Bernardino springsnail, we have 

no information on fire frequency or 

intensity in this area. However, if a 

wildfire were to occur, suppression 

efforts could include the application of 

fire retardant chemicals. In this 

scenario, we would expect San 

Bernardino springsnails to react 

negatively to exposure to fire retardants. 

Because wildfire is unpredictable, and 

exposure to fire retardants could occur 

in the future, we believe this represents 

a potential threat to the species. 

Ungulate Grazing 

Ungulate (hoofed mammal) grazing on 

spring ecosystems can alter or remove 

springsnail habitat and limit the 

distribution of springsnails, or result in 

extirpation. For instance, cattle 

trampling at a spring in Owens Valley, 

California, reduced banks to mud and 

sparse grass, limiting the occurrence of 

the endangered Fish Slough springsnail 

(Pyrgulopsis pertubata) (Bruce and 

White 1998, pp. 3–4). Additionally, a 

population of another closely related 

springsnail, Chupadera springsnail, (P. 

chupaderae), endemic to Socorro 

County, New Mexico, was extirpated 

due to the impacts of livestock grazing 

on its habitat (Arritt 1998, p. 10). 

Since the mid- and late 1990s, 

livestock have been fenced out of both 

Three Forks and Boneyard Bog springs. 

However, free-ranging elk (Cervus 

elaphus) have access to both spring 

complexes. During field surveys in 2000 

and 2008, Service staff noted evidence 

of elk wallowing at Boneyard Bog 

Springs (Martinez 2000, p. 1; Martinez 

2008, p. 1). Areas affected by wallowing 

were characterized by banks reduced to 

mud and sparse grass, with stagnant, 

rather than flowing, water. These are not 

optimal habitat conditions for the Three 

Forks springsnail. Although the AGFD 

have stated that elk wallowing at 

Boneyard Bog Springs may be a problem 

for maintaining springhead integrity, 

they did not find the amount of habitat 

disturbed alarming (Shroufe 2003, p. 5). 

We have discussed with AGFD and the 

Forest Service the possibility of 

constructing an elk fence, but no action 

has been taken. Nevertheless, the 

maintenance of springhead integrity is 

critical to maintaining water quality and 

conserving springsnails (Hershler and 

Williams 1996, p. 1). The observed 

changes to springsnail habitat resulting 

from elk use at Boneyard Bog Springs 

threatens the integrity of the spring 

system. 

Ungulate grazing is not believed to be 

a current threat for the San Bernardino 

springsnail. Cattle grazing does not 

currently occur on the San Bernardino 

NWR. A small number of cattle graze on 

the John Slaughter Ranch, but they do 

not have access to the spring sites. 

Horse Spring is located in a horse pen 

(Martinez 2010, p. 2), but it is unclear 

what effect, if any, the horses have on 

the spring. However, past cattle grazing 

may have played a role in the 

extirpation of the species from what 

may have been its historical range. The 

San Bernardino Valley, including the 

John Slaughter Ranch, historically 

supported extensive cattle ranching 

(Hendrickson and Minckley 1984, pp. 

142–144; Service 2007, p. iii–iv). At one 

time, livestock likely had access to all 

spring habitats along the Rio San 

Bernardino. 

Springhead Inundation 

Springhead inundation refers to 

pooling of water over a spring vent 

resulting in ponded water, sometimes 

relatively deep, that would otherwise 

exist as shallow free-flowing water. 

Inundation can alter springsnail habitats 

by causing shifts in water depth, 

velocity, substrate composition, 

vegetation, and water chemistry. 

Inundation has negatively affected other 

springsnails (70 FR 46304, August 9, 

2005). 

Three Forks springsnail habitats have 

been subjected to minor inundation. 

During the 1930s, concrete boxes were 

constructed around four springheads at 

Three Forks Springs. However, these 

boxes are small and the majority of the 

springs affected still exist as shallow, 

flowing-water ecosystems below the 

springboxes. Also, the species had been 

known to be locally abundant within 

springboxes until 1999, when the 

extirpation of the species from at least 

two boxed springheads at Three Forks 

Springs was noted (Myers 2000, p. 1). 

Extirpation is believed to be linked to 

invasion by the northern crayfish 

(Orconectis virilis) (see Factor C below). 

Habitats at Boneyard Bog Springs have 

not been affected by inundation. 

Springhead inundation does not appear 

to be a substantial threat to the Three 

Forks springsnail because inundated 

springheads are in a relatively small 

portion of the species’ occupied habitat, 

and the springboxes are relatively small. 

Springhead inundation may be a 

threat to the San Bernardino springsnail. 

Three unnamed springs on the 

Slaughter Ranch no longer exist as freeflowing waters. Instead the springheads 

have been converted into one large 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2
20468 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

artificial pond referred to as House 

Pond, which serves as an important 

refuge for several native Yaqui fishes. 

Since inundation of this habitat, the San 

Bernardino springsnail has not been 

found in these springs, although it was 

previously believed to occur there (Cox 

et al. 2007, p.1). 

Groundwater Depletion 

Habitat loss due to groundwater 

depletion, or loss of water flow, is the 

primary threat to the San Bernardino 

springsnail. Since spring ecosystems 

rely on water discharged to the surface 

from underground aquifers, depletion of 

these groundwater sources can result in 

drying of springs. This threat is severe 

for the San Bernardino springsnail 

because, like all springsnails, it is 

strictly aquatic, breathing through an 

internal gill and filtering aquatic 

organisms for food. Groundwater 

depletion has been recognized as a 

threat to the biota of the Rio San 

Bernardino and associated springs for 

many years in the Yaqui Fishes listing 

document (49 FR 34490, August 31, 

1984) and the Recovery Plan for Yaqui 

Fishes (Service 1994, p. 17). The 

extirpation of several suspected 

populations of San Bernardino 

springsnail are believed to have been 

caused by the loss of water flow 

attributable to water depletion and 

diversion for domestic water use 

(Landye 1973, p. 34; Malcom et al. 2003, 

p. 17), though the taxonomy of those 

populations is unconfirmed. 

Two distinct aquifers exist in the San 

Bernardino Valley basin, one deep and 

the other shallow (Earman et al. 2003, 

p. 35). These aquifers exhibit different 

chemical and thermal properties. Many 

of the springs in the area are influenced 

by both the deep and the shallow 

aquifers (Earman et al. 2003, p. 166; 

Malcom et al. 2005, pp. 75–76). House 

Spring, Snail Spring, and Goat Tank 

Spring have a different chemical 

composition (isotopic signatures) than 

other springs in the area, as well as one 

another (Earman et al. 2003, p. 166), 

indicating that the interaction between 

the deep aquifer, shallow groundwater, 

and spring sources, is a complex 

phenomenon. 

Managers of Slaughter Ranch operate 

an irrigation system that relies on the 

shallow aquifer and surface water from 

House Pond to provide water to turf 

grass and to a cattle pasture (Malcom et 

al. 2003, p. 18; Malcom 2007, p. 1; Cox 

et al. 2007, p. 2). Malcom (2007, p.1) 

and Cox (2007, p. 1) both reported a 

visible decline in flow from Snail and 

Tule Springs when this irrigation 

system is running. This may indicate 

that the drawdown of House Pond on 

the Slaughter Ranch is hydrologically 

connected to Snail Spring, or otherwise 

influences spring flow. However, we 

have no direct evidence to prove this is 

the case. Regardless, Snail Spring no 

longer discharges from the springhead, 

and the presence of the San Bernardino 

springsnail was not documented during 

2010 spot surveys in areas where it was 

previously abundant (Martinez 2010, p. 

1). The factors contributing to the 

decline in spring water flows in the San 

Bernardino Valley, including those 

located on the Slaughter Ranch and the 

San Bernardino NWR, may include 

irrigation, groundwater pumping, 

extended drought conditions, climate 

change, and the natural dynamics of 

groundwater systems. 

Regardless of the mechanisms, the 

cessation of water flow at Snail Spring 

dates back to at least the summer of 

2002, when San Bernardino NWR staff 

and Slaughter Ranch managers tapped 

into the Slaughter Ranch domestic water 

supply from House Spring to maintain 

springsnail habitat (Smith 2003, p. 1; 

Malcom 2003, p. 18; Malcom 2007, p. 

1). Use of the Slaughter Ranch domestic 

water supply to support springsnails 

was intended as an emergency measure 

that ultimately could not be maintained 

by House Spring. As a result, surface 

flow at Snail Spring has been 

periodically augmented by Slaughter 

Ranch managers using water diverted 

from House Pond. While the perception 

is that such augmentation maintains 

spring flow, the water chemistry of 

House Pond is believed to differ 

significantly from the water chemistry 

that would naturally flow from Snail 

Spring. Consistent natural water flow 

has not been observed in Snail Spring 

since 2005, and spot surveys have not 

found the San Bernardino springsnail 

since then (Cox et al. 2007, p. 1; Malcom 

2007, p.1; Service 2007, p. 83; Martinez 

2010, p. 1). However, these spot surveys 

have not been intensive, and it is 

possible the species has managed to 

survive in wet areas where an overflow 

pipe discharges water from House Pond, 

several meters downstream of the 

springhead. 

We have no information indicating 

that Goat Tank Spring or Horse Spring 

has experienced any loss of water flow. 

Because the groundwater system feeding 

these springs comprises complex 

interactions between two separate 

aquifers, we cannot predict if these two 

springs will eventually cease flowing, as 

did the springhead at Snail Spring. Even 

though the species continues to persist 

at Goat Tank and Horse Springs, it 

occurs in low numbers most likely due 

to sub-optimal habitat conditions. 

If groundwater depletion results in 

the continued drying of Snail Spring, a 

large part of the known range of the San 

Bernardino springsnail would be 

eliminated, and the San Bernardino 

springsnail would be more vulnerable to 

extinction. If groundwater depletion 

were to affect Goat Tank Spring and 

Horse Spring, the entire range of the 

species could be eliminated. 

Groundwater depletion is not 

currently known to be a threat to the 

Three Forks springsnail. 

Pesticides 

Spring endemic species are typically 

adapted to the unique environmental 

conditions provided by spring water 

and may be quite sensitive to shifts in 

water quality (Hershler 1998, p. 11), 

including those caused by 

contamination. Malcom et al. (2003, p. 

17) consider contamination from 

pesticides to be a significant threat to 

the San Bernardino springsnail because 

a number of herbicides and other 

pesticides have traditionally been used 

adjacent to springs on the Slaughter 

Ranch to maintain landscape conditions 

(Service 2005, p. 4). These include 

Roundup® and Rodeo®, which contain 

glyphosate, a broad-spectrum herbicide, 

with high water solubility. Pesticides 

with glyphosate can be slightly to 

moderately toxic to aquatic organisms, 

particularly zooplankton and microalgae 

(Montenegro-Rayo 2004, p. 34), which 

are food for springsnails. 

In addition to possibly contaminating 

the food base for the springsnail, there 

may be direct effects to the springsnail. 

Tate et al. (1997, p. 286) reported that 

glyphosate killed half of the aquatic 

snails in the snail mimic lymnaea 

(Pseudosuccinea columella) when the 

dosage was 0.004 ounces per quart (99 

milligrams per liter). In the same study, 

Tate et al. (1997, p. 286) continually 

exposed three successive generations of 

snails to varying concentrations of 

glyphosate in water. The results of the 

study indicate that long-term exposure 

to sub-lethal concentrations of 

glyphosate had a delayed effect on 

growth and development, egg-laying 

capacity, and hatching of mimic 

lymnaea snails (Tate et al. 1997, p. 288). 

Less than 50 percent of the eggs hatched 

at a dosage of 0.0004 ounces per quart 

(10 milligrams per liter). Thus, sublethal, as well as lethal, effects from the 

use of glyphosate or other pesticides on 

the Slaughter Ranch may be of concern 

for the San Bernardino springsnail. 

We are unaware of any threat from 

pesticides to the Three Forks 

springsnail, because we have no 

information that pesticides are used in 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2011 / Proposed Rules 20469 

the vicinity of Three Forks or Boneyard 

Bog springs. 

In summary, the present destruction, 

modification, and curtailment of habitat 

and range of the Three Forks springsnail 

and the San Bernardino springsnail pose 

significant threats to these species. 

Threats to the habitat of the Three Forks 

springsnail are occurring principally 

from exposure to wildfire and fire 

retardants, and uncontrolled wild 

ungulate grazing. Threats to the habitat 

of the San Bernardino springsnail are 

caused by springhead inundation, 

groundwater depletion, and pesticide 

contamination. 

B. Overutilization for Commercial, 

Recreational, Scientific, or Educational 

Purposes 

Both the Three Forks and San 

Bernardino springsnails have been 

subjected to a limited number of 

scientific studies aimed at determining 

taxonomy, distribution, and habitat use. 

Although sampling can reduce 

population size of springsnails 

(Martinez and Sorensen 2007, p. 29), 

studies conducted on the Three Forks 

and San Bernardino springsnails have 

not resulted in the removal of large 

numbers of snails, and we do not 

believe they have had discernible effects 

on any population. 

Unauthorized collecting has been 

identified as a threat to other snails, 

including springsnails (65 FR 10033, 

February 25, 2000; 58 FR 5938, January 

25, 1993; 56 FR 49646, September 30, 

1991), due to their rarity, restricted 

distribution, and generally well-known 

locations. However, there is currently 

no documentation of collection being a 

significant threat to either the Three 

Forks or San Bernardino springsnail. 

In summary, we find that the Three 

Forks and San Bernardino springsnails 

are not threatened by overutilization for 

commercial, recreational, scientific, or 

educational purposes now, or in the 

foreseeable future. 

C. Disease or Predation 

Exceptionally heavy parasitism on the 

female reproductive system of the Three 

Forks springsnail has been observed on 

specimens from Three Forks Springs 

(Taylor 1987, p. 31). These parasites 

were not described, but aquatic snails 

are known to serve as intermediate hosts 

for a variety of parasitic flatworms 

(Dillon 2000, p. 227; Schmidt and 

Roberts 2000, p. 1). Parasitic infection 

can result in castration of individual 

snails, and may contribute to population 

decline (Dillon 2000, pp. 270–272). 

However, we have no information on 

whether this has occurred to the Three 

Forks springsnail populations. No 

information is available on parasites for 

the San Bernardino springsnail. 

Springsnails are vulnerable to 

predation by a variety of fish, 

amphibians, reptiles, mammals, and 

macroinvertebrates (Dillon 2000, p. 

