Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 176 / Wednesday, September 13, 2023 / Proposed Rules 62725 

NESHAP that will occur after a new 

HAP has been listed. 

Michael S. Regan, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2023–19674 Filed 9–12–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2023–0073; 

FF09E21000 FXES1111090FEDR 234] 

RIN 1018–BG35 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Endangered Species 

Status for Quitobaquito Tryonia and 

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 Quitobaquito tryonia (Tryonia 

quitobaquitae), a springsnail species 

from Arizona, as an endangered species 

under the Endangered Species Act of 

1973, as amended (Act). This 

determination also serves as our 12- 

month finding on a petition to list the 

Quitobaquito tryonia. After a review of 

the best available scientific and 

commercial information, we find that 

listing the species is warranted. We also 

propose to designate critical habitat for 

the Quitobaquito tryonia under the Act. 

In total, approximately 6,095 square feet 

(566 square meters) across 2 subunits in 

Pima County, Arizona, fall within the 

boundaries of the proposed critical 

habitat designation. We also announce 

the availability of a draft economic 

analysis (DEA) of the proposed 

designation of critical habitat for 

Quitobaquito tryonia. If we finalize this 

rule as proposed, it would extend the 

Act’s protections to this species and its 

designated critical habitat. 

DATES: We will accept comments 

received or postmarked on or before 

November 13, 2023. Comments 

submitted electronically using the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal (see 

ADDRESSES below) must be received by 

11:59 p.m. eastern time on the closing 

date. We must receive requests for a 

public hearing, in writing, at the address 

shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT by October 30, 2023. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by one of the following methods: 

(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: https://

www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, 

enter FWS–R2–ES–2023–0073, which is 

the docket number for this rulemaking. 

Then, click on the Search button. On the 

resulting page, in the panel on the left 

side of the screen, under the Document 

Type heading, check the Proposed Rule 

box to locate this document. You may 

submit a comment by clicking on 

‘‘Comment.’’ 

(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail 

to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: 

FWS–R2–ES–2023–0073, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, MS: PRB/3W, 5275 

Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041– 

3803. 

We request that you send comments 

only by the methods described above. 

We will post all comments on https:// 

www.regulations.gov. This generally 

means that we will post any personal 

information you provide us (see 

Information Requested, below, for more 

information). 

Availability of supporting materials: 

Supporting materials, such as the 

species status assessment report, are 

available on the Service’s website at 

https://www.fws.gov/office/arizonaecological-services, at https://

www.regulations.gov at Docket No. 

FWS–R2–ES–2023–0073, or both. For 

the proposed critical habitat 

designation, the coordinates or plot 

points or both from which the map is 

generated are included in the decision 

file for this critical habitat designation 

and are available at https://

www.regulations.gov at Docket No. 

FWS–R2–ES–2023–0073 and on the 

Service’s website at https://

www.fws.gov/office/arizona-ecologicalservices. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Heather Whitlaw, Field Supervisor, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona 

Ecological Services Field Office, 9828 

North 31st Ave #C3, Phoenix, AZ 

85051–2517; telephone 602–242–0210. 

Individuals in the United States who are 

deaf, deafblind, hard of hearing, or have 

a speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, 

TDD, or TeleBraille) to access 

telecommunications relay services. 

Individuals outside the United States 

should use the relay services offered 

within their country to make 

international calls to the point-ofcontact in the United States. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary 

Why we need to publish a rule. Under 

the Act, a species warrants listing if it 

meets the definition of an endangered 

species (in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range) or a threatened species (likely 

to become an endangered species within 

the foreseeable future throughout all or 

a significant portion of its range). If we 

determine that a species warrants 

listing, we must list the species 

promptly and designate the species’ 

critical habitat to the maximum extent 

prudent and determinable. We have 

determined that the Quitobaquito 

tryonia meets the definition of an 

endangered species; therefore, we are 

proposing to list it as such and 

proposing a designation of its critical 

habitat. Both listing a species as an 

endangered or threatened species and 

making a critical habitat determination 

can be completed only by issuing a rule 

through the Administrative Procedure 

Act rulemaking process (5 U.S.C. 551 et 

seq.). 

What this document does. We 

propose to list the Quitobaquito tryonia 

as an endangered species under the Act, 

and we propose the designation of 

critical habitat for the species. 

The basis for our action. Under the 

Act, we may determine that a species is 

an endangered or threatened species 

because of any of five factors: (A) The 

present or threatened destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of its 

habitat or range; (B) overutilization for 

commercial, recreational, scientific, or 

educational purposes; (C) disease or 

predation; (D) the inadequacy of 

existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) 

other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence. We 

have determined that Quitobaquito 

tryonia is endangered due to the 

following threats: decline in spring flow 

resulting from groundwater pumping 

and ongoing drought; effects of climate 

change; and spring modification. 

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

Secretary of the Interior (Secretary), to 

the maximum extent prudent and 

determinable, to designate critical 

habitat concurrent with listing. Section 

3(5)(A) of the Act defines critical habitat 

as (i) the specific areas within the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species, at the time it is listed, 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 the species at the time 

it is listed, upon a determination by the 

Secretary that such areas are essential 

for the conservation of the species. 

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

Secretary must make the designation on 

the basis of the best scientific data 

available and after taking into 

consideration the economic impact, the 

impact on national security, and any 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
62726 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 176 / Wednesday, September 13, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

other relevant impacts of specifying any 

particular area as critical habitat. 

Information Requested 

We intend that any final action 

resulting from this proposed rule will be 

based on the best scientific and 

commercial data available and be as 

accurate and as effective as possible. 