273). Nonnative crayfish are known 

predators of aquatic snails (Fernandez 

and Rosen 1996, pp. 24–25; Parkyn et 

al. 1997, p. 690). Gut content analysis 

has shown that nonnative mosquitofish 

(Gambusia affinis) consumes 

springsnails (Raisanen 1991, p. 71). 

Nonnative crayfish likely prey on the 

Three Forks springsnail. These crayfish 

are relatively recent invaders at both 

Three Forks and Boneyard Bog springs. 

In a laboratory aquaria experiment that 

mimicked stream conditions found at 

Three Forks Springs, crayfish consumed 

snails in the family Physidae (which 

occupy similar habitats as springsnails) 

and their eggs within 1 week (Fernandez 

and Rosen 1996, pp. 24–25). 

As discussed under Factor A, the 

Three Forks springsnail has been 

extirpated from concrete-boxed 

springheads at Three Forks Springs 

where it previously survived in 

abundance (Myers 2000, p. 1). The 

extirpation of the species from these 

springboxes coincided with the invasion 

of nonnative crayfish. Recognizing the 

threat, AGFD personnel conducted an 

intensive crayfish trapping program 

aimed at reducing potential predatory 

pressure at Three Forks Springs (Nelson 

et al. 2002, pp. 4, 6). Complete 

elimination of crayfish from an aquatic 

system is usually not possible (Helfrich 

et al. 2001, p. 4), and that was the case 

with the trapping effort at Three Forks 

Springs. Arizona has no native crayfish 

species (Inman 1999, p. 6). Since the 

Three Forks springsnail did not evolve 

in the presence of crayfish and is likely 

not evolutionarily adapted to cope with 

introduced crayfish, it is more 

susceptible to crayfish predation. 

We are unaware of the presence of 

significant populations of nonnative 

predators within springs occupied by 

the San Bernardino springsnail. 

In summary, we find that predation 

by nonnative crayfish is a threat to the 

Three Forks springsnail, but predation 

is not known to be a threat to the San 

Bernardino springsnail. We have no 

information indicating that disease is a 

threat for either species. 

D. The Inadequacy of Existing 

Regulatory Mechanisms 

A primary cause of decline of these 

springsnails is the loss, degradation, and 

fragmentation of habitat due to human 

activities, particularly application of 

aerial fire retardant, introduction of 

nonnative crayfish, groundwater 

depletion, and application of pesticides. 

Existing Federal, State, and local laws 

have been unable to prevent ongoing 

loss of the limited habitat of these 

springsnails, and they are not expected 

to prevent further declines of the 

species. 

The policy for delivery of wildland 

fire chemicals near waterways on USFS 

lands is described in the Interagency 

Standards for Fire and Fire Aviation 

Operations developed by the National 

Interagency Fire Center (NIFC). The 

policy directs the USFS to avoid aerial 

application of wildland fire chemicals 

within 300 ft (91 m) of waterways and 

avoid any ground application of 

wildland fire chemicals into waterways 

(NIFC 2011, p. 3). The closest accidental 

delivery of fire retardant into a 

waterway was approximately 0.65 mi (1 

km) upstream of Three Forks Springs 

(USFS 2005, p. 12), well over the 300 ft 

(91 m) buffer established by NIFC 

policy. Nevertheless, all aquatic areas at 

Three Forks Springs were affected by 

fire retardant drift (USFS 2005, pp. 4, 

12), likely from other unrecorded highelevation drops. Additionally, although 

long term fire retardants containing 

sodium ferrocyanide are no longer on 

the USFS qualified products list as they 

were at the time of the KP/Three Forks 

Fires, fire retardant products currently 

on the qualified products list still 

contain substances toxic to the snail, as 

described under Factor A. Therefore, we 

find the existing regulatory mechanisms 

inadequate to protect the Three Forks 

springsnail from the detrimental effects 

of fire retardant drift. 

The application of glyphosate 

herbicide within or near Snail Spring, 

Goat Tank Spring, and Horse Spring is 

not regulated. The Environmental 

Protection Agency is responsible for 

controlling the application of pesticides, 

which they do by putting a specimen 

label on each pesticide container that 

explains restrictions on their use. The 

specimen label for Rodeo®, which is 

believed to be applied to the grass lawn 

on the Slaughter Ranch, does not restrict 

its use within and near aquatic sites 

(DowAgroSciences 2006, p. 11). 

Therefore, the label is inadequate to 

protect the San Bernardino springsnail 

from the detrimental effects of exposure 

to glyphosate. 

The AGFD has conducted intensive 

crayfish trapping at Three Forks Springs 

in an effort to curb predation on the 

Three Forks springsnail. However, these 

efforts have not eliminated crayfish at 

Three Forks Springs nor prevented their 

spread into Boneyard Bog Springs. 

Existing regulatory mechanisms to 

prevent introduction of nonnative 

crayfish and to control them, once 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2
20470 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

introduced, are inadequate to protect 

the Three Forks springsnail. 

We are not aware of State laws or 

local ordinances that would limit the 

use of groundwater on the Slaughter 

Ranch or in the San Bernardino 

watershed; an adequate groundwater 

supply is needed to protect and restore 

spring flow at Snail Spring and Tule 

Spring. Spring flow at Snail Spring 

seems to be reduced at times when the 

shallow groundwater aquifer is drawn 

down by the Slaughter Ranch and other 

users of the aquifer. There is a Warranty 

Deed that reserves water rights on the 

Slaughter Ranch to The Nature 

Conservancy (TNC), which previously 

owned the ranch (TNC 1982, pp. 1–20; 

Malcom 2007, p. 1; Eiden 2007, p. 1). 

When TNC sold what is now the San 

Bernardino NWR to the Service, and the 

Slaughter Ranch to private landowners, 

it conveyed all water rights it held and 

the control of the use of water on the 

ranch to the Service. Thus, through the 

Warranty Deed, the Service has the right 

to control the use of water on the 

Slaughter Ranch. The Service can 

withhold its consent for planned water 

uses and other activities by the owner 

and managers of the Slaughter Ranch if 

it determines that such activities may 

have an adverse effect on the fish and 

snail species occurring on the ranch. 

The San Bernardino NWR has 

proactively worked with the ranch over 

the past several years to moderate 

irrigation water use, and to install a 

water line from House Spring to assist 

in the maintenance of water flow at 

Snail Spring. The San Bernardino NWR 

is in the process of evaluating other 

sources of water for irrigation by the 

Slaughter Ranch that are not 

hydrologically connected to the shallow 

aquifer spring system. Although the 

Service is the sole owner of the water 

rights being used by the Slaughter 

Ranch, the San Bernardino NWR is 

initiating discussions with the Arizona 

Department of Water Resources to 

properly claim the water rights 

conveyed to the United States and to 

establish an agreement with the 

Slaughter Ranch for water use. Through 

these efforts we are hopeful that we can 

eventually ensure reliable flow and 

adequate water quality to provide for 

the continued survival of the species. At 

this time, however, threats to the San 

Bernardino springsnail from 

groundwater depletion persist. 

Since 1919, Arizona’s courts have 

handled surface water and groundwater 

separately. Surface water allocations are 

based on the ‘‘first in time, first in right’’ 

priority system, while groundwater is 

generally governed by the ‘‘reasonable 

use’’ doctrine, which indicates that the 

landowner, without waste, can use 

water beneath the land for any 

beneficial purpose. Because the water 

rights system does not acknowledge the 

hydrologic connection between surface 

water and groundwater, it generally is 

not possible to limit groundwater 

pumping in order to protect surface 

water rights (Arizona Department of 

Water Resources 2009, p. 1). 

Take of the Three Forks springsnail 

and the San Bernardino springsnail is 

regulated by Arizona Game and Fish 

Commission Order 42, which 

establishes no open season (no 

collecting) for any snail species in the 

genus Pyrgulopsis (AGFD 2009, p. 1). 

Although Order 42 prohibits direct 

taking of individuals, it does not 

prohibit habitat modification. Both 

species are also identified as priority 

species in the State Wildlife Action Plan 

prepared by AGFD. This plan helps 

guide AGFD and other agencies in 

determining what biotic resources 

should receive priority management 

consideration. However, it is not a 

regulatory document. 

In summary, current regulatory 

mechanisms do not provide adequate 

protection for Three Forks and San 

Bernardino springsnail habitat from 

modification or destruction or the 

spread of nonnative predators. USFS 

and State regulatory mechanisms are 

adequate to control recreation and 

scientific collecting, but these do not 

appear to be threats to either species at 

this time. 

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors 

Affecting Its Continued Existence 

Invasive Competitors 

The nonnative New Zealand mudsnail 

(Potamopyrgus antipodarum) is an 

invasive freshwater snail of the family 

Hydrobiidae that has become a concern 

for spring-dependent aquatic snails, 

including springsnails. The mudsnail is 

known to compete with and slow the 

growth of native freshwater snails, 

including springsnails (Lysne and 

Koetsier 2008, pp. 103, 105; Lysne et al. 

2007, p. 6). There is potential for 

invasion into the spring ecosystems 

occupied by the Three Forks and San 

Bernardino springsnails because the 

mudsnail can be easily transported and 

unintentionally introduced into aquatic 

environments via birds, recreationists, 

researchers, and resource managers. 

The mudsnail was first discovered in 

the United States in the Snake River, 

Idaho, in 1987 and has since spread to 

the Colorado River basin in the western 

United States (U.S. Geological Survey 

2002, p. 1). New Zealand mudsnails 

were detected along the Colorado River 

at Lee’s Ferry in northern Arizona in 

2002 (AGFD 2002, p. 1). Since that time, 

detections of this exotic species have 

occurred along the Colorado River at the 

confluence of Diamond Creek, 226 miles 

downstream of Lee’s Ferry (Montana 

State University 2008, p. 1), and more 

recently at Willow Beach Fish Hatchery, 

downstream of Lake Mead (Olson 2008, 

pp. 1–2). New Zealand mudsnails were 

also detected in Utah in 2001 and their 

dispersal through that State has been 

rapid (Vinson 2004, p. 9). 

The mudsnail has characteristics that 

enable it to out-compete and replace 

native springsnails. Mudsnails tolerate a 

wide range of habitats, and can reach 

densities exceeding tens of thousands 

per square meter, particularly in 

systems with high primary productivity, 

constant temperatures, and constant 

flow (typical of spring systems), though 

faster moving water seems to limit 

colonization (Richards et al. 2001, pp. 

378–379). Mudsnails can dominate the 

invertebrate composition of an aquatic 

system, accounting for up to 97 percent 

of invertebrate biomass (Hall et al. 2003, 

p. 409). In doing so, they can consume 

nearly all microorganisms attached to 

submerged substrates, making food no 

longer available for native species, in 

particular springsnails (Hall et al. 2003, 

p. 409). Although invasion by 

mudsnails is not considered an 

imminent threat, if the New Zealand 

mudsnail were to be introduced into the 

spring systems harboring the Three 

Forks or San Bernardino springsnail, the 

effect on springsnail populations could 

be devastating. Additionally, control 

would be difficult because mudsnails 

are small and therefore cryptic, and 

because chemical treatment to eradicate 

them would also eradicate springsnails. 

Climate Change 

Seagar et al. (2007, pp. 1181–1184) 

analyzed 19 computer models of 

different variables to estimate the future 

climatology of the southwestern United 

States and northern Mexico in response 

to predictions of changing climatic 

patterns. All but 1 of the 19 models 

predicted a drying trend within the 

Southwest; one predicted a trend 

toward a wetter climate (Seager et al. 

2007, p. 1181). A total of 49 projections 

were created using the 19 models and 

all but 3 predicted a shift to increasing 

aridity (dryness) in the Southwest as 

early as 2021–2040 (Seager, et al. 2007, 

p. 1181). The Three Forks and San 

Bernardino springsnails depend on 

permanent flowing water for survival. 

Wetlands in the Southwest and northern 

Mexico are predicted to be at risk of 

drying (Seager et al. 2007, pp. 1183– 

1184), which has severe implications for 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2011 / Proposed Rules 20471 

aquatic ecosystems. Potential drought 

associated with changing climatic 

patterns may adversely affect the spring 

habitats of the Three Forks and San 

Bernardino springsnails, not only 

reducing water availability, but also 

altering food availability and predation 

rates. 

There are three predictions for 

anticipated effects from climate change 

in the Southwest. First, climate change 

is expected to shorten periods of 

snowpack accumulation, as well as 

lessen snowpack levels. With gradually 

increasing temperatures and reduced 

snowpack (due to higher spring 

temperatures and reduced winter-spring 

precipitation), annual runoff will be 

reduced (Garfin 2005, p. 42; Smith et al. 

2003, p. 226), consequently reducing 

groundwater recharge. Second, 

snowmelt is expected to occur earlier in 

the calendar year because increased 

minimum winter and spring 

temperatures could melt snowpacks 

sooner, causing peak water flows to 

occur much sooner than the historical 

spring and summer peak flows (Garfin 

2005, p. 41; Smith et al. 2003, p. 226; 

Stewart et al. 2004, pp. 217–218, 224, 

230) and reducing flows later in the 

season. Third, the hydrologic cycle is 

expected to become more dynamic on 

average with climate models predicting 

increases in the variability and intensity 

of rainfall events. This will modify 

disturbance regimes by changing the 

magnitude and frequency of floods. All 

of these anticipated effects may alter the 

habitat for the springsnails by altering 

surface water flow and ground water 

recharge. 

In addition, there will be increases in 

riverine system temperatures in drier 

climates that will result in periods of 

prolonged low flows and stream drying 

(Rahel and Olden 2008, p. 526) and will 

increase demand for water storage and 

conveyance systems (Rahel and Olden 

2008, pp. 521–522). Warmer water 

temperatures across temperate regions 

are predicted to expand the distribution 

of existing aquatic nonnative species. In 

a study that compared the thermal 

tolerances of 57 fish species with 

predictions made from climate change 

temperature models, Mohseni et al. 

(2003, p. 389) concluded that there 

would be 31 percent more suitable 

habitat for aquatic nonnative species, 

which are often tropical in origin and 

adaptable to warmer water 

temperatures. This could result in an 

expansion in the range of nonnative 

species that is detrimental to the 

viability of springsnail populations. 

Warmer water temperatures, altered 

stream flow events and groundwater 

recharge, and increased demand for 

water storage and conveyance systems 

(Rahel and Olden 2008, pp. 521–522) 

are all likely to exacerbate existing 

threats to the Three Forks and San 

Bernardino springsnails and their 

habitats. 

Endemism 

Endemic species (organisms with 

narrowly distributed isolated 

populations) are susceptible to 

extinction from natural or human 

caused events. Biological and ecological 

factors that put a species at risk of 

extinction include specialized habitat 

preference, restricted distribution, poor 

dispersal ability, population size, 

fragmentation of range, and life history 

specialization (McKinney 1997, p. 497; 

O’Grady et al. 2004, p. 514), all of which 

characterize the Three Forks and San 

Bernardino springsnails. In addition, 

both species have suffered substantial 

reductions in overall numbers and 

populations. Although rarity itself is not 

a threat, rarity coupled with existing 

threats puts them at risk of decreased 

population viability, loss of genetic 

diversity, and outright extinction. 

Extinction rates for freshwater species 

are five times higher than those for 

terrestrial species (Ricciardi and 

Rasmussen 1999, p. 1220). Springdependent species, such as springsnails, 

are especially at risk because spring 

ecosystems harbor a disproportionate 

percentage of endemic species 

(Minckley and Unmack 2000, pp. 52–53; 

Shepard 1993, pp. 354–357). Because 

both species have a very limited range, 

their populations are disjunct and 

isolated from each other, and potential 

habitat areas are isolated, they are 

particularly vulnerable to localized 

extinction should their habitat be 

degraded or destroyed. Because their 

mobility is limited, populations will 

have little opportunity to leave 

degraded habitat areas in search of 

suitable habitat. As a result, one 

contamination or wildfire event in the 

case of the Three Forks springsnail, or 

a short period of drawdown or exposure 

to pesticides in the aquatic habitat of the 

San Bernardino springsnail, could result 

in the loss of an entire population. 

Proposed Determination 

We have carefully assessed the best 

scientific and commercial information 

available regarding the past, present, 

and future threats to the Three Forks 

springsnail and the San Bernardino 

springsnail. The habitat and range of 

both species are threatened with 

destruction, modification, and 

curtailment. Existing regulatory 

mechanisms do not provide adequate 

protection for these species, and other 

natural and manmade factors affect their 

continued existence. The Three Forks 

springsnail is also threatened by 

predation. These endemic species are 

threatened by limited distribution, lack 

of mobility, and the isolation of 

populations. As a result, any impact 

from increasing threats (loss of spring 

flow, contaminants) is likely to result in 

their extinction because the magnitude 

of threats is high. 

The Endangered Species Act (Section 

3(5)(C)(6) defines an endangered species 

as ‘‘any species which is in danger of 

extinction throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range.’’ Based on the 

immediate and ongoing significant 

threats to the Three Forks springsnail 

and San Bernardino springsnail 

throughout their entire limited range, 

such as habitat destruction from loss of 

spring flow, contamination, predation, 

and endemism), we consider both 

species to be in danger of extinction 

throughout all of their range. Therefore, 

the species is proposed as endangered, 

rather than threatened, because the 

threats are occurring now, making the 

species at risk of extinction at the 

present time. Since threats extend 

throughout their entire range, it is 

unnecessary to determine if they are in 

danger of extinction throughout a 

significant portion of their range. 

Therefore, on the basis of the best 

available scientific and commercial 

information, we are proposing to list the 

Three Forks springsnail and the San 

Bernardino springsnail as endangered 

species throughout their entire range. 

Available Conservation Measures 

Conservation measures provided to 

species listed as endangered or 

threatened under the Act include 

recognition, recovery actions, 

requirements for Federal protection, and 

prohibitions against certain practices. 

Recognition through listing results in 

public awareness and conservation by 

Federal, state, Tribal, local agencies, 

private organizations, and individuals. 

The Act encourages cooperation with 

the States and requires that recovery 

actions be carried out for all listed 

species. The protection measures 

required of Federal agencies and the 

prohibitions against certain activities 

are discussed, in part, below. 

The primary purpose of the Act is the 

conservation of endangered and 

threatened species and the ecosystems 

upon which they depend. The ultimate 

goal of such conservation efforts is the 

recovery of these listed species, so that 

they no longer need the protective 

measures of the Act. Subsection 4(f) of 

the Act requires the Service to develop 

and implement recovery plans for the 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2
20472 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

conservation of endangered and 

threatened species. The recovery 

planning process involves the 

identification of actions that are 

necessary to halt or reverse the species’ 

decline by addressing the threats to its 

survival and recovery. The goal of this 

process is to restore listed species to a 

point where they are secure, selfsustaining, and functioning components 

of their ecosystems. 

Recovery planning includes the 

development of a recovery outline 

shortly after a species is listed, 

preparation of a draft and final recovery 

plan, and revisions to the plan as 

significant new information becomes 

available. The recovery outline guides 

the immediate implementation of urgent 

recovery actions and describes the 

process to be used to develop a recovery 

plan. The recovery plan identifies sitespecific management actions that will 

achieve recovery of the species, 

measurable criteria that determine when 

a species may be downlisted or delisted, 

and methods for monitoring recovery 

progress. Recovery plans also establish 

a framework for agencies to coordinate 

their recovery efforts and provide 

estimates of the cost of implementing 

recovery tasks. Recovery teams 

(comprised of species experts, Federal 

and State agencies, nongovernmental 

organizations, and stakeholders) are 

often established to develop recovery 

plans. When completed, the recovery 

outline, draft recovery plan, and the 

final recovery plan will be available 

from our Web site (http://www.fws.gov/ 

endangered), or from our Arizona 

Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Implementation of recovery actions 

generally requires the participation of a 

broad range of partners, including other 

Federal agencies, States, nongovernmental organizations, businesses, 

and private landowners. Examples of 

recovery actions include habitat 

restoration (e.g., restoration of native 

vegetation), research, captive 

propagation and reintroduction, and 

outreach and education. The recovery of 

many listed species cannot be 

accomplished solely on Federal lands 

because their range may occur primarily 

or solely on non-Federal lands. To 

achieve recovery of these species 

requires cooperative conservation efforts 

on private and State lands. 

If these species are listed, funding for 

recovery actions will be available from 

a variety of sources, including Federal 

budgets, State programs, and cost share 

grants for nonfederal landowners, the 

academic community, and 

nongovernmental organizations. In 

addition, pursuant to section 6 of the 

Act, the State of Arizona would be 

eligible for Federal funds to implement 

management actions that promote the 

protection and recovery of the Three 

Forks springsnail and San Bernardino 

springsnail. Information on our grant 

programs that are available to aid 

species recovery can be found at: 

http://www.fws.gov/grants. 

Although the Three Forks springsnail 

and San Bernardino springsnail are only 

proposed for listing under the Act at 

this time, please let us know if you are 

interested in participating in recovery 

efforts for this species. Additionally, we 

invite you to submit any new 

information on this species whenever it 

becomes available and any information 

you may have for recovery planning 

purposes (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT). 

Section 7(a) of the Act, as amended, 

requires Federal agencies to evaluate 

their actions with respect to any species 

that is proposed or listed as endangered 

or threatened and with respect to its 

critical habitat, if any is designated. 

Regulations implementing this 

interagency cooperation provision of the 

Act are codified at 50 CFR part 402. 

Section 7(a)(1) requires Federal 

agencies, in consultation with the 

Service, to carry out programs for the 

conservation of listed species. Section 

7(a)(4) requires Federal agencies to 

confer with the Service on any action 

that is likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of a species proposed for 

listing or result in destruction or 

adverse modification of proposed 

critical habitat. If a species is 

subsequently listed, section 7(a)(2) 

requires Federal agencies to ensure that 

activities they authorize, fund, or carry 

out are not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of the species or 

destroy or adversely modify its critical 

habitat. If a Federal action may 

adversely affect a listed species or its 

critical habitat, the responsible Federal 

agency must enter into formal 

consultation with the Service. 

For the Three Forks springsnail and 

San Bernardino springsnail, Federal 

agency actions that may require 

consultation as described in the 

preceding paragraph include activities 

approved under a forest management 

plan, a refuge comprehensive 

management plan, and activities that 

require a permit from the Army Corps 

of Engineers pursuant to section 404 of 

the Clean Water Act. 

The USFS has established a closure 

around Three Forks Springs to prevent 

unauthorized access. The AGFD has 

implemented a crayfish trapping 

program and a Three Forks springsnail 

monitoring program. The effectiveness 

of these measures is yet 

undemonstrated. We had recently 

established a captive refugium for Three 

Forks springsnail in coordination with 

USFS, AGFD, and the Phoenix Zoo. 

This refugium is no longer viable, but 

we hope to apply lessons learned to 

future efforts to establish refugia. We 

intend to work with the USFS, AGFD, 

the Zoo, and The Nature Conservancy 

(which owns property near Boneyard 

Bog Springs) to develop conservation 

actions for the Three Forks springsnail. 

Additionally, Service staff is currently 

working to publish additional results of 

field studies describing habitat 

relationships for the Three Forks 

springsnail. 

Efforts to rehabilitate habitat on the 

San Bernardino NWR at Tule Spring 

have been initiated (Service 2003, p. 2), 

with the intention of potentially 

reintroducing San Bernardino 

springsnails. However, the 

inconsistency of water flow reduces the 

likelihood of successful reestablishment 

of the species on the San Bernardino 

NWR. The Service is also seeking to 

acquire, through donation, the John 

Slaughter Ranch for incorporation into 

the San Bernardino NWR. This would 

provide tremendous opportunities to 

protect, manage, and enhance springs 

on the property. However, it is 

uncertain if this transaction will occur. 

The Service intends to continue to work 

with AGFD and the John Slaughter 

Ranch to develop conservation actions 

for the San Bernardino springsnail, 

perhaps including the development of a 

domestic water well that would not 

affect surface waters. 

The Act and its implementing 

regulations set forth a series of general 

prohibitions and exceptions that apply 

to all endangered wildlife. The 

prohibitions, codified at 50 CFR 17.21 

for endangered wildlife, in part, make it 

illegal for any person subject to the 

jurisdiction of the United States to take 

(includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, 

shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or 

collect; or to attempt any of these), 

import, export, ship in interstate 

commerce in the course of commercial 

activity, or sell or offer for sale in 

interstate or foreign commerce any 

listed species. It is also illegal to 

possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or 

ship any such wildlife that has been 

taken illegally. Certain exceptions apply 

to agents of the Service and State 

conservation agencies. 

We may issue permits to carry out 

otherwise prohibited activities 

involving threatened or endangered 

wildlife species under certain 

circumstances. Regulations governing 

permits are codified at 50 CFR 17.22 for 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2011 / Proposed Rules 20473 

endangered species. With regard to 

endangered wildlife, a permit must be 

issued for the following purposes: for 

scientific purposes, to enhance the 

propagation or survival of the species, 

and for incidental take in connection 

with otherwise lawful activities. 

It is our policy, as published in the 

Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 

34272), to identify to the maximum 

extent practicable at the time a species 

is listed, those activities that would or 

would not constitute a violation of 

section 9 of the Act. The intent of this 

policy is to increase public awareness of 

the effect of a proposed listing on 

proposed and ongoing activities within 

the range of species proposed for listing. 

The following activities could 

potentially result in a violation of 

section 9 of the Act; this list is not 

comprehensive: 

(1) Unauthorized collecting, handling, 

possessing, selling, delivering, carrying, 

or transporting of the species, including 

import or export across State lines and 

international boundaries, except for 

properly documented antique 

specimens of these taxa at least 100 

years old, as defined by section 10(h)(1) 

of the Act; 

(2) Introduction of nonnative species 

that compete with or prey upon the 

Three Forks springsnail and San 

Bernardino springsnail, such as the 

introduction of competing, nonnative 

species to the State of Arizona; 

(3) The unauthorized release of 

biological control agents that attack any 

life stage of this species; 

(4) Unauthorized modification of the 

springs or water flow of any stream or 

removal or destruction of emergent 

aquatic vegetation in any body of water 

in which the Three Forks springsnail 

and San Bernardino springsnail are 

known to occur; and 

(5) Unauthorized discharge of 

chemicals or fill material into any 

waters in which the Three Forks 

springsnail and San Bernardino 

springsnail are known to occur. 

Questions regarding whether specific 

activities would constitute a violation of 

section 9 of the Act should be directed 

to the Arizona Ecological Services Field 

Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT). 

Critical Habitat 

Background 

Critical habitat is defined in section 3 

of the Act as: 

(i) The specific areas within the 

geographical area occupied by a species, 

at the time it is listed in accordance 

with the Act, on which are found those 

physical or biological features 

(I) essential to the conservation of the 

species and 

(II) which may require special 

management considerations or 

protection; and 

(ii) specific areas outside the 

geographical area occupied by a species 

at the time it is listed, upon a 

determination that such areas are 

essential for the conservation of the 

species. 

Conservation, as defined under 

section 3 of the Act, means the use of 

all methods and procedures that are 

necessary to bring any endangered 

species or threatened species to the 

point at which the measures provided 

under the Act are no longer necessary. 

Such methods and procedures include, 

but are not limited to, all activities 

associated with scientific resources 

management such as research, census, 

law enforcement, habitat acquisition 

and maintenance, propagation, live 

trapping, and transplantation, and, in 

the extraordinary case where population 

pressures within a given ecosystem 

cannot be otherwise relieved, may 

include regulated taking. 

Critical habitat receives protection 

under section 7 of the Act through the 

prohibition against Federal agencies 

carrying out, funding, or authorizing the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat. Section 7(a)(2) requires 

consultation on Federal actions that 

may affect critical habitat. The 

designation of critical habitat does not 

affect land ownership or establish a 

refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or 

other conservation area. Such 

designation does not allow government 

or public access to private lands. Such 

designation does not require 

implementation of restoration, recovery, 

or enhancement measures by nonFederal landowners. Where a landowner 

seeks or requests Federal agency 

funding or authorization that may affect 

a listed species or critical habitat, the 

consultation requirements of Section 

7(a)(2) of the Act would apply. 

However, even in the event of a 

destruction or adverse modification 

finding, the Federal action agency’s and 

the applicant’s obligation is not to 

restore or recover the species, but to 

implement reasonable and prudent 

alternatives to avoid destruction or 

adverse modification of critical habitat. 