Therefore, we request comments or 

information from other governmental 

agencies, Native American Tribes, the 

scientific community, industry, or any 

other interested parties concerning this 

proposed rule. We particularly seek 

comments concerning: 

(1) The species’ biology, range, and 

population trends, including: 

(a) Biological or ecological 

requirements of the species, including 

habitat requirements for feeding, 

breeding, and sheltering; 

(b) Genetics and taxonomy; 

(c) Historical and current range, 

including distribution patterns and the 

locations of any additional populations 

of this species; 

(d) Historical and current population 

levels, and current and projected trends; 

and 

(e) Past and ongoing conservation 

measures for the species, its habitat, or 

both. 

(2) Threats and conservation actions 

affecting the species, including: 

(a) Factors that may be affecting the 

continued existence of the species, 

which may include habitat modification 

or destruction, overutilization, disease, 

predation, the inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms, or other natural 

or manmade factors; 

(b) Biological, commercial trade, or 

other relevant data concerning any 

threats (or lack thereof) to this species; 

and 

(c) Existing regulations or 

conservation actions that may be 

addressing threats to this species. 

(3) Additional information concerning 

the historical and current status of this 

species. 

(4) Specific information on: 

(a) The amount and distribution of 

Quitobaquito tryonia habitat; 

(b) Any additional areas occurring 

within the range of the species that 

should be included in the designation 

because they (i) are occupied at the time 

of listing and contain the physical or 

biological features that are essential to 

the conservation of the species and that 

may require special management 

considerations or protection, or (ii) are 

unoccupied at the time of listing and are 

essential for the conservation of the 

species; 

(c) Special management 

considerations or protection that may be 

needed in critical habitat areas we are 

proposing, including managing for the 

potential effects of climate change; and 

(d) Whether occupied areas are 

adequate for the conservation of the 

species, as this will help us evaluate the 

potential to include areas not occupied 

at the time of listing. Additionally, 

please provide specific information 

regarding whether or not unoccupied 

areas would, with reasonable certainty, 

contribute to the conservation of the 

species and contain at least one physical 

or biological feature essential to the 

conservation of the species. We also 

seek comments or information regarding 

whether areas not occupied at the time 

of listing qualify as habitat for the 

species. 

(5) Land use designations and current 

or planned activities in the subject areas 

and their possible impacts on proposed 

critical habitat. 

(6) Any probable economic, national 

security, or other relevant impacts of 

designating any area that may be 

included in the final designation, and 

the related benefits of including or 

excluding specific areas. 

(7) Information on the extent to which 

the description of probable economic 

impacts in the draft economic analysis 

is a reasonable estimate of the likely 

economic impacts. 

(8) Whether any specific areas we are 

proposing for critical habitat 

designation should be considered for 

exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), and 

whether the benefits of potentially 

excluding any specific area outweigh 

the benefits of including that area under 

section 4(b)(2) of the Act. If you think 

we should exclude any areas, please 

provide information supporting a 

benefit of exclusion. 

(9) Whether we could improve or 

modify our approach to designating 

critical habitat in any way to provide for 

greater public participation and 

understanding, or to better 

accommodate public concerns and 

comments. 

Please include sufficient information 

with your submission (such as scientific 

journal articles or other publications) to 

allow us to verify any scientific or 

commercial information you include. 

Please note that submissions merely 

stating support for, or opposition to, the 

action under consideration without 

providing supporting information, 

although noted, do not provide 

substantial information necessary to 

support a determination. Section 

4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that 

determinations as to whether any 

species is an endangered or a threatened 

species must be made solely on the 

basis of the best scientific and 

commercial data available, and section 

4(b)(2) of the Act directs that the 

Secretary shall designate critical habitat 

on the basis of the best scientific data 

available. 

You may submit your comments and 

materials concerning this proposed rule 

by one of the methods listed in 

ADDRESSES. We request that you send 

comments only by the methods 

described in ADDRESSES. 

If you submit information via https:// 

www.regulations.gov, your entire 

submission—including any personal 

identifying information—will be posted 

on the website. If your submission is 

made via a hardcopy that includes 

personal identifying information, 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. 

We will post all hardcopy submissions 

on https://www.regulations.gov. 

Comments and materials we receive, 

as well as supporting documentation we 

used in preparing this proposed rule, 

will be available for public inspection 

on https://www.regulations.gov. 

Our final determination may differ 

from this proposal because we will 

consider all comments we receive 

during the comment period as well as 

any information that may become 

available after this proposal. Based on 

the new information we receive (and, if 

relevant, any comments on that new 

information), we may conclude that the 

species is threatened instead of 

endangered, or we may conclude that 

the species does not warrant listing as 

either an endangered species or a 

threatened species. For critical habitat, 

our final designation may not include 

all areas proposed, may include some 

additional areas that meet the definition 

of critical habitat, or may exclude some 

areas if we find the benefits of exclusion 

outweigh the benefits of inclusion and 

exclusion will not result in the 

extinction of the species. In our final 

rule, we will clearly explain our 

rationale and the basis for our final 

decision, including why we made 

changes, if any, that differ from this 

proposal. 

Public Hearing 

Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for 

a public hearing on this proposal, if 

requested. Requests must be received by 

the date specified in DATES. Such 

requests must be sent to the address 

shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. We will schedule a public 

hearing on this proposal, if requested, 

and announce the date, time, and place 

of the hearing, as well as how to obtain 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 176 / Wednesday, September 13, 2023 / Proposed Rules 62727 

reasonable accommodations, in the 

Federal Register and local newspapers 

at least 15 days before the hearing. We 

may hold the public hearing in person 

or virtually via webinar. We will 

announce any public hearing on our 

website, in addition to the Federal 

Register. The use of virtual public 

hearings is consistent with our 

regulations at 50 CFR 424.16(c)(3). 

Previous Federal Actions 

On June 25, 2007, we received a 

petition dated June 18, 2007, from 

Forest Guardians (now WildEarth 

Guardians) to list 475 species, including 

the Quitobaquito tryonia, in the 

southwestern United States as 

endangered or threatened species and to 

designate critical habitat under the Act. 

On December 16, 2009, we published a 

partial 90-day finding (74 FR 66866) on 

192 species from that petition; in that 

document, we announced that the 

petition presented substantial 

information that the Quitobaquito 

tryonia may be warranted for listing. 

Peer Review 

A species status assessment (SSA) 

team prepared an SSA report for the 

Quitobaquito tryonia. The SSA team 

was composed of Service biologists, in 

consultation with other species experts. 

The SSA report represents a 

compilation of the best scientific and 

commercial data available concerning 

the status of the species, including the 

impacts of past, present, and future 

factors (both negative and beneficial) 

affecting the species. 

In accordance with our joint policy on 

peer review published in the Federal 

Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), 

and our August 22, 2016, memorandum 

updating and clarifying the role of peer 

review of listing actions under the Act, 

we solicited independent scientific 

review of the information contained in 

the Quitobaquito tryonia SSA report. 

We sent the SSA report to four 

independent peer reviewers and 

received two responses. We also sent 

the SSA report to six partner reviewers 

and received three responses. Results of 

this structured peer review process can 

be found at https://www.regulations.gov. 

In preparing this proposed rule, we 

incorporated the results of these 

reviews, as appropriate, into the SSA 

report, which is the foundation for this 

proposed rule. 

Summary of Peer Reviewer Comments 

As discussed in Peer Review above, 

we received comments from two peer 

reviewers on the draft SSA report. We 

reviewed all comments we received 

from the peer reviewers for substantive 

issues and new information regarding 

the information contained in the SSA 

report. The peer reviewers generally 

concurred with our methods and 

conclusions, and provided additional 

information, clarifications, and 

suggestions that we incorporated into an 

updated version of the SSA report. One 

reviewer requested that we analyze 

water quality quantitatively in the 

report. We clarified that although some 

water quality parameters have been 

recorded in the springs that the 

Quitobaquito tryonia inhabits, we do 

not know the full suite of parameters, 

nor the thresholds to which the species 

is sensitive. Otherwise, no substantive 

changes to our analysis and conclusions 

within the SSA report were deemed 

necessary, and peer reviewer comments 

are addressed in version 1.1 of the SSA 

report (Service 2022, entire). 

I. Proposed Listing Determination 

Background 

The Quitobaquito tryonia is a small 

freshwater snail with a conical shell that 

measures 0.05 to 0.08 inches (in) (1.4 to 

2.1 millimeters (mm)) in length. The 

shell has 3.5 to 4.5 highly convex 

whorls with deep sutures (or 

indentations where whorls meet) and is 

typically clear, gray, or black in color. 

Quitobaquito tryonia is dioecious 

(Hershler 2001, pp. 3–5), meaning male 

and female organs occur in separate 

individuals. The lifespan of springsnails 

is thought to be annual (Lysne et al. 

2007, p. 649; Brown et al. 2008, p. 487), 

with estimates of longevity ranging from 

9 to 15 months (Pennak 1989, p. 552). 

Quitobaquito tryonia is likely an 

herbivore or detritivore that primarily 

grazes on periphyton (a mixture of 

algae, bacteria, detritus, fungi, diatoms, 

and protozoa that grow on exposed 

surfaces (Lysne et al. 2007, p. 649)) and 

aquatic plants (Pyron and Brown 2015, 

pp. 386, 401). The species can more 

easily consume periphyton, which is 

also more nutrient-rich than aquatic 

plants; however, if periphyton 

availability is limited or depleted, 

Quitobaquito tryonia will consume 

aquatic plants (Pyron and Brown 2015, 

p. 399). 

Historically, Quitobaquito tryonia is 

known from three proximal springs or 

spring complexes, Quitobaquito 

Springs, Williams Spring, and Burro 

Spring, that lie near the international 

border of the United States (Arizona) 

and Mexico; these springs/spring 

complexes are in the southwestern 

corner of Organ Pipe Cactus National 

Monument, which is managed by the 

National Park Service (NPS), in Pima 

County, Arizona (Hershler and Landye 

1988, p. 50). Quitobaquito tryonia was 

first collected in 1963, from 

Quitobaquito Springs (Hershler and 

Landye 1988, p. 50; Rosen et al. 2010, 

p. 8). The species has been extirpated 

from Williams and Burro Springs but 

remains extant at Quitobaquito Springs. 

The species is found in the 200-meter 

(m) (700-foot (ft)) spring channel of 

Quitobaquito Springs, which is a 

human-made, concrete-lined channel 

with riffle, run, and pool habitat types 

that was built as part of a restoration 

project in 1989. The channel is fed by 

two springs, the Northeast and 

Southwest springs. The NPS regularly 

manages vegetation along the stream 

channel to reduce submerged and 

emergent vegetation, creating a mosaic 

of available habitats and ensuring water 

can flow freely through the channel. 

The Quitobaquito tryonia was 

recently detected at a fourth location in 

October 2020, a seep (Hillside Seep #2) 

located approximately 100 m (328 ft) 

southeast of the main channel at 

Quitobaquito Springs. Hillside Seep #2 

is located to the southeast and slightly 

upslope from the Southwest Spring at 

Quitobaquito. The seep is not 

hydrologically connected overland to 

the concrete-lined spring channel at 

Quitobaquito Springs and, for the 

purposes of this analysis, is being 

considered a separate population. While 

there are no surface water connections 

between the seep and spring channel, it 

is likely that they have the same 

groundwater source based on proximity 

and local geology. Quitobaquito tryonia 

is the only species in the Cochliopidae 

family of small freshwater snails that 

occurs in the spring complex. There are 

six additional seeps (including Hillside 

Seep #1) that have been surveyed in the 

area near Quitobaquito Springs that 

have low flow and possible springsnail 

habitat, but no Quitobaquito tryonia 

were found (Sorensen 2021, p. 10). The 

presence of dense vegetation precluded 

searching all possible habitat, so it is 

possible that Quitobaquito tryonia 

individuals are present in the 

inaccessible portions of these seeps. 