For inclusion in a critical habitat 

designation, the habitat within the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species at the time it was listed must 

contain the physical and biological 

features that are essential to the 

conservation of the species, and be 

included only if those features may 

require special management 

considerations or protection. Critical 

habitat designations identify, to the 

extent known using the best scientific 

and commercial data available, those 

physical and biological features that are 

essential to the conservation of the 

species (such as space, food, cover, and 

protected habitat), focusing on the 

principal biological or physical 

constituent elements (primary 

constituent elements) within an area 

that are essential to the conservation of 

the species (such as roost sites, nesting 

grounds, seasonal wetlands, water 

quality, tide, soil type). Primary 

constituent elements are the elements of 

physical and biological features that, 

when laid out in the appropriate 

quantity and spatial arrangement to 

provide for a species’ life-history 

processes, are essential to the 

conservation of the species. 

Under the Act and regulations at 50 

CFR 424.12, we can designate critical 

habitat in areas outside the geographical 

area occupied by the species at the time 

it is listed as critical habitat only when 

we determine that those areas are 

essential for the conservation of the 

species and that designation limited to 

those areas occupied at the time of 

listing would be inadequate to ensure 

the conservation of the species. When 

the best available scientific data do not 

demonstrate that the conservation needs 

of the species require such additional 

areas, we will not designate critical 

habitat in areas outside the geographical 

area occupied by the species. An area 

currently occupied by the species but 

that was not occupied at the time of 

listing may, however, be essential to the 

conservation of the species and may be 

included in the critical habitat 

designation. 

Section 4 of the Act requires that we 

designate critical habitat on the basis of 

the best scientific and commercial data 

available. Further, our Policy on 

Information Standards Under the 

Endangered Species Act (published in 

the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 

FR 34271)), the Information Quality Act 

(section 515 of the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act for 

Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106–554; H.R. 

5658)), and our associated Information 

Quality Guidelines, provide criteria, 

establish procedures, and provide 

guidance to ensure that our decisions 

are based on the best scientific data 

available. They require our biologists, to 

the extent consistent with the Act and 

with the use of the best scientific data 

available, to use primary and original 

sources of information as the basis for 

recommendations to designate critical 

habitat. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2
20474 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

When we are determining which areas 

should be proposed as critical habitat, 

our primary source of information is 

generally the information developed 

during the listing process for the 

species. Additional information sources 

may include the recovery plan for the 

species, articles in peer-reviewed 

journals, conservation plans developed 

by States and counties, scientific status 

surveys and studies, biological 

assessments, or other unpublished 

materials and expert opinion or 

personal knowledge. 

Habitat is often dynamic, and species 

may move from one area to another over 

time. Furthermore, we recognize that 

designation of critical habitat may not 

include all of the habitat areas that we 

may eventually determine, based on 

scientific data not now available to the 

Service, are necessary for the recovery 

of the species. For these reasons, a 

critical habitat designation does not 

signal that habitat outside the 

designated area is unimportant or may 

not be required for recovery of the 

species. 

Areas that support populations, but 

are outside the critical habitat 

designation, will continue to be subject 

to conservation actions we implement 

under section 7(a)(1) of the Act. Areas 

that support populations are also subject 

to the regulatory protections afforded by 

the section 7(a)(2) jeopardy standard, as 

determined on the basis of the best 

available scientific information at the 

time of the agency action. Federally 

funded or permitted projects affecting 

listed species outside their designated 

critical habitat areas may still result in 

jeopardy findings in some cases. 

Similarly, critical habitat designations 

made on the basis of the best available 

information at the time of designation 

will not control the direction and 

substance of future recovery plans, 

habitat conservation plans (HCPs), or 

other species’ conservation planning 

efforts if new information available to 

these planning efforts calls for a 

different outcome. 

Prudency Determination 

Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as 

amended, and implementing regulations 

(50 CFR 424.12), require that, to the 

maximum extent prudent and 

determinable, we designate critical 

habitat at the time the species is 

determined to be endangered or 

threatened. Our regulations (50 CFR 

424.12(a)(1)) state that the designation 

of critical habitat is not prudent when 

one or both of the following situations 

exist: (1) The species is threatened by 

taking or other human activity, and 

identification of critical habitat can be 

expected to increase the degree of threat 

to the species, or (2) such designation of 

critical habitat would not be beneficial 

to the species. 

There is no documentation that the 

Three Forks and San Bernardino 

springsnails are threatened by collection 

and, therefore, are unlikely to 

experience increased threats by 

identifying critical habitat. In the 

absence of a finding that the designation 

of critical habitat would increase threats 

to a species, if there are any benefits to 

a critical habitat designation, then a 

prudent finding is warranted. The 

potential benefits include: (1) Triggering 

consultation under section 7 of the Act, 

in new areas for actions in which there 

may be a Federal nexus where it would 

not otherwise occur because, for 

example, it has become unoccupied or 

the occupancy is in question; (2) 

focusing conservation activities on the 

most essential features and areas; (3) 

providing educational benefits to State 

or county governments or private 

entities; and (4) preventing people from 

causing inadvertent harm to the species. 

The primary regulatory effect of 

critical habitat is the section 7(a)(2) 

requirement that Federal agencies 

refrain from taking any action that 

destroys or adversely modifies critical 

habitat. At present, the Three Forks 

springsnail occurs only on Federal lands 

in the White Mountains of east-central 

Arizona. Lands proposed for 

designation as critical habitat would be 

subject to Federal actions that trigger the 

section 7 consultation requirements. 

These include land-management actions 

and permitting by the ApacheSitgreaves National Forests. 

There may also be some educational 

or informational benefits to the 

designation of critical habitat. 

Educational benefits include the 

notification of lessees and the general 

public of the importance of protecting 

habitat. 

At present, the only known extant 

population of the San Bernardino 

springsnail occurs on private lands in 

the United States. Although the species 

is believed to have historically occurred 

on the San Bernardino NWR, the species 

currently is not known to occur on 

Federal lands. However, the San 

Bernardino NWR has proposed to 

reintroduce the species onto the refuge; 

therefore, the species may occur in the 

future on Federal lands. In addition, 

lands proposed for designation as 

critical habitat, whether or not under 

Federal jurisdiction, may be subject to 

Federal actions that trigger the section 7 

consultation requirement, such as the 

granting of Federal monies or Federal 

permits. These may include 

implementation of the Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan by the San 

Bernardino NWR. 

Although we make a detailed 

determination of the habitat needs of a 

listed species during the recovery 

planning process, the Act has no 

provision to delay designation of critical 

habitat until such time as a recovery 

plan is prepared. We reviewed the 

available information pertaining to 

habitat characteristics where these two 

species are located. This and other 

information represent the best scientific 

data available and lead us to conclude 

that the designation of critical habitat is 

both prudent and determinable for the 

Three Forks Springsnail and San 

Bernardino springsnail. 

Critical Habitat Determinability 

As stated above, section 4(a)(3) of the 

Act requires the designation of critical 

habitat concurrently with the species’ 

listing ‘‘to the maximum extent prudent 

and determinable.’’ Our regulations at 50 

CFR 424.12(a)(2) state that critical 

habitat is not determinable when one or 

both of the following situations exist: 

(i) Information sufficient to perform 

required analyses of the impacts of the 

designation is lacking, or 

(ii) The biological needs of the species 

are not sufficiently well known to 

permit identification of an area as 

critical habitat. 

When critical habitat is not 

determinable, the Act provides for an 

additional year to publish a critical 

habitat designation (16 U.S.C. 

1533(b)(6)(C)(ii)). 

We reviewed the available 

information pertaining to the biological 

needs of the species and habitat 

characteristics where this species is 

located. This and other information 

represent the best scientific data 

available and led us to conclude that the 

designation of critical habitat is both 

prudent and determinable for the Three 

Forks Springsnail and San Bernardino 

springsnail. 

Methods 

As required by section 4(b) of the Act, 

we used the best scientific data 

available in determining areas that 

contain the features that are essential to 

the conservation of the Three Forks 

springsnail and the San Bernardino 

springsnail. This includes information 

from the Service’s Species Assessment 

and Listing Priority Assignment Forms 

(available at http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_

public/pub/SpeciesReport.do?listing

Type=C); published literature; site 

visits; data compiled by the Arizona 

Heritage Data Management System at 

AGFD; topographic maps; data supplied 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2011 / Proposed Rules 20475 

by the USFS, San Bernardino NWR, and 

AGFD; and other information in our 

files. 

We also reviewed the available 

information pertaining to historical and 

current distribution, ecology, life 

history, and habitat requirements of the 

Three Forks springsnail and San 

Bernardino springsnail. This material 

included research published in peerreviewed scientific journals, museum 

records, technical reports, and 

unpublished field observations by 

Service, State, Federal, and other 

experienced biologists, as well as 

additional notes and communications 

with qualified professionals and 

experts. 

We plotted all known occurrences in 

springheads, spring runs, and ditches of 

the Three Forks and San Bernardino 

springsnails on 2007 U.S. Geological 

Survey (USGS) Digital Ortho Quarter 

Quad maps using ArcMap 

(Environmental Systems Research 

Institute, Inc.), a computer GIS program. 

For the San Bernardino springsnail, we 

also mapped the historical occurrence at 

Tule Spring on San Bernardino NWR. 

For the Three Forks springsnail at the 

Three Forks Spring complex, we believe 

that all springs occupied prior to the 

exposure to fire retardant in 2004 (see 

discussion above under Threat Factor A) 

are still occupied, although the Three 

Forks Springs population seems rather 

tenuous. Polygons were computergenerated by applying a 1 m (3.3 ft) 

buffer around these occurrence 

locations to capture the moist soils and 

vegetation that produce food for the 

snails and protect the substrate they use. 

Because of the small size of the springs 

and spring runs we are proposing to 

designate for the San Bernardino 

springsnail, we were precluded from 

mapping them precisely due to 

inaccuracies inherent in the use of 

satellites for locating and mapping. 

Therefore, for mapping purposes we 

created a circle that encompasses them. 

GPS coordinates have been field 

verified. 

Physical and Biological Features 

In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) 

and 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act and regulations 

at 50 CFR 424.12, in determining which 

areas within the geographical area 

occupied at the time of listing to 

propose as critical habitat, we consider 

the physical and biological features that 

are essential to the conservation of the 

species, and which may require special 

management considerations or 

protection. These include, but are not 

limited to: 

(1) Space for individual and 

population growth and for normal 

behavior; 

(2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or 

other nutritional or physiological 

requirements; 

(3) Cover or shelter; 

(4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, or 

rearing (or development) of offspring; 

and 

(5) Habitats that are protected from 

disturbance or are representative of the 

historical, geographical, and ecological 

distributions of a species. 

We derive the specific physical and 

biological features required for the two 

Arizona springsnails from studies of 

these species’ habitats, ecology, and life 

histories as described below. We have 

determined that the Three Forks 

springsnail and the San Bernardino 

springsnail require the following 

physical and biological features: 

Space for Individual and Population 

Growth and Normal Behavior 

The Three Forks and San Bernardino 

springsnails occur where water emerges 

from the ground as a free-flowing spring 

and spring run. Within spring 

ecosystems, proximity to springheads is 

important due to their need for 

appropriate water chemistry, substrate, 

and flow regime characteristics of 

springheads. The Three Forks 

springsnail inhabits free-flowing 

springs, concrete boxed springheads, 

spring runs, spring seeps, and shallow 

ponded water. The San Bernardino 

springsnail inhabitats free-flowing 

springs, a concrete boxed springhead, 

and spring runs. 

Food, Water, Air, Light, or Other 

Nutritional or Physiological 

Requirements 

Martinez and Myers (2008, pp. 189– 

194) found the presence of Three Forks 

springsnail was associated with gravel 

and pebble substrates, shallow water up 

to 6 cm (2.35 in) deep, high 

conductivity, alkaline waters of pH 8, 

and the presence of pond snail, Physa 

gyrina. Three Forks springsnail density 

is significantly greater on gravel and 

cobble substrates (Martinez and Myers 

2002, p. 1; Nelson 2002, p. 1), though 

the species has been reported as 

‘‘abundant’’ in the fine-grained mud of a 

0.01 ha (0.02 ac) pond at Three Forks 

Springs (Taylor 1987, p. 32). The 

density of San Bernardino springsnails 

is positively associated with cobble 

substrates, higher vegetation density, 

faster water velocity, higher dissolved 

oxygen, water temperature of 14 to 22 

degrees Celsius, and pH values between 

7.6 and 8.0 (Malcom et al. 2005, pp. 71, 

75–76). San Bernardino springsnail 

densities are higher in sand and cobble 

substrates, higher vegetation density, 

and higher water velocity, but lower in 

silt and organic substrates, and deeper 

water (Malcom et al. 2005, pp. 75–76). 

The species’ tolerance to these habitat 

characteristics has not been quantified. 

Maintenance of high water velocity 

flows at springheads and spring runs is 

essential for both the Three Forks and 

San Bernardino springsnails. 

Three Forks and San Bernardino 

springsnails consume periphyton on 

submerged surfaces. Periphyton is a 

complex mixture of algae, detritus, 

bacteria, and other microbes that grow 

attached to submerged surfaces such as 

cobble or larger plants, such as 

watercress. Periphyton are primary 

producers of energy (organisms at the 

beginning of a food chain that produce 

biomass from inorganic compounds) 

and can be sensitive indicators of 

environmental change in flowing 

waters. Spring ecosystems occupied by 

these springsnail species must support 

the periphyton upon which springsnails 

graze. 

Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, and 

Rearing and Development of Offspring 

Substrate characteristics influence the 

productivity of Three Forks and San 

Bernardino springsnails. Suitable 

substrates are typically firm, 

characterized by cobble, gravel, sand, 

woody debris, and aquatic vegetation 

such as watercress, though this is 

influenced by water flow and depth. 

Suitable substrates increase productivity 

by providing suitable egg laying sites, 

protection of young from predators, and 

provision of food resources. 

Habitats That Are Protected From 

Disturbance and Representative of the 

Historical, Geographical, and Ecological 

Distribution of the Species 

The Three Forks springsnail and the 

San Bernardino springsnail have 

restricted geographic distributions. 

Endemic species whose populations 

exhibit a high degree of isolation are 

extremely susceptible to extinction from 

both random and non-random 

catastrophic natural or human-caused 

events. Therefore, it is essential to 

maintain the spring systems upon 

which the Three Forks springsnail and 

San Bernardino springsnail depend. 

Adequate spring sites, free of 

inappropriate disturbance, must exist to 

promote population expansion and 

viability. This means protection from 

disturbance caused by exposure to fire 

retardant, recreation, elk grazing, water 

depletion, and water contamination. 