Based on the hydrology and geology of 

the area, additional undocumented 

seeps may exist in the area of 

Quitobaquito Springs that have not been 

investigated for presence of 

Quitobaquito tryonia. 

Tohono O’odham and Hia Ced 

O’odham farmers inhabited the area 

including the Quitobaquito Springs 

complex for several centuries prior to 

the arrival of Europeans in the 1600s, 

and the spring water was used for 

irrigation (Bennett and Kunzmann 1989, 

p. 1; Nabhan et al. 1982, pp. 124–126). 

Large-scale water management of the 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
62728 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 176 / Wednesday, September 13, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

springs likely began in 1863, when 

Euro-American settlers excavated 

Quitobaquito Pond and built a dam to 

hold water diverted from the two main 

spring sources (Bennett and Kunzmann 

1989, p. 15; Pearson and Conner 2000, 

p. 392). Irrigation ditches were 

constructed from the pond for 

agricultural fields to the south and west. 

In 1915–1919, grazing pressure 

intensified with the establishment of a 

large cattle operation and ranch that 

encompassed all of present-day Organ 

Pipe Cactus National Monument 

(Bennett and Kunzmann 1989, pp. 21– 

22). 

The Quitobaquito tryonia requires 

perennial spring flow, adequate water 

quality, and substrates or aquatic 

vegetation of sufficient type and 

quantity. Brooded young, juveniles, and 

adults all need adequate spring flow and 

water quality to meet their resource 

functions, which include feeding, 

growth, survival, and breeding (Hershler 

1984, p. 68; Hershler and Sada 2002, p. 

256; Martinez and Thome 2006, p. 14). 

Specifically, spring flow must be 

perennial to prevent desiccation (drying 

out) of individuals and to maintain 

stable water quality parameters. The 

Quitobaquito tryonia also needs suitable 

substrate and aquatic vegetation for 

shelter and periphyton growth. While 

Tryonia spp. are found on a variety of 

substrate types, there is some evidence 

that coarse substrates may promote 

higher abundances of Quitobaquito 

tryonia (Bogan 2018, entire; Williams 

and Sorensen 2019, p. 2). 

For a thorough review of the 

taxonomy, life history, and ecology of 

the Quitobaquito tryonia, please refer to 

the SSA report (Service 2022, pp. 4–7). 

Regulatory and Analytical Framework 

Regulatory Framework 

Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) 

and the implementing regulations in 

title 50 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations set forth the procedures for 

determining whether a species is an 

endangered species or a threatened 

species, issuing protective regulations 

for threatened species, and designating 

critical habitat for endangered and 

threatened species. In 2019, jointly with 

the National Marine Fisheries Service, 

the Service issued a final rule that 

revised the regulations in 50 CFR part 

424 regarding how we add, remove, and 

reclassify endangered and threatened 

species and the criteria for designating 

listed species’ critical habitat (84 FR 

45020; August 27, 2019). On the same 

day, the Service also issued final 

regulations that, for species listed as 

threatened species after September 26, 

2019, eliminated the Service’s general 

protective regulations automatically 

applying to threatened species the 

prohibitions that section 9 of the Act 

applies to endangered species (84 FR 

44753; August 27, 2019). 

The Act defines an ‘‘endangered 

species’’ as a species that is in danger 

of extinction throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range, and a 

‘‘threatened species’’ as a species that is 

likely to become an endangered species 

within the foreseeable future throughout 

all or a significant portion of its range. 

The Act requires that we determine 

whether any species is an endangered 

species or a threatened species because 

of any of the following factors: 

(A) The present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; 

(B) Overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; 

(C) Disease or predation; 

(D) The inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms; or 

(E) Other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence. 

These factors represent broad 

categories of natural or human-caused 

actions or conditions that could have an 

effect on a species’ continued existence. 

In evaluating these actions and 

conditions, we look for those that may 

have a negative effect on individuals of 

the species, as well as other actions or 

conditions that may ameliorate any 

negative effects or may have positive 

effects. 

We use the term ‘‘threat’’ to refer in 

general to actions or conditions that are 

known to or are reasonably likely to 

negatively affect individuals of a 

species. The term ‘‘threat’’ includes 

actions or conditions that have a direct 

impact on individuals (direct impacts), 

as well as those that affect individuals 

through alteration of their habitat or 

required resources (stressors). The term 

‘‘threat’’ may encompass—either 

together or separately—the source of the 

action or condition or the action or 

condition itself. 

However, the mere identification of 

any threat(s) does not necessarily mean 

that the species meets the statutory 

definition of an ‘‘endangered species’’ or 

a ‘‘threatened species.’’ In determining 

whether a species meets either 

definition, we must evaluate all 

identified threats by considering the 

species’ expected response and the 

effects of the threats—in light of those 

actions and conditions that will 

ameliorate the threats—on an 

individual, population, and species 

level. We evaluate each threat and its 

expected effects on the species, then 

analyze the cumulative effect of all of 

the threats on the species as a whole. 

We also consider the cumulative effect 

of the threats in light of those actions 

and conditions that will have positive 

effects on the species, such as any 

existing regulatory mechanisms or 

conservation efforts. The Secretary 

determines whether the species meets 

the definition of an ‘‘endangered 

species’’ or a ‘‘threatened species’’ only 

after conducting this cumulative 

analysis and describing the expected 

effect on the species now and in the 

foreseeable future. 

The Act does not define the term 

‘‘foreseeable future,’’ which appears in 

the statutory definition of ‘‘threatened 

species.’’ Our implementing regulations 

at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a 

framework for evaluating the foreseeable 

future on a case-by-case basis. The term 

‘‘foreseeable future’’ extends only so far 

into the future as we can reasonably 

determine that both the future threats 

and the species’ responses to those 

threats are likely. In other words, the 

foreseeable future is the period of time 

in which we can make reliable 

predictions. ‘‘Reliable’’ does not mean 

‘‘certain’’; it means sufficient to provide 

a reasonable degree of confidence in the 

prediction. Thus, a prediction is reliable 

if it is reasonable to depend on it when 

making decisions. 

It is not always possible or necessary 

to define the foreseeable future as a 

particular number of years. Analysis of 

the foreseeable future uses the best 

scientific and commercial data available 

and should consider the timeframes 

applicable to the relevant threats and to 

the species’ likely responses to those 

threats in view of its life-history 

characteristics. Data that are typically 

relevant to assessing the species’ 

biological response include speciesspecific factors such as lifespan, 

reproductive rates or productivity, 

certain behaviors, and other 

demographic factors. 

Analytical Framework 

The SSA report documents the results 

of our comprehensive biological review 

of the best scientific and commercial 

data regarding the status of the species, 

including an assessment of the potential 

threats to the species. The SSA report 

does not represent our decision on 

whether the species should be proposed 

for listing as an endangered or 

threatened species under the Act. 

However, it does provide the scientific 

basis that informs our regulatory 

decisions, which involve the further 

application of standards within the Act 

and its implementing regulations and 

policies. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 176 / Wednesday, September 13, 2023 / Proposed Rules 62729 

To assess Quitobaquito tryonia 

viability, we used the three conservation 

biology principles of resiliency, 

redundancy, and representation (Shaffer 

and Stein 2000, pp. 306–310). Briefly, 

resiliency is the ability of the species to 

withstand environmental and 

demographic stochasticity (for example, 

wet or dry, warm or cold years), 

redundancy is the ability of the species 

to withstand catastrophic events (for 

example, droughts, large pollution 

events), and representation is the ability 

of the species to adapt to both near-term 

and long-term changes in its physical 

and biological environment (for 

example, climate conditions, 

pathogens). In general, species viability 

will increase with increases in 

resiliency, redundancy, and 

representation (Smith et al. 2018, p. 

306). Using these principles, we 

identified the species’ ecological 

requirements for survival and 

reproduction at the individual, 

population, and species levels, and 

described the beneficial and risk factors 

influencing the species’ viability. 

The SSA process can be categorized 

into three sequential stages. During the 

first stage, we evaluated the individual 

species’ life-history needs. The next 

stage involved an assessment of the 

historical and current condition of the 

species’ demographics and habitat 

characteristics, including an 

explanation of how the species arrived 

at its current condition. The final stage 

of the SSA involved making predictions 

about the species’ responses to positive 

and negative environmental and 

anthropogenic influences. Throughout 

all of these stages, we used the best 

available information to characterize 

viability as the ability of a species to 

sustain populations in the wild over 

time. We use this information to inform 

our regulatory decision. 

The following is a summary of the key 

results and conclusions from the SSA 

report; the full SSA report can be found 

at Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2023–0073 

on https://www.regulations.gov and at 

https://www.fws.gov/office/arizonaecological-services. 

Summary of Biological Status and 

Threats 

In this discussion, we review the 

biological condition of the species and 

its resources, and the threats that 

influence the species’ current and future 

condition, in order to assess the species’ 

overall viability and the risks to that 

viability. For the Quitobaquito tryonia 

to maintain viability, its populations 

must be highly resilient with sufficient 

redundancy and representation. Several 

factors influence the resiliency of the 

Quitobaquito tryonia populations, 

including: (1) the reduction of spring 

discharge, (2) effects of climate change, 

(3) spring modification, and (4) 

conservation actions. These resiliency 

factors and habitat elements are 

discussed in detail in the SSA report 

(Service 2022, entire) and are 

summarized here. 

Species Needs 

Spring Flow 

Spring flow in spring systems is 

maintained by groundwater, and 

individual springs may range widely in 

size, water chemistry, morphology, 

landscape setting, and persistence 

(Springer and Stevens 2009, p. 84). 

Groundwater recharge of aquifers occurs 

through precipitation, through surface 

water from rivers, or as an 

anthropogenic input from irrigation and 

municipal returns (Trcˇek and Zojer 

2010, p. 87). A decline in groundwater 

recharge or increase in groundwater 

discharge (e.g., from groundwater 

withdrawal, drought, or increased 

evapotranspiration) can lead to 

reductions, disruptions, or cessation of 

spring flow. While the Quitobaquito 

tryonia possesses an operculum 

(Johnson et al. 2013, p. 248), which 

enables the shell to be sealed, this only 

provides protection from drying for a 

very limited period of time (i.e., hours 

to days). 

Water Quality 

While the full suite of water quality 

conditions that the Quitobaquito tryonia 

prefers has not been determined, water 

quality measurements have been 

recorded for some parameters in springs 

inhabited by the Quitobaquito tryonia or 

other closely related species. The water 

chemistry of a spring is strongly 

influenced by aquifer geology. Several 

habitat variables, such as dissolved 

oxygen, pH, conductivity, and 

temperature, may influence the 

distribution and abundance of 

springsnails (O’Brien and Blinn 1999, 

pp. 231–232; Mladenka and Minshall 

2001, pp. 209–211; Malcom et al. 2005, 

p. 75; Martinez and Thome 2006, pp. 

12–15; Lysne et al. 2007, p. 650). No 

known sources of contaminants are 

present in the Quitobaquito Springs 

system, although some concern has been 

raised regarding the aerial application of 

agricultural pesticides in the Rio 

Sonoyta watershed of Mexico and the 

threat of wind drift (NPS 2006a, p. 1). 