The Three Forks springsnail and San 

Bernardino springsnail must sustain and 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2
20476 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

expand their current distribution if 

ecological representation of these 

species is to be ensured. For the Three 

Forks springsnail, this means it must 

repopulate the Three Forks Spring 

complex to levels it occupied prior to 

the 2004 wildfire described under 

Factor A. For the San Bernardino 

springsnail, it must repopulate the 

entirety of the historical Snail Spring, 

and be re-introduced into a spring, 

which it historically occupied. At this 

time, we believe Tule Spring is the most 

likely candidate since it still retains 

some water flow. 

Primary Constituent Elements (PCEs) for 

the Three Forks and San Bernardino 

Springsnails 

Based on the above needs and our 

current knowledge of the life history, 

biology, and ecology of these species 

and the habitat requirements for 

sustaining the essential life history 

functions of these species, we have 

determined that the Three Forks 

springsnail and the San Bernardino 

springsnail PCEs are: 

(1) Adequately clean spring water 

(free from contamination) emerging 

from the ground and flowing on the 

surface; 

(2) Periphyton (attached algae), 

bacteria, and decaying organic material 

for food; 

(3) Substrates that include cobble, 

gravel, pebble, sand, silt, and aquatic 

vegetation, for egg laying, maturing, 

feeding, and escape from predators; and 

(4) Either an absence of nonnative 

predators (crayfish) and competitors 

(snails) or their presence at low 

population levels. 

Special Management Considerations or 

Protections 

When designating critical habitat, we 

assess whether the proposed areas 

contain features that are essential to the 

conservation of the species and may 

require special management 

considerations and protections. Threats 

to the physical and biological features 

essential to the conservation of the 

Three Forks springsnail and San 

Bernardino springsnail include loss of 

spring flows due to groundwater 

depletion and drought; inundation of 

springheads due to pond creation; 

degradation of water quality due to 

pollution, exposure to fire retardant, or 

other alteration of water chemistry; 

alteration of appropriate aquatic 

substrates due to wild ungulate grazing, 

inundation, and erosion; and, the 

introduction of nonnative predators and 

competitors. Due to one or more of the 

above threats, we find that all areas that 

we are proposing for critical habitat 

contain essential physical or biological 

features that may require special 

management considerations or 

protections to ensure the conservation 

of the Three Forks springsnail and San 

Bernardino springsnail. 

Criteria Used To Identify Critical 

Habitat 

As required by section 4(b) of the Act, 

we used the best scientific and 

commercial data available in 

determining areas within the 

geographical area occupied at the time 

of listing that contain the features 

essential to the conservation of Three 

Forks springsnail and San Bernardino 

springsnail, and areas outside of the 

geographical area occupied at the time 

of listing that are essential for the 

conservation of Three Forks springsnail 

and San Bernardino springsnail. We 

have also reviewed available 

information that pertains to the habitat 

requirements of these species. 

We are proposing to designate critical 

habitat in two areas occupied by the 

Three Forks springsnail at the time of 

listing, the Three Forks and Boneyard 

Bog spring complexes; three areas 

occupied by the San Bernardino 

springsnail at the time of listing, Snail 

Spring, Goat Tank Spring, and Horse 

Spring; and one area not occupied by 

the San Bernardino springsnail at the 

time of listing (but considered to have 

been historically occupied), Tule 

Spring. These springs all contain 

features essential to the conservation of 

the respective springsnail species. We 

have determined that Tule Spring, 

although not currently occupied, is 

essential to the conservation of the San 

Bernardino springsnail, as the 

geographic area occupied at the time of 

listing is not sufficient for conservation 

and the SBNWR has identified Tule 

Spring as a potential reintroduction site 

with the availability of restorable habitat 

on protected lands. 

The Three Forks springsnail occurs in 

two separate spring complexes, Three 

Forks Springs and Boneyard Bog 

Springs. Historically, the species was 

abundant at these spring complexes. 

Recently, annual surveys have 

documented only two or three 

individual Three Forks springsnails at 

Three Forks Springs since 2004. The 

species continues to occur in abundance 

at Boneyard Bog Springs. 

The San Bernardino springsnail may 

have historically occurred in a complex 

of at least six springs along the Rio San 

Bernardino within the headwaters of the 

Rio Yaqui in Arizona. Currently, it is 

known from Goat Tank Spring, Horse 

Spring, and likely from wet portions of 

Snail Spring on the private John 

Slaughter Ranch. Although not 

currently occupied, Tule Spring on the 

nearby San Bernardino NWR contains a 

majority of the PCEs. 

We evaluated both species of 

springsnail in the context of their 

distribution within their historical 

range, to determine what portion of 

their range must be included to ensure 

conservation of both species. For the 

Three Forks springsnail, we are 

designating all habitat containing PCEs 

that we consider to be currently 

occupied, which is also the entire 

known historically occupied habitat. 

For the San Bernardino springsnail, we 

are designating the three occupied 

springs and the only remaining 

historically occupied spring (but 

currently unoccupied) in the United 

States that still contains the PCEs for the 

species because we believe they are 

essential to conservation of the species 

as discussed above. If the two cienegas 

nearby in Mexico are determined to 

harbor the San Bernardino springsnail, 

we would not designate critical habitat 

for the species in either of those 

cienegas because we do not designate 

critical habitat outside the United 

States. 

We assessed the critical life-history 

components of these springsnail 

species, as they relate to habitat. Three 

Forks and San Bernardino springsnails 

require unpolluted spring water in 

springheads and spring runs; 

periphyton, bacteria, and decaying 

organic material for food; rock-derived 

substrates for egglaying, maturing, 

feeding, and escape from predators; and 

absence or low levels of nonnative 

predators and competitors. The areas 

proposed as critical habitat for the Three 

Forks springsnail and the San 

Bernardino springsnail contain these 

PCEs that are essential to these lifehistory components of the species. 

Both species occur or occurred in 

isolated populations in very small areas. 

For the Three Forks springsnail, 

catastrophic wildfires and firefighting 

actions (retardant drops), as well as 

overgrazing by elk, and random, intense 

natural disasters threaten the two 

populations with extinction. For the San 

Bernardino springsnail, known 

populations are at risk of extinction 

from groundwater pumping and 

exposure to pesticides. We are 

proposing for designation of critical 

habitat lands that we have determined 

are occupied at the time of listing and 

contain sufficient PCEs to support life 

history functions essential for the 

conservation of the species, and lands 

outside of the geographical area 

occupied at the time of listing that we 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2011 / Proposed Rules 20477 

have determined are essential for the 

conservation of these species. 

Units are proposed for designation 

based on sufficient PCEs being present 

to support life processes. Some units 

contained all PCEs and support multiple 

life processes. Some segments contain 

only a portion of the PCEs necessary to 

support use of that habitat, but remain 

an essential component necessary for 

the conservation of the species because 

they will provide for population 

redundancy to protect against 

extinction. 

Proposed Critical Habitat Designation 

We are proposing two units of critical 

habitat for the Three Forks springsnail 

and four units of critical habitat for the 

San Bernardino springsnail. The critical 

habitat units we describe below 

constitute our current and best 

assessment of the areas that meet the 

definition of critical habitat for the 

Three Forks springsnail and the San 

Bernardino springsnail. Table 1 

summarizes the threats and current 

occupancy of the proposed critical 

habitat units. Table 2 provides 

approximate areas (ac/ha) and land 

ownership of the units. 

TABLE 1—THREATS AND OCCUPANCY IN AREAS CONTAINING FEATURES ESSENTIAL TO THE CONSERVATION OF THE

THREE FORKS AND SAN BERNARDINO SPRINGSNAILS. 

Critical habitat unit Threats requiring special management or protections Currently occupied 

Three Forks springsnail 

1. Three Forks Springs Unit ................... wildfire, fire retardant use, elk grazing, nonnative predators, and potential introduction of nonnative snails.yes. 

2. Boneyard Bog Springs Unit ............... wildfire, fire retardant use, elk grazing, nonnative predators, and potential introduction of nonnative snails.yes. 

San Bernardino springsnail 

1. Snail Spring Unit ................................ groundwater depletion, drought, water contamination from pesticide use, and

potential introduction of nonnative snails.

unknown. 

2. Goat Tank Spring Unit ....................... groundwater depletion, drought, water contamination from pesticide use, and 

potential introduction of nonnative snails.

yes. 

3. Horse Spring Unit ............................... groundwater depletion, drought, water contamination from pesticide use, and 

potential introduction of nonnative snails.

yes. 

4. Tule Spring Unit ................................. groundwater depletion, drought, and potential introduction of nonnative snails .. no. 

TABLE 2—OWNERSHIP AND APPROXIMATE AREA OF PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS

Critical habitat unit Ownership Total area 

Three Forks springsnail 

1. Three Forks Springs Unit .......................................................................................... Federal ...................................................... 2.5 ha (6.1 

ac) 

2. Boneyard Bog Springs Unit ...................................................................................... Federal ...................................................... 2.0 ha (5.0 

ac) 

Total ....................................................................................................................... ............................................................... 4.5 ha (11.1 

ac) 

San Bernardino springsnail 

1. Snail Spring Unit ....................................................................................................... Private ....................................................... 0.457 ha 

(1.129 ac) 

2. Goat Tank Spring Unit .............................................................................................. Private ....................................................... 0.002 ha 

(0.005 ac) 

3. Horse Spring Unit ...................................................................................................... Private ....................................................... 0.032 ha 

(0.078 ac) 

4. Tule Spring Unit ........................................................................................................ Federal ...................................................... 0.324 ha 

(0.801 ac) 

Total ....................................................................................................................... ............................................................... 0.815 ha 

(2.013 ac) 

We present below brief descriptions 

of all units and reasons why they meet 

the definition of critical habitat for the 

Three Forks springsnail or San 

Bernardino springsnail. Unit 

descriptions are presented separately by 

species. 

Three Forks Springsnail 

Three Forks Springs Unit 

The proposed Three Forks Springs 

Unit is a complex of springs, spring 

runs, spring seeps, a segment of an 

unnamed stream connecting them, and 

a small amount of upland area 

encircling them to make them a single 

unit of approximately 2.5 ha (6.1 ac) in 

the vicinity of UTM Zone 12 coordinate 

655710, 3747260 in Apache County. 

The entire unit is in Federal ownership 

and managed by the Apache-Sitgreaves 

National Forests of the USFS. The unit 

encompasses eight major springheads 

and spring runs, which each flow a 

short distance of several meters to an 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2
20478 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

unnamed tributary of the Black River. 

Two of the spring runs flow into a pond, 

which is occupied by the species and 

has an outflow run to the unnamed 

tributary. The spring complex contains 

spring seeps along the spring runs and 

the tributary. We are proposing to 

designate a single critical habitat unit 

that includes the springheads, spring 

runs, seeps, pond, and that portion of 

the unnamed tributary that connects the 

spring runs. The tributary itself is 

occupied where there are spring seeps 

along it and provides for springsnail 

movement among the occupied seeps, 

spring runs and springs, thus providing 

habitat connectivity. The area within 

the proposed unit contains a small 

amount of upland area adjacent to the 

springheads, spring runs, spring seeps 

and the tributary segment. The moist 

soils and vegetation in the adjacent 

uplands (approximately 1 m (3.3 ft) in 

width) are essential to the species 

because they produce food for the snails 

and protect the substrate they use. The 

remaining small amount of upland area 

is included to connect the entire 

essential, occupied habitat to form a 

single unit. Human-caused changes to 

the uplands adjacent to the aquatic 

habitats can be managed through this 

proposed unit designation to control 

threats to the aquatic habitats through 

conservation efforts by AGFD and 

through consultations between USFS 

and the Service under section 7 of the 

Act. For specific coordinates of the 

boundaries for the proposed critical 

habitat designation, please reference the 

unit descriptions in the Regulation 

Promulgation section below. 

Threats to the Three Forks springsnail 

in this unit that may require special 

management of the physical and 

biological features include wildfire, fire 

retardant use to fight wildfires, erosion 

and sedimentation, elk grazing, 

predation by nonnative crayfish, and 

potential competition from nonnative 

snails. The Three Forks Springs 

complex has had documented 

occupancy since 1973 (Landye 1973, p. 

49), and the species was considered 

abundant there until 2004 (AGFD 2008; 

Service 2008, p. 1) when the waters 

appear to have been contaminated by 

wildfire retardant drift. Surveys in 2004, 

immediately following a wildfire and 

fire retardant use, failed to locate 

springsnails, though surveys in 

subsequent years revealed the species in 

low numbers (Cox 2007, p. 1; Bailey 

2008, p. 1). Fire retardant becomes nontoxic within a few days of contact with 

water, so currently, the Three Forks 

Springs Unit contains all of the PCEs 

essential to the species, and the unit 

supports all of the Three Forks 

springsnail life processes. 

Boneyard Bog Springs Unit 

The proposed Boneyard Bog Springs 

Unit is a complex of springs, spring 

runs, spring seeps, and a segment of an 

unnamed stream connecting them, and 

a small amount of upland area 

encircling them to make them a single 

unit of approximately 2.0 ha (5.0 ac) in 

the vicinity of UTM Zone 12 coordinate 

659970, 3750730 in Apache County. 

The entire unit is in Federal ownership 

and managed by the Apache-Sitgreaves 

National Forests of the USFS. The unit 

encompasses seven major springheads 

and spring runs, which each flow a 

short distance of several meters to an 

unnamed tributary of the Black River. 

The spring complex contains spring 

seeps along the spring runs and the 

tributary. We are proposing to designate 

a single critical habitat unit that 

includes the springheads, spring runs, 

seeps, and that portion of the unnamed 

tributary that connects the spring runs. 

The tributary itself is occupied where 

there are spring seeps along it and 

provides for springsnail movement 

among the occupied seeps, spring runs 

and springs and is essential for habitat 

connectivity. The area within the 

proposed unit contains a small amount 

of upland area adjacent to the 

springheads, spring runs, spring seeps 

and the tributary segment. The moist 

soils and vegetation in the adjacent 

uplands (approximately 1 meter (3.3 ft) 

in width) are essential to the species 

because they produce food for the snails 

and protect the substrate they use. The 

remaining small amount of upland area 

is included to connect all of the 

essential, occupied habitat to form a 

single unit. Human-caused changes to 

the uplands adjacent to the aquatic 

habitats can be managed through this 

proposed unit designation to control 

threats to the aquatic habitats through 

conservation efforts by AGFD and 

through consultations between USFS 

and the Service under section 7 of the 

Act. For specific coordinates of the 

boundaries for the proposed critical 

habitat designation, please reference the 

unit descriptions in the Proposed 

Regulation Promulgation section below. 

Threats to the Three Forks springsnail 

in this unit that may require special 

management of the physical and 

biological features include wildfire, fire 

retardant use to fight wildfires, elk 

grazing, predation by nonnative 

crayfish, and potential competition from 

nonnative snails. This proposed unit 

contains all the PCEs and supports all 

of the Three Forks springsnail life 

processes. 

San Bernardino Springsnail 

Snail Spring Unit 

The proposed Snail Spring Unit 

encompasses 0.457 ha (1.129 ac) in 

Cochise County. The entire unit is in 

private ownership and managed by the 

John Slaughter Ranch. The spring is 

approximately 5 m (16 ft) in diameter 

and has a spring run that goes south 

from the spring approximately 23.5 m 

(77 ft) to a manmade ditch, which runs 

10.2 m (33.5 ft) to a dirt road. It passes 

under the road in a 3.5 m (11.5 ft) 

culvert, then flows approximately 17 m 

(56 ft) below the road. We are not 

proposing the road as critical habitat, 

but we are proposing to designate the 

culvert beneath the road because it 

contains flowing water that is a PCE. 

The spring and spring run down to the 

ditch is dry and is likely unoccupied, 

though they contain other PCEs such as 

substrate. It is unknown if the ditch is 

occupied when water and other PCEs 

are present. We are proposing to include 

a 1 m (3.3 ft) buffer of upland area 

around the spring, spring run and ditch 

because it has moist soils and vegetation 

that produce food for the snails and 

protect the substrate they use. Because 

of the small size of the spring, spring 

run, and ditch, we are precluded from 

mapping them precisely due to 

inaccuracies inherent in the use of 

satellites for locating and mapping. 

Therefore, for mapping purposes we 

created a circle that encompasses them. 

The proposed critical habitat is the 

spring, spring run, ditch and buffer 

within the 76 m (249 ft) diameter circle 

centered on UTM coordinate 663858, 

3468182 in Zone 12. 

Threats to the San Bernardino 

springsnail in this unit that may require 

special management of the physical and 

biological features include groundwater 

depletion, drought, water contamination 

from pesticide use, and potential 

introduction of nonnative snails. 

Groundwater depletion, perhaps from 

watering the lawn adjacent to Snail 

Spring, has threatened the species with 

a loss of flowing water in the past (Cox 

et al. 2007, p. 2; Smith et al. 2003, p. 

1; Malcom et al. 2003, p. 18) and 

continues to threaten it. Groundwater 

depletion threatens the region more 

broadly as the human population grows 

and demands for water increase 

(Earman et al. 2003, p. 259), especially 

during periods of drought. Humancaused changes to the uplands adjacent 

to the aquatic habitats likely cannot be 

managed through this proposed unit 

designation to control threats to the 

aquatic habitat, particularly runoff from 

pesticide use on the adjacent lawn 

unless Federal actions or funding are 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2011 / Proposed Rules 20479 

involved. If that occurs, we would enter 

into consultation under section 7 of the 

Act. The proposed Snail Spring Unit 

contains all the physical and biological 

features in a complex spatial 

arrangement and supports all of the San 

Bernardino springsnail life processes 

where water is present. 

Goat Tank Spring Unit 

The proposed Goat Tank Spring Unit 

encompasses 0.002 ha (0.005 ac) in 

Cochise County. The entire unit is in 

private ownership and managed by the 

John Slaughter Ranch. The spring is 

contained entirely within a square 

concrete box approximately 0.6 × 0.9 m 

(2 × 3 ft). There is also some spring 

seepage emanating from the base of 

cottonwood tree about 2 m (6.6 ft) from 

the springbox. We are proposing to 

include a 1 m (3.3 ft) of upland area 

around the springbox and spring 

seepage because it has moist soils and 

vegetation that produce food for the 

snails and protects the substrate snails 

use. Because of the small size of the 

springbox and spring seepage, we are 

precluded from mapping them precisely 

due to inaccuracies inherent in the use 

of satellites for locating and mapping. 

Therefore, for mapping purposes we 

created a circle that encompasses them. 

The proposed critical habitat is the 

springbox, spring seepage, and buffer 

within the 5 m (16 ft) diameter circle 

centered on UTM coordinate 663725, 

3468162 in Zone 12. 

Threats to the San Bernardino 

springsnail in this unit that may require 

special management of the physical and 

biological features include groundwater 

depletion, drought, water contamination 

from pesticide use, and potential 

introduction of nonnative snails. 

Groundwater depletion has affected the 

species with a loss of flowing water at 

nearby Snail Spring in the recent past 

(Cox et al. 2007, p. 2; Smith et al. 2003, 

p. 1; Malcom et al. 2003, p. 18) and 

continues to threaten it. Groundwater 

depletion threatens the region more 

broadly as the human population grows 

and demands for water increase 

(Earman et al. 2003, p. 259), especially 

during periods of drought. Humancaused changes to the uplands adjacent 

to the aquatic habitats likely cannot be 

managed through this proposed unit 

designation to control threats to the 

aquatic habitat, particularly runoff from 

pesticide use on the adjacent lawn 

unless Federal actions or funding are 

involved. If that occurs, we would enter 

into consultation under section 7 of the 

Act. The proposed Goat Tank Unit 

contains all the PCEs that support all of 

the San Bernardino springsnail life 

processes. 

Horse Spring Unit 

The proposed Horse Spring Unit 

encompasses 0.032 ha (0.078 ac) in 

Cochise County. The entire unit is in 

private ownership and managed by the 

John Slaughter Ranch. The spring 

emerges from a PVC pipe and flows in 

a springrun that is approximately 0.5 m 

(1.6 ft) wide and 15.5 m (50.9 ft) in 

length. We are proposing to include a 1 

m (3.3 ft) buffer of upland area around 

the springhead and springrun because it 

has moist soils and vegetation that 

produce food for the snails and protect 

the substrate they use. Because of the 

small size of the springhead and 

springrun, we are precluded from 

mapping them precisely due to 

inaccuracies inherent in the use of 

satellites for locating and mapping. 

Therefore, for mapping purposes we 

created a circle that encompasses them. 

The proposed critical habitat is the 

springbox, spring seepage, and buffer 

within the 20 m (66 ft) diameter circle 

centered on UTM coordinate 663772, 

3468091 in Zone 12. 

Threats to the San Bernardino 

springsnail in this unit that may require 

special management of the physical and 

biological features include groundwater 

depletion, drought, water contamination 

from pesticide use, and potential 

introduction of nonnative snails. 

Groundwater depletion has affected the 

species with a loss of flowing water at 

nearby Snail Spring in the recent past 

(Cox et al. 2007, p. 2; Smith et al. 2003; 

p. 1, Malcom et al. 2003, p. 18) and 

continues to threaten it. Groundwater 

depletion threatens the region more 

broadly as the human population grows 

and demands for water increase 

(Earman et al. 2003, p. 259), especially 

during periods of drought. Humancaused changes to the uplands adjacent 

to the aquatic habitats likely cannot be 

managed through this proposed unit 

designation to control threats to the 

aquatic habitat, particularly runoff from 

pesticide use on the adjacent lawn 

unless Federal actions or funding are 

involved. If that occurs, we would enter 

into consultation under section 7 of the 

Act. The proposed Horse Spring Unit 

contains all the PCEs that support all of 

the San Bernardino springsnail life 

processes. 

Tule Spring Unit 

The proposed Tule Spring Unit 

encompasses 0.324 ha (0.801 ac) in 

Cochise County. The entire unit is in 

Federal ownership and managed by the 

San Bernardino NWR of the Service. 

The spring forms a pond approximately 

23 m (75 ft) north-south and 13 m (43 

ft) east-west, and it has a spring run that 

is approximately 21.7 m (71 ft) in 

length. The spring run emerges from the 

southeastern side of the spring pond, 

runs northeast for approximately 12.5 m 

(41 ft) to a manmade ditch, which runs 

southeast 9.2 m (30 ft). We are 

proposing to include a 1 m (3.3 ft) buffer 

of upland area around the spring, spring 

run, and ditch because it has moist soils 

and vegetation that produce food for the 

snails and protect the substrate they use. 

Because of the small size of the spring, 

spring run, and ditch, we are precluded 

from mapping them precisely due to 

inaccuracies inherent in the use of 

satellites for locating and mapping. 

Therefore, for mapping purposes we 

created a circle that encompasses them. 

The proposed critical habitat is the 

spring, spring run, ditch and buffer 

within the 64 m (210 ft) diameter circle 

centered on UTM coordinate 664259, 

3468499 in Zone 12. 

The proposed Tule Spring Unit is 

currently unoccupied by the San 

Bernardino springsnail, but is 

considered to have been historically 

occupied (Malcom et al. 2007, p. 19) 

and shares a common aquifer and 

similarities in water chemistry, 

temperature and hydrology with Snail 

Spring. Tule Spring is essential to the 

conservation of the species because it 

provides a reintroduction opportunity to 

provide population redundancy of the 

species. When developing conservation 

strategies for species whose life histories 

are characterized by short generation 

time, small body size, high rates of 

population increase, and high habitat 

specificity; greater emphasis should be 

placed on the maintenance of multiple 

populations as opposed to protecting a 

single population (Murphy et al. 1990, 

pp. 41–51). 

Effects of Critical Habitat Designation 

Section 7 Consultation 

Section 7 of the Act requires Federal 

agencies, including the Service, to 

ensure that actions they fund, authorize, 

or carry out are not likely to jeopardize 

the continued existence of a listed 

species or destroy or adversely modify 

critical habitat. Decisions by the courts 

of appeals for the Fifth and Ninth 

Circuit Courts of Appeals have 

invalidated our definition of 

‘‘destruction or adverse modification’’ 

(50 CFR 402.02) (see Gifford Pinchot 

Task Force v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, 378 F. 3d 1059 (9th Circuit 

2004) and Sierra Club v. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service et al., 245 F.3d 434, 

442F (5th Circuit 2001), and we do not 

rely on this regulatory definition when 

analyzing whether an action is likely to 

destroy or adversely modify critical 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2
20480 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

habitat. Under the statutory provisions 

of the Act, we determine destruction or 

adverse modification on the basis of 

whether, with implementation of the 

proposed Federal action, the affected 

critical habitat would remain functional 

(or retain those PCEs that relate to the 

ability of the area to periodically 

support the species) to serve its 

intended conservation role for the 

species. 

If a species is listed or critical habitat 

is designated, section 7(a)(2) of the Act 

requires Federal agencies to ensure that 

activities they authorize, fund, or carry 

out are not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of the species or to 

destroy or adversely modify its critical 

habitat. If a Federal action may affect a 

listed species or its critical habitat, the 

responsible Federal agency (action 

agency) must enter into consultation 

with us. As a result of this consultation, 

we document compliance with the 

requirements of section 7(a)(2) through 

our issuance of: 

(1) A concurrence letter for Federal 

actions that may affect, but are not 

likely to adversely affect, listed species 

or critical habitat; or 

(2) A biological opinion for Federal 

actions that are likely to adversely affect 

listed species or critical habitat. 

An exception to the concurrence 

process referred to in (1) above occurs 

in consultations involving National Fire 

Plan projects. In 2004, the USFS and the 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

reached agreements with the Service to 

streamline a portion of the section 7 

consultation process (BLM 2004, pp. 1– 

8; USFS 2004, pp. 1–8). The agreements 

allow the USFS and the BLM the 

opportunity to make ‘‘not likely to 

adversely affect’’ (NLAA) determinations 

for projects implementing the National 

Fire Plan. Such projects include 

prescribed fire, mechanical fuels 

treatments (thinning and removal of 

fuels to prescribed objectives), 

emergency stabilization, burned area 

rehabilitation, road maintenance and 

operation activities, ecosystem 

restoration, and culvert replacement 

actions. The USFS and the BLM must 

ensure staff are properly trained, and 

both agencies must submit monitoring 

reports to the Service to determine if the 

procedures are being implemented 

properly and that effects on endangered 

species and their habitats are being 

properly evaluated. As a result, we do 

not believe the alternative consultation 

processes being implemented as a result 

of the National Fire Plan will differ 

significantly from those consultations 

being conducted by the Service. 

When we issue a biological opinion 

concluding that a project is likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of a 

listed species or destroy or adversely 

modify critical habitat, we also provide 

reasonable and prudent alternatives to 

the project, if any are identifiable. We 

define ‘‘Reasonable and prudent 

alternatives’’ at 50 CFR 402.2 as 

alternative actions identified during 

consultation that: 

• Can be implemented in a manner 

consistent with the intended purpose of 

the action; 

• Can be implemented consistent 

with the scope of the Federal agency’s 

legal authority and jurisdiction; 

• Are economically and 

technologically feasible; and 

• Would, in the Director’s opinion, 

avoid jeopardizing the continued 

existence of the listed species or 

destroying or adversely modifying 

critical habitat. 

Reasonable and prudent alternatives 

can vary from slight project 

modifications to extensive project 

redesign or relocation of the project. 

Costs associated with implementing 

reasonable and prudent alternatives are 

similarly variable. 

Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require 

Federal agencies to reinitiate 

consultation on previously reviewed 

actions in instances where we have 

listed a new species or subsequently 

designated critical habitat that may have 

been affected and the Federal agency 

has retained discretionary involvement 

or control over the action (or the 

agency’s discretionary involvement or 

control is authorized by law). 

Consequently, Federal agencies may 

sometimes need to request reinitiation 

of consultation with us on actions for 

which formal consultation has been 

completed, if those actions with 

discretionary involvement or control 

may affect subsequently listed species 

or designated critical habitat. 

Federal actions that may affect the 

Three Forks springsnail or the San 

Bernardino springsnail or their 

designated critical habitat require 

section 7(a)(2) consultation under the 

Act. On private lands, examples of 

Federal actions include, but are not 

limited to, Environmental Protection 

Agency authorization of discharges 

under the National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System and registration of 

pesticides; Federal Highway 

Administration approval of funding of 

road or highway infrastructure and 

maintenance; Corps authorization of 

discharges of dredged and fill material 

into waters of the United States under 

section 404 of the CWA; U.S. 

Department of Agriculture (USDA) 

Natural Resources Conservation Service 

technical assistance and other programs; 

USDA-Rural Utilities Service 

infrastructure or development; U.S. 