However, a contaminant study from the 

early 1990s found no evidence of 

contamination from sediment samples 

taken from Quitobaquito Pond (King et 

al. 1996, pp. 3–5). 

Substrate and Vegetation 

While Tryonia spp. are found on a 

variety of substrate types, there is some 

evidence that coarse substrates may 

promote higher abundances of 

Quitobaquito tryonia. Bogan (2018, 

entire) noted differences in densities of 

Quitobaquito tryonia within the 200-m 

(700-ft) spring channel at Quitobaquito 

Springs. The spring channel at 

Quitobaquito Springs is a concrete-lined 

channel with riffle, run, and pool 

habitat types. The NPS regularly 

manages vegetation along the stream 

channel to reduce submerged and 

emergent vegetation, creating a mosaic 

of available habitats and ensuring water 

can flow freely through the channel. 

Within the channel, Quitobaquito 

tryonia were densest in gravel riffles, 

followed by concrete runs and riffles, 

then vegetated pools. However, surveys 

by Arizona Game and Fish Department 

(AZGFD) biologists at Quitobaquito 

Springs have not found any 

Quitobaquito tryonia along the densely 

vegetated margins of the pond, located 

at the terminus of the spring channel 

(Williams and Sorensen 2019, p. 2). 

Organ Pipe Cactus National 

Monument was established in 1937, but 

cattle operations near Quitobaquito, 

Williams, and Burro Springs continued 

until large-scale cattle operations ended 

in 1976 (Warren and Anderson 1987, p. 

1). In 1978, the remaining cattle were 

removed from the Monument (Bennett 

and Kunzmann 1989, pp. 15, 21–22). 

After the large-scale cattle operations 

ended, spring sources became dense 

with vegetation and standing water was 

reduced (Warren and Anderson 1987, p. 

13). These effects of intensive livestock 

grazing on vegetation change and soil 

disturbance ended in 1978–79 across 

the Springs at Organ Pipe Cactus 

National Monument. Occasionally, 

trespass cattle and other livestock (i.e., 

horses and burros) still occur within the 

greater Organ Pipe Cactus National 

Monument, but they are not common 

near Quitobaquito Springs. The concrete 

channel that was installed in 1989 (NPS 

1992, pp. 28–30) also created a more 

stable system within the Springs, so the 

Quitobaquito tryonia population 

experiences less of an effect of 

vegetation change, soil disturbance, and 

reductions/fluctuations in preferred 

substrates. 

Risk Factors for the Quitobaquito 

Tryonia 

We reviewed the potential risk factors 

(i.e., threats, stressors) that could be 

currently affecting the Quitobaquito 

tryonia. In this proposed rule, we will 

discuss only those factors in detail that 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
62730 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 176 / Wednesday, September 13, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

could meaningfully impact the status of 

the species. Those risk factors that are 

unlikely to have significant effects on 

the Quitobaquito tryonia, such as 

vegetation and soil disturbance, 

invasive species, and predation, are not 

discussed here but are evaluated in the 

SSA report. For example, the 

introduction of nonnative or invasive 

predators has the potential to negatively 

affect the Quitobaquito tryonia (Hershler 

1998, p. 14; Sada 2017, p. 11). However, 

nonnative predators such as bullfrogs, 

crayfish, and cichlids are not currently 

present in areas occupied by the 

Quitobaquito tryonia. Quitobaquito 

Springs is a remote, isolated natural 

water, and is neither a destination for 

anglers (e.g., bait bucket dump), nor is 

stocked with fish from State or Federal 

hatcheries. The primary risk factors (i.e., 

threats) affecting the status of the 

Quitobaquito tryonia are the reduction 

of spring discharge (Factor A), effects of 

climate change (Factor E), and spring 

modification (Factor A). 

Reduction of Spring Discharge 

Quitobaquito Springs complex is 

likely supplied by prehistoric water 

(i.e., water that was deposited many 

millennia before current day) stored 

beneath an area centered around 

Aguajita Wash with the Quitobaquito 

Hills roughly delineating the western 

boundary, shallow bedrock to the east, 

and Rio Sonoyta to the south (Carruth 

1996, pp. 18, 20; see figure 4.2 in the 

SSA report for a map of the area). 

Groundwater recharge in the 

approximately 100-square-mile area is 

primarily from the limited infiltration 

(5–10 percent) of local rainfall (6.6 

inches/year; Carruth 1996, p. 18). The 

historically consistent spring flows at 

Quitobaquito Springs were highly 

dependent on large, stored water 

volumes (Carruth 1996, p. 21). However, 

long-term spring flow has declined over 

the last 25 years (see figure 1, below; 

Zamora 2018, p. 146; Zamora et al. 

2020, pp. 5–6). Although it is uncertain 

how impacts to the regional aquifer may 

affect Quitobaquito Springs complex 

outputs (Carruth 1996, p. 21; Zamora et 

al. 2020, p. 15), stressors on the Rio 

Sonoyta aquifer may include municipal 

water usage for the city of Sonoyta 

(Sonora, Mexico); local agriculture (i.e., 

irrigated crop fields and cattle 

ranching); and water usage associated 

with local construction of the U.S.– 

Mexico border wall. 

The City of Sonoyta has grown in 

human population since the late 1960s 

(Brown 1991, p. 6). By 1988, there were 

212 wells (165 for irrigation) pumping 

in or near the city of Sonoyta (Brown 

1991, p. 18). Even with the Mexican 

government placing a moratorium on 

any new wells being dug in 1988, 

groundwater withdrawals are exceeding 

recharge to the aquifer (Brown 1991, p. 