Department of Homeland Security 

activities in regard to immigration 

enforcement and regulation; the 

Department of Housing and Urban 

Development Small Cities Community 

Development Block Grant and home 

loan programs; or a permit from us 

under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act. 

Federal actions not affecting listed 

species or critical habitat, and actions 

on State, Tribal, local, or private lands 

that are not federally funded, 

authorized, or permitted, do not require 

section 7(a)(2) consultations. In addition 

to several of the specific examples 

above, other Federal actions that may 

require consultation on Federal lands 

include land-management actions 

implemented by the applicable Federal 

land management agency. 

Application of the ‘‘Adverse 

Modification’’ Standard 

The key factor related to the adverse 

modification determination is whether, 

with implementation of the proposed 

Federal action, the affected critical 

habitat would continue to serve its 

intended conservation role for the 

species, or would retain those PCEs that 

relate to the ability of the area to 

periodically support the species. 

Activities that may destroy or adversely 

modify critical habitat are those that 

alter the PCEs to an extent that 

appreciably reduces the conservation 

value of critical habitat for the Three 

Forks springsnail or the San Bernardino 

springsnail. As discussed above, the role 

of critical habitat is to support the life 

history needs of the species and provide 

for the conservation of the species. 

Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us 

to briefly evaluate and describe, in any 

proposed or final regulation that 

designates critical habitat, activities 

involving Federal actions that may 

adversely modify such habitat, or that 

may be affected by such designation. 

Activities that, when carried out, 

funded, or authorized by a Federal 

agency, may affect critical habitat and, 

therefore, should result in consultation 

for the Three Forks springsnail and the 

San Bernardino springsnail include, but 

are not limited to: 

(1) Actions that would reduce the 

quantity of water flow within the spring 

systems proposed as critical habitat. 

(2) Actions that would result in the 

inundation of springheads within the 

spring systems proposed as critical 

habitat. 

(3) Actions that would degrade water 

quality within the spring systems 

proposed for designation as critical 

habitat. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2011 / Proposed Rules 20481 

(4) Actions that would reduce the 

availability of coarse, firm aquatic 

substrates within the spring systems 

that are proposed as critical habitat. 

(5) Actions that would reduce the 

occurrence of native aquatic 

macrophytes, algae, and/or periphyton 

within the spring systems proposed as 

critical habitat. 

(6) Actions that would cause, 

promote, or maintain the presence of 

nonnative predators and competitors at 

unacceptable levels within the spring 

systems proposed as critical habitat. 

Exemptions 

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

The Sikes Act Improvement Act of 

1997 (Sikes Act) (16 U.S.C. 670a) 

required each military installation that 

includes land and water suitable for the 

conservation and management of 

natural resources to complete an 

integrated natural resource management 

plan (INRMP) by November 17, 2001. 

The National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Pub. L. 108– 

136) amended the Act to limit areas 

eligible for designation as critical 

habitat. Specifically, section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) 

of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) 

now provides: ‘‘The Secretary shall not 

designate as critical habitat any lands or 

other geographical areas owned or 

controlled by the Department of 

Defense, or designated for its use, that 

are subject to an integrated natural 

resources management plan prepared 

under section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 

U.S.C. 670a), if the Secretary determines 

in writing that such plan provides a 

benefit to the species for which critical 

habitat is proposed for designation.’’ 

There are no Department of Defense 

lands with a completed INRMP within 

the critical habitat designation. 

Exclusions 

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

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that 

the Secretary must designate and revise 

critical habitat on the basis of the best 

available scientific data after taking into 

consideration the economic impact, 

national security impact, and any other 

relevant impact of specifying any 

particular area as critical habitat. The 

Secretary may exclude an area from 

critical habitat if he determines that the 

benefits of such exclusion outweigh the 

benefits of specifying such area as part 

of the critical habitat, unless he 

determines, based on the best scientific 

data available, that the failure to 

designate such area as critical habitat 

will result in the extinction of the 

species. In making that determination, 

the legislative history is clear that the 

Secretary has broad discretion regarding 

which factors to use and how much 

weight to give any factor. 

Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, in 

considering whether to exclude a 

particular area from the designation, we 

must identify the benefits of including 

the area in the designation, identify the 

benefits of excluding the area from the 

designation, and determine whether the 

benefits of exclusion outweigh the 

benefits of inclusion. If based on this 

analysis, we make this determination, 

then we can exclude the area only if 

such exclusion would not result in the 

extinction of the species. 

Exclusions Based on Economic Impacts 

Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we 

consider the economic impacts of 

specifying any particular area as critical 

habitat. In order to consider economic 

impacts, we are preparing an analysis of 

the economic and other impacts of 

proposing critical habitat for the Three 

Forks springsnail and San Bernardino 

springsnail. We will announce the 

availability of the draft economic 

analysis as soon as it is completed, at 

which time we will seek public review 

and comment. At that time, copies of 

the draft economic analysis will be 

available for downloading from the 

Internet at http://www.regulations.gov, 

or from the Arizona Ecological Services 

Field Office (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section). We may 

exclude areas from the final rule based 

on the information in the economic 

analysis. During the development of a 

final designation, we will consider 

economic impacts, public comments, 

and other new information, and areas 

may be excluded from the final critical 

habitat designation under section 4(b)(2) 

of the Act and our implementing 

regulations at 50 CFR 424.19. 

Exclusions Based on National Security 

Impacts 

Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we 

consider whether there are lands owned 

or managed by the Department of 

Defense (DOD) where a national security 

impact might exist. In preparing this 

proposal, we have determined that the 

lands within the proposed designation 

of critical habitat for the Three Forks 

and San Bernardino springsnails are not 

owned or managed by the Department of 

Defense, and therefore, anticipate no 

impact to national security. There are no 

areas proposed for exclusion based on 

impacts on national security. 

Exclusions Based on Other Relevant 

Impacts 

Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we 

consider any other relevant impacts, in 

addition to economic impacts and 

impacts on national security. We 

consider a number of factors including 

whether the landowners have developed 

any HCPs or other management plans 

for the area, or whether there are 

conservation partnerships that would be 

encouraged by designation of, or 

exclusion from, critical habitat. In 

addition, we look at any Tribal issues, 

and consider the government-togovernment relationship of the United 

States with Tribal entities. We also 

consider any social impacts that might 

occur because of the designation. 

We have evaluated the Forest 

Management Plan for the ApacheSitgreaves National Forests with respect 

to providing adequate protection and 

management for the Three Forks 

springsnail. At this time, the Plan does 

not provide sufficient protection and 

management to satisfy the criteria 

necessary for proposed exclusion from 

critical habitat. There are currently no 

conservation plans for the private lands 

in the Snail Spring Unit for the San 

Bernardino springsnail. 

In preparing this proposal, we have 

determined that the proposed 

designation does not include any Tribal 

lands or trust resources. We anticipate 

no impact to Tribal lands, partnerships, 

or HCPs from this proposed critical 

habitat designation. There are no areas 

proposed for exclusion from this 

proposed designation based on other 

relevant impacts. 

Peer Review 

In accordance with our joint policy 

published in the Federal Register on 

July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we are 

requesting the expert opinions of at least 

three appropriate and independent 

specialists regarding this proposed rule. 

The purpose of peer review is to ensure 

that our proposed rule is based on 

scientifically sound data, assumptions, 

and analyses. We will invite these peer 

reviewers to comment, during the 

public comment period, on the specific 

assumptions and conclusions regarding 

the proposal to list the Three Forks 

springsnail and San Bernardino 

springsnail as endangered, and our 

decision regarding critical habitat for 

these species. 

We will consider all comments and 

information received during the 

comment period on this proposed rule 

during preparation of a final 

rulemaking. Accordingly, the final 

decision may differ from this proposal. 

Public Hearings 

The Act provides for one or more 

public hearings on this proposal, if we 

receive any request for hearings. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2
20482 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

Requests must be received within 45 

days after the date of publication of this 

proposal in the Federal Register. Send 

your request to the person named in FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. We will 

schedule public hearings on this 

proposal, if any are requested, and 

announce the dates, times, and places of 

those hearings, as well as how to obtain 

reasonable accommodations, in the 

Federal Register and local newspapers 

at least 15 days before the first hearing. 

Required Determinations 

Regulatory Planning and Review 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has determined that this rule is 

not significant and has not reviewed 

this rule under Executive Order 12866. 

OMB bases its determination upon the 

following four criteria: 

(a) Whether the rule will have an 

annual effect of $100 million or more on 

the economy or adversely affect an 

economic sector, productivity, jobs, the 

environment, or other units of the 

government. 

(b) Whether the rule will create 

inconsistencies with other Federal 

agencies’ actions. 

(c) Whether the rule will materially 

affect entitlements, grants, user fees, 

loan programs, or the rights and 

obligations of their recipients. 

(d) Whether the rule raises novel legal 

or policy issues. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 

et seq.) 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended 

by the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 

1996), whenever an agency must 

publish a notice of rulemaking for any 

proposed or final rule, it must prepare 

and make available for public comment 

a regulatory flexibility analysis that 

describes the effects of the rule on small 

entities (i.e., small businesses, small 

organizations, and small government 

jurisdictions). However, no regulatory 

flexibility analysis is required if the 

head of the agency certifies the rule will 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. SBREFA amended RFA to 

require Federal agencies to provide a 

statement of the factual basis for 

certifying that the rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

At this time, we lack the available 

economic information necessary to 

provide an adequate factual basis for the 

required RFA finding. Therefore, we 

defer the RFA finding until completion 

of the draft economic analysis prepared 

under section 4(b)(2) of the Act and E.O. 

12866. This draft economic analysis will 

provide the required factual basis for the 

RFA finding. Upon completion of the 

draft economic analysis, we will 

announce availability of the draft 

economic analysis of the proposed 

designation in the Federal Register and 

reopen the public comment period for 

the proposed designation. We will 

include with this announcement, as 

appropriate, an initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis or a certification that 

the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities accompanied 

by the factual basis for that 

determination. We have concluded that 

deferring the RFA finding until 

completion of the draft economic 

analysis is necessary to meet the 

purposes and requirements of the RFA. 

Deferring the RFA finding in this 

manner will ensure that we make a 

sufficiently informed determination 

based on adequate economic 

information and provides the necessary 

opportunity for public comment. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

In accordance with the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et 

seq.), we make the following findings: 

(a) This proposed rule will not 

produce a Federal mandate. In general, 

a Federal mandate is a provision in 

legislation, statute or regulation that 

would impose an enforceable duty upon 

State, local, or tribal governments, or the 

private sector and includes both 

‘‘Federal intergovernmental mandates’’ 

and ‘‘Federal private sector mandates.’’ 

These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 

658(5)(7). ‘‘Federal intergovernmental 

mandate’’ includes a regulation that 

‘‘would impose an enforceable duty 

upon State, local, or [T]ribal 

governments,’’ with two exceptions. It 

excludes ‘‘a condition of Federal 

assistance.’’ It also excludes ‘‘a duty 

arising from participation in a voluntary 

Federal program,’’ unless the regulation 

‘‘relates to a then-existing Federal 

program under which $500,000,000 or 

more is provided annually to State, 

local, and [T]ribal governments under 

entitlement authority,’’ if the provision 

would ‘‘increase the stringency of 

conditions of assistance’’ or ‘‘place caps 

upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal 

Government’s responsibility to provide 

funding,’’ and the State, local, or [T]ribal 

governments ‘‘lack authority’’ to adjust 

accordingly. At the time of enactment, 

these entitlement programs were: 

Medicaid; AFDC work programs; Child 

Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social Services 

Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation 

State Grants; Foster Care, Adoption 

Assistance, and Independent Living; 

Family Support Welfare Services; and 

Child Support Enforcement. ‘‘Federal 

private sector mandate’’ includes a 

regulation that would impose an 

enforceable duty upon the private 

sector, except (i) a condition of Federal 

assistance or (ii) a duty arising from 

participation in a voluntary Federal 

program. 

The designation of critical habitat 

does not impose a legally binding duty 

on non-Federal Government entities or 

private parties. Under the Act, the only 

regulatory effect is that Federal agencies 

must ensure that their actions do not 

destroy or adversely modify critical 

habitat under section 7. While nonFederal entities that receive Federal 

funding, assistance, or permits, or that 

otherwise require approval or 

authorization from a Federal agency for 

an action, may be indirectly impacted 

by the designation of critical habitat, the 

legally binding duty to avoid 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat rests squarely on the 

Federal agency. Furthermore, to the 

extent that non-Federal entities are 

indirectly impacted because they 

receive Federal assistance or participate 

in a voluntary Federal aid program, the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would 

not apply; nor would critical habitat 

shift the costs of the large entitlement 

programs listed above onto State 

governments. 

(b) We do not expect this rule to 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. Small governments will 

be affected only to the extent that any 

programs having Federal funds, permits, 

or other authorized activities must 

ensure that their actions will not 

adversely affect the critical habitat. 

Therefore, a Small Government Agency 

Plan is not required. However, we will 

further evaluate this issue as we 

conduct our economic analysis, and 

review and revise this assessment as 

warranted. 

Takings 

In accordance with E.O. 12630 

(Government Actions and Interference 

with Constitutionally Protected Private 

Property Rights), we will analyze the 

potential takings implications of 

designating critical habitat for the Three 

Forks springsnail and San Bernardino 

springsnail in a takings implications 

assessment. The takings implications 

assessment will determine whether this 

designation of critical habitat for the 

Three Forks springsnail and San 

Bernardino springsnail poses significant 

takings implications for lands within or 

affected by the proposed revised 

designation. We will further evaluate 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2011 / Proposed Rules 20483 

this issue as we conduct our economic 

analysis. 

Federalism 

In accordance with E.O. 13132 

(Federalism), this proposed rule does 

not have significant Federalism effects. 

A Federalism assessment is not 

required. In keeping with Department of 

the Interior and Department of 

Commerce policy, we requested 

information from, and coordinated 

development of, this proposed critical 

habitat designation with appropriate 

State resource agencies in Arizona. The 

designation of critical habitat on lands 

currently occupied by the Three Forks 

springsnail or San Bernardino 

springsnail imposes no additional 

restrictions to those currently in place 

and, therefore, has little incremental 

impact on State and local governments 

and their activities. The designation 

may have some benefit to these 

governments because the areas that 

contain the features essential to the 

conservation of the species are more 

clearly defined, and the physical and 

biological features of the habitat 

necessary to the conservation of the 

species are specifically identified. This 

information does not alter where and 

what federally sponsored activities may 

occur. However, it may assist local 

governments in long-range planning 

(rather than having them wait for caseby-case section 7 consultations to 

occur). 