47). Under conditions in the early 

1990s, annual pumping capacity was 

approximately 2.5 times greater than the 

annual rate of recharge (Brown 1991, p. 

27), and the number of irrigated acres 

has remained constant since 1982 

(Brown 1991, p. 47). Census data from 

1995 to present day show a peak 

population for Sonoyta and the 

surrounding area in 2010 with steady 

declines since. While the existing 

pumping infrastructure is capable of 

greatly exceeding the recharge rate in 

the Rio Sonoyta basin, during a study 

from 2001 to 2006, it was observed that 

many of the irrigation wells, pumps, 

and ditches were not in use (Rosen et al. 

2010, p. 13). 

Additionally, beginning in 2020, there 

has been water withdrawal associated 

with border wall construction between 

the United States and Mexico; this water 

withdrawal affected the groundwater 

and aquifer systems supplying 

Quitobaquito Springs. A permit filed by 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

requested 84,000 gallons per day for a 

45-day build period. Two new wells 

were drilled to meet the water demand, 

which may hasten the ‘‘drawdown’’ of 

water resources in an area where 

groundwater withdrawals from the 

nearby Rio Sonoyta alluvial aquifer 

exceed the recharge rate (Brown 1991, p. 

27). These new wells were located 11 to 

13 kilometers (7 to 8 miles) from 

Quitobaquito Springs to minimize any 

potential stress on spring output 

(Morawe 2021, pers. comm.). Future 

border wall construction has been 

paused, but construction, and thus 

water withdrawal, may resume in the 

future. 

Drought has the potential to impact 

spring flow by reducing the amount of 

recharge into the groundwater system 

and increasing evaporation of surface 

water due to extended periods of high 

ambient temperatures. Statewide trends 

in Arizona over the last 100 years show 

60 percent of the last 20 years were in 

drought conditions (NOAA 2021, 

unpaginated). Pima County, Arizona, 

has been in an extended drought since 

2000, which coincides with continued 

declines in spring flow output at 

Quitobaquito Springs. Along with 

drought, a trend of warmer and drier 

conditions in Organ Pipe Cactus 

National Monument has been observed 

(NPS 2014, entire). Climate change is 

expected to further exacerbate drought 

conditions. 

As a result of groundwater 

withdrawals and drought, spring 

discharge has declined at Quitobaquito, 

Williams, and Burro Springs. 

Monitoring of spring discharge at 

Quitobaquito Springs began in 1973 and 

has continued intermittently through 

the present day. Methods for measuring 

discharge varied over the years, but 

long-term spring flow measurements 

show a decline in discharge over the last 

25 years (see figure 1, below; Zamora 

2018, p. 146; Zamora et al. 2020, pp. 5– 

6). By the early 2000s, Williams and 

Burro Springs had ceased flowing 

completely (NPS 2006b, p. 9), and the 

species is now considered extirpated 

from these areas, though there is some 

evidence of seasonally intermittent 

surface water occurring at Williams 

Spring (Williams and Sorensen 2019, p. 

3). Burro Spring became intermittent 

sometime prior to 1992 (NPS 1992, p. 

28), while Williams Spring still 

maintained perennial discharge during 

the summer of 1991 (Goodman 1992, p. 

143). 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 176 / Wednesday, September 13, 2023 / Proposed Rules 62731 

Effects of Climate Change 

There is a broad consensus among 

climate models that arid ecosystems are 

especially vulnerable to the impacts of 

climate change (Seager et al. 2007, pp. 

1181–1184; Weiss and Overpeck 2005, 

p. 2075; Archer and Predick 2008, p. 

24). The current prognosis of climate 

change impacts on the Sonoran Desert 

includes fewer frost days; warmer 

temperatures; greater water demand by 

plants, animals, and people; and an 

increased frequency of extreme weather 

events (such as heat waves, droughts, 

and floods) (Weiss and Overpeck 2005, 

p. 2074; Archer and Predick 2008, p. 

24). For the southwestern United States, 

the following influences of climate 

change are projected: (1) Continued 

warming with longer and hotter heat 

waves in summer; (2) decreased average 

precipitation in the southern portion; (3) 

more frequent and intense extreme 

precipitation in winter; (4) decreased 

late-season snowpack; (5) decreased 

river flow and soil moisture; (6) more 

frequent and intense flooding in some 

seasons and some parts of the 

Southwest, and less frequent and 

intense in other seasons; and (7) hotter, 

more severe, and more frequent 

droughts in parts of the Southwest 

(Garfin et al. 2013, pp. 5–6). 

Reductions in annual rainfall 

associated with climate change, coupled 

with hotter temperatures that are 

projected with very high confidence, 

will likely bring reductions in aquifer 

inputs due to reduced recharge and 

higher evaporation rates, and will likely 

have negative effects on aquifers across 

the Southwest. Virtually every plausible 

future climate scenario projects longer 

dry spells between rains, which can 

have more severe impacts on the 

landscape, especially in spring and 

summer (Lenart 2007, entire). It is 

therefore possible that some existing 

Quitobaquito tryonia habitat will 

periodically dry up in the spring and 

summer during the current century. 

Bigger and more frequent floods caused 

by more intense, heavy rainfall events 

are also expected episodically in the 

winter (Overpeck et al. 2013, p. 6) and 

may be even more destructive as 

riparian vegetation declines within the 

greater system, although flooding may 

not have as pronounced of an effect on 

the concrete-lined channel of 

Quitobaquito Springs. Climate change 

trends are highly likely to continue 

(Overpeck et al. 2013, entire). Climatic 

impacts on the Quitobaquito tryonia 

will likely be further complicated by 

interactions with other factors (e.g., 

interactions with nonnative species and 

other habitat-disturbing activities). 