Where state and local governments 

require approval or authorization from a 

Federal agency for actions that may 

affect critical habitat, consultation 

under section 7(a)(2) would be required. 

While non-Federal entities that receive 

Federal funding, assistance, or permits, 

or that otherwise require approval or 

authorization from a Federal agency for 

an action, may be indirectly impacted 

by the designation of critical habitat, the 

legally binding duty to avoid 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat rests squarely on the 

Federal agency. 

Civil Justice Reform 

In accordance with E.O. 12988 (Civil 

Justice Reform), the Office of the 

Solicitor has determined that the rule 

does not unduly burden the judicial 

system and that it meets the 

requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) 

of the Order. We have proposed 

designating critical habitat in 

accordance with the provisions of the 

Act. This proposed rule uses standard 

property descriptions and identifies the 

physical and biological features within 

the designated areas to assist the public 

in understanding the habitat needs of 

the Three Forks springsnail and San 

Bernardino springsnail. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

This proposed rule does not contain 

any new collections of information that 

require approval by OMB under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This rule will not 

impose recordkeeping or reporting 

requirements on State or local 

governments, individuals, businesses, or 

organizations. An agency may not 

conduct or sponsor, and a person is not 

required to respond to, a collection of 

information unless it displays a 

currently valid OMB control number. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

It is our position that, outside the 

jurisdiction of the Circuit Court of the 

United States for the Tenth Circuit, we 

do not need to prepare environmental 

analyses as defined by the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) in connection with 

designating critical habitat under the 

Act. We published a notice outlining 

our reasons for this determination in the 

Federal Register on October 25, 1983 

(48 FR 49244). This assertion was 

upheld by the Circuit Court of the 

United States for the Ninth Circuit 

(Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 

1495 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied 516 

U.S. 1042 (1996)). 

Clarity of the Rule 

We are required by Executive Orders 

12866 and 12988 and by the 

Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 

1998, to write all rules in plain 

language. This means that each rule we 

publish must: 

(a) Be logically organized; 

(b) Use the active voice to address 

readers directly; 

(c) Use clear language rather than 

jargon; 

(d) Be divided into short sections and 

sentences; and 

(e) Use lists and tables wherever 

possible. 

If you feel that we have not met these 

requirements, send us comments by one 

of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES

section. To better help us revise the 

rule, your comments should be as 

specific as possible. For example, you 

should tell us the numbers of the 

sections or paragraphs that are unclearly 

written, which sections or sentences are 

too long, the sections where you feel 

lists or tables would be useful, etc. 

Government-to-Government 

Relationship With Tribes 

In accordance with the President’s 

memorandum of April 29, 1994, 

‘‘Government-to-Government Relations 

with Native American Tribal 

Governments’’ (59 FR 22951), E.O. 

13175, and the Department of the 

Interior’s manual at 512 DM 2, we 

readily acknowledge our responsibility 

to communicate meaningfully with 

recognized Federal Tribes on a 

government-to-government basis. In 

accordance with Secretarial Order 3206 

of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal 

Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust 

Responsibilities, and the Endangered 

Species Act), we readily acknowledge 

our responsibilities to work directly 

with Tribes in developing programs for 

healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that 

tribal lands are not subject to the same 

controls as Federal public lands, to 

remain sensitive to Indian culture, and 

to make information available to Tribes. 

We have determined that there are no 

Tribal lands occupied at the time of 

listing with features essential for the 

conservation, and no Tribal lands that 

are essential for the conservation, of the 

Three Forks springsnail and San 

Bernardino springsnail. Therefore, we 

have not proposed designation of 

critical habitat for the Three Forks 

springsnail and San Bernardino 

springsnail on Tribal lands. 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use 

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use,’’ requires agencies 

to prepare Statements of Energy Effects 

when undertaking certain actions. This 

proposed rule to designate critical 

habitat for the Three Forks springsnail 

and San Bernardino springsnail is not a 

significant regulatory action, and we do 

not expect it to significantly affect 

energy supplies, distribution, or use. 

Therefore, this action is not a significant 

energy action, and no Statement of 

Energy Effects is required. However, we 

will further evaluate energy-related 

issues as we conduct our economic 

analysis, and review and revise this 

assessment as warranted. 

References Cited 

A complete list of all references cited 

in this rule is available on the Internet 

at http://www.regulations.gov or upon 

request from the Field Supervisor, 

Arizona Ecological Services Field Office 

(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section). 

Authors 

The primary authors of this document 

are the staff members of the Arizona 

Field Services Office (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2
20484 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, and 

Transportation. 

Regulation Promulgation 

Accordingly, we propose to amend 

part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 

50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 

as set forth below: 

PART 17—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for part 17 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 16 U.S.C. 

1531–1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201–4245; Pub. L. 99– 

625, 100 Stat. 3500, unless otherwise noted. 

2. In § 17.11(h) add entries for 

‘‘Springsnail, San Bernardino’’ and 

‘‘Springsnail, Three Forks’’ to the List of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife in 

alphabetic order under SNAILS to read 

as follows: 

§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened 

wildlife. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

Species 

Historic range 

Vertebrate population where endangered or threatened 

Status When listed Critical habitat 

Special 

rules Common name Scientific name 

*******

SNAILS

* * * * * * * 

Springsnail, San 

Bernardino 

Pyrgulopsis 

bernardina 

U.S.A. (AZ) ............. Entire ...................... E 17.95(f) NA 

* * * * * * * 

Springsnail, Three 

Forks.

Pyrgulopsis trivialis U.S.A. (AZ) ............. Entire ...................... E 17.95(f) NA 

* * * * * * * 

3. In § 17.95, amend paragraph (f) by 

adding entries for ‘‘San Bernardino 

Springsnail (Pyrgulopsis bernardina)’’ 

and ‘‘Three Forks Springsnail 

(Pyrgulopsis trivialis)’’ to follow the 

entry for ‘‘Rough hornsnail (Pleurocera 

foremani)’’ to read as follows: 

§ 17.95 Critical habitat—fish and wildlife. 

* * * * * 

(f) Clams and Snails. 

* * * * * 

San Bernardino Springsnail (Pyrgulopsis 

bernardina) 

(1) Critical habitat units are depicted 

for Cochise County, on the map in 

paragraph (5) of this entry. 

(2) The physical and biological 

features of critical habitat for the San 

Bernardino springsnail are: 

(i) Adequately clean spring water (free 

from contamination) emerging from the 

ground and flowing on the surface; 

(ii) Periphyton (attached algae), 

bacteria, and decaying organic material 

for food; 

(iii) Substrates, which include cobble, 

gravel, pebble, sand, silt, and aquatic 

vegetation, for egg laying, maturing, 

feeding, and escape from predators; and 

(iv) Either an absence of nonnative 

predators (crayfish) and competitors 

(snails) or their presence at low 

population levels. 

(3) We have determined that all of the 

areas designated as critical habitat 

contain one or more of the physical and 

biological features, and there are no 

developed areas other than the road 

culvert and concrete springbox included 

to protect water within them. 

(4) Critical habitat map units were 

plotted on 2007 USGS Digital Ortho 

Quarter Quad maps using Universal 

Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinates 

in ArcMap. Because of the small size of 

the springs, spring runs and ditches, for 

mapping purposes we created a circle 

that encompasses them. 

(5) 

Note: Index map of critical habitat for the 

San Bernardino springsnail follows: 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2011 / Proposed Rules 20485 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

(6) Snail Spring Unit 0.457 ha (1.129 

ac) in Cochise County, Arizona. The 

proposed unit is a spring approximately 

5 m (16 ft) in diameter and has a spring 

run that goes south from the spring 

approximately 23.5 m (77 ft) to a 

manmade ditch, which runs 10.2 m 

(33.5 ft) to a dirt road. It passes under 

the road in a 3.5 m (11.5 ft) culvert, then 

flows approximately 17 m (56 ft) below 

the road. The culvert beneath the road 

is included in critical habitat, but not 

the road itself. We include 1 m (3.3 ft) 

of upland area around the spring, spring 

run and ditch because it has moist soils 

and vegetation that produce food for the 

snails and protect the substrate essential 

to the species. The critical habitat is the 

spring, spring run, ditch and buffer 

within the 76 m (249 ft) diameter circle 

centered on UTM coordinate 663858, 

3468182 in Zone 12 with the units in 

meters using North American Datum of 

1983 (NAD 83). 

(7) Goat Tank Spring Unit 0.002 ha 

(0.005 ac) in Cochise County. The unit 

is a spring contained entirely within a 

square concrete box approximately 0.61 

× 0.91 m (2 × 3 ft) and spring seepage 

emanating from the base of cottonwood 

tree about 2 m (6.56 ft) from the 

springbox. We include 1 m (3.3 ft) of 

upland area around the spring box and 

spring. The critical habitat is the 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP12AP11.000</GPH>
20486 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

springbox, spring seepage, and buffer 

within the 5 m (16.4 ft) diameter circle 

centered on UTM coordinate 663725, 

3468162 in Zone 12 with the units in 

meters using North American Datum of 

1983 (NAD 83). 

(8) Horse Spring Unit 0.032 ha (0.078 

ac) in Cochise County. The unit is a 

spring and springrun approximately 

0.5 m (1.6 ft) wide and 15.5 m (50.9 ft) 

in length. We include 1 m (3.3 ft) of 

upland area around the springhead and 

spring run. The proposed critical habitat 

is the springbox, spring seepage, and 

buffer within the 20 m (66 ft) diameter 

circle centered on UTM coordinate 

663772, 3468091 in Zone 12 with the 

units in meters using North American 

Datum of 1983 (NAD 83). 

(9) Tule Spring Unit 0.324 ha (0.801 

ac) in Cochise County, Arizona. The 

unit is a spring, which forms a pond 

approximately 23 m (75 ft) north-south 

and 13 m (43 ft) east-west, and it has a 

spring run that is approximately 21.7 m 

(71 ft) in length. The spring run emerges 

from the southeastern side of the spring 

pond, runs northeast for approximately 

12.5 m (41 ft) to a manmade ditch, 

which runs southeast 9.2 m (30 ft). We 

include 1 m (3.3 ft) of upland area 

around the spring, spring run, and 

ditch. The proposed critical habitat is 

the spring, spring run, ditch and buffer 

within the 64 m (210 ft) diameter circle 

centered on UTM coordinate 664259, 

3468499 in Zone 12 with the units in 

meters using North American Datum of 

1983 (NAD 83). 

* * * * * 

Three Forks Springsnail (Pyrgulopsis 

trivialis) 

(1) Critical habitat units are depicted 

for Apache County, Arizona, on the map 

at paragraph (5) of this entry below. 

(2) The primary constituent elements 

of critical habitat for the Three Forks 

springsnail are: 

(i) Adequately clean spring water (free 

from contamination) emerging from the 

ground and flowing on the surface; 

(ii) Periphyton (attached algae), 

bacteria, and decaying organic material 

for food; 

(iii) Substrates that include cobble, 

gravel, pebble, sand, silt, and aquatic 

vegetation, for egglaying, maturing, 

feeding, and escape from predators; and 

(iv) Either an absence of nonnative 

predators (crayfish) and competitors 

(snails) or their presence at low 

population levels. . 

(3) We have determined that all of the 

areas designated as critical habitat 

contain one or more of the physical and 

biological features, and there are no 

developed areas other than concrete 

springboxes included to protect water 

within them. 

(4) Critical habitat map units were 

plotted on 2007 USGS Digital Ortho 

Quarter Quad maps using Universal 

Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinates 

in ArcMap. 

(5) 

Note: Index map of critical habitat for the 

Three Forks springsnail follows: 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2011 / Proposed Rules 20487 

(6) Three Forks Springs Unit (2.5 ha; 

6.1 ac). The Three Forks Spring Unit 

consists of all areas within boundary 

points with the following coordinates in 

UTM Zone 12 with the units in meters 

using North American Datum of 1983 

(NAD 83): 655708, 3747262; 655714, 

3747269; 655746, 3747258; 655777, 

3747256; 655802, 3747270; 655808, 

3747288; 655815, 3747304; 655877, 

3747299; 655898, 3747291; 655911, 

3747271; 655922, 3747253; 655932, 

3747227; 655932, 3747209; 655939, 

3747196; 655948, 3747186; 655958, 

3747165; 655969, 3747142; 655979, 

3747116; 655998, 3747094; 656013, 

3747078; 656022, 3747061; 656023, 

3747050; 656013, 3747052; 656001, 

3747065; 655991, 3747086; 655973, 

3747112; 655963, 3747133; 655951, 

3747166; 655931, 3747191; 655906, 

3747198; 655886, 3747201; 655869, 

3747198; 655836, 3747179; 655826, 

3747158; 655830, 3747123; 655841, 

3747098; 655838, 3747083; 655818, 

3747085; 655785, 3747097; 655771, 

3747122; 655782, 3747144; 655784, 

3747170; 655752, 3747216; 655715, 

3747232; 655707, 3747242; Thence 

returning to 655708, 3747262. 

(7) Boneyard Bog Springs Unit (2.0 ha; 

5.0 ac). The Boneyard Bog Spring Unit 

consists of all areas within boundary 

points with the following coordinates in 

UTM Zone 12 with the units in meters 

using North American Datum of 1983 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP12AP11.001</GPH>
20488 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

(NAD 83): 659968, 3750753; 659990, 

3750731; 660021, 3750713; 660060, 

3750717; 660070, 3750742; 660176, 

3750787; 660190, 3750781; 660199, 

3750758; 660208, 3750744; 660159, 

3750685; 660125, 3750680; 660088, 

3750684; 660081, 3750690; 660072, 

3750691; 660072, 3750676; 660076, 

3750675; 660076, 3750664; 660069, 

3750664; 660067, 3750663; 660060, 

3750654; 660052, 3750648; 660034, 

3750649; 660029, 3750654; 660027, 

3750663; 660008, 3750659; 659997, 

3750649; 659997, 3750639; 659988, 

3750639; 659982, 3750641; 659958, 

3750660; 659954, 3750671; 659945, 

3750675; 659942, 3750688; 659933, 

3750685; 659921, 3750691; 659910, 

3750693; 659919, 3750712; Thence 

returning to 659968, 3750753. 

* * * * * 

Dated: March 11, 2011. 

Will Shafroth, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and 

Wildlife and Parks. 

[FR Doc. 2011–8176 Filed 4–11–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2