Spring Modification 

Spring modifications include channel 

modification, surface water diversions, 

and impoundment at springs. Spring 

modifications may occur for 

development, management, or 

restoration purposes and have been 

extensively documented at Quitobaquito 

Springs, although some modification 

also occurred at Williams Spring. These 

modifications may be either beneficial 

or detrimental to springsnail 

populations depending on the context. 

Human alterations of springheads to 

concentrate or divert discharge 

negatively affect spring systems and 

have resulted in the decline or loss of 

springsnail populations throughout the 

southwestern United States and 

northern Mexico (Unmack and 

Minckley 2008, p. 20; Hershler et al. 

2011, p. 12; Hershler et al. 2014, pp. 51, 

53, 56, 58–63). Surface water diversions 

are sources of multiple stresses to 

springs, including altering physical 

integrity, creating conditions that favor 

nonnative aquatic species, and 

degrading habitat conditions for native 

riparian vegetation (Sada 2017, pp. 10– 

11). Additionally, the presence of pipes, 

dikes, dams, impoundments, channel 

modifications and dredging, or spring 

boxes indicate further stress in the form 

of spring diversions and loss of 

occupancy of springsnails at some sites. 

Although surface water diversions can 

cause stress to springs and springsnails, 

populations of springsnails in 

historically disturbed habitats can 

recover if the disturbance is low in 

magnitude and infrequent (Sada 2017, 

p. 22). 

While restoration may be a temporary 

source of stress to a spring system and 

springsnails, there is often an overall 

benefit to springsnails by improving all 

of the species’ needs within a spring 

(e.g., water quality, substrate and 

vegetation, and spring flow). Aquatic 

habitat at Quitobaquito Springs was 

severely reduced in the 1970s when 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1EP13SE23.001</GPH>
62732 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 176 / Wednesday, September 13, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

flow from the Southwest Spring was 

directed into an underground pipe. 

However, a restoration project in 1989 

restored aboveground flow through 

channel modification and the creation 

of a concrete-lined stream that mimics 

riffle, run, and pool habitats; that stream 

is currently inhabited by the 

Quitobaquito tryonia. 

Summary 

Several historical and ongoing 

influences, including reductions in 

spring discharge, effects of climate 

change, and spring modification, may 

affect the viability of the Quitobaquito 

tryonia. The most pervasive threat to the 

species is the historical and ongoing 

loss or decline in spring discharge. 

Quitobaquito tryonia populations in two 

springs (Burro and Williams) are now 

extirpated because of a loss of perennial 

flow, while Quitobaquito Springs has 

seen a documented decline in discharge. 

The causes of the decline in spring 

discharge are not definitive but are 

likely related to ongoing drought 

conditions and groundwater pumping. 

Climate change is expected to 

exacerbate these conditions. Spring 

modification has had both positive and 

negative influences on the viability of 

the Quitobaquito tryonia. Historical 

anthropogenic modification of 

Quitobaquito Springs severely curtailed 

available habitat, while ongoing 

conservation efforts have restored spring 

channel habitat. 

Species Condition 

The current condition of the 

Quitobaquito tryonia considers the risks 

to the populations that are currently 

occurring. In the SSA report, for each 

population, we developed and assigned 

condition categories for one 

demographic factor and three habitat 

factors that are important for the 

viability of the Quitobaquito tryonia. We 

used abundance to measure 

demographics of the populations, and 

we characterized habitat using spring 

flow, water quality, and substrate and 

vegetation as our metrics. The condition 

scores for each factor were then used to 

determine an overall condition of each 

population: high, moderate, low, or 

extirpated. 

The Quitobaquito Springs population 

is in high condition for all metrics, with 

an overall high population resiliency. 

Hillside Seep #2 is in low condition for 

abundance, moderate condition for 

spring flow and substrate and 

vegetation, and high condition for water 

quality, for an overall moderate 

population resiliency (see table 1, 

below). Williams Spring and Burro 

Spring are extirpated. 

TABLE 1—CURRENT CONDITION OF THE QUITOBAQUITO TRYONIA

Population 

Demographic metric Habitat metric 

Current population 

resiliency Abundance Spring flow Water quality Substrate and 

vegetation 

Quitobaquito Springs .. High ........................... High ........................... High ........................... High ........................... High. 

Hillside Seep #2 ......... Low ........................... Moderate ................... High ........................... Moderate ................... Moderate. 

Williams Spring ........... Extirpated .................. Extirpated .................. Extirpated .................. Extirpated .................. Extirpated. 

Burro Spring ............... Extirpated .................. Extirpated .................. Extirpated .................. Extirpated .................. Extirpated. 

Repopulation of extirpated locations 

(Williams Spring and Burro Spring) is 

unlikely because although the springs 

may be intermittent, perennial surface 

water is absent, making habitat 

unsuitable for the Quitobaquito tryonia 

(Williams and Sorensen 2019, p. 3). The 

exact date when the Quitobaquito 

tryonia became extirpated from these 

locations is unknown, but habitat was 

deemed unsuitable for springsnails in 

2004, and no Quitobaquito tryonia were 

found at this time or during subsequent 

visits (Martinez and Sorensen 2016, p. 

4; Williams and Sorensen 2019, p. 3). 

Redundancy for the Quitobaquito 

tryonia is characterized by having 

multiple, sufficiently resilient 

populations distributed across the 

spring systems historically occupied by 

the species for the species to be able to 

withstand catastrophic events. Species 

that are well-distributed across their 

historical range are less susceptible to 

the risk of extirpation (Carroll et al. 

2010, entire; Redford et al. 2011, entire). 

Currently, because there are two extant 

populations with moderate or high 

resiliency and two extirpated 

populations, redundancy of the species 

has been reduced from historical levels. 

Additionally, the Quitobaquito tryonia 

has always been a highly localized 

endemic (it historically occupied 

springs occurring within a 1-kilometer 

(0.6-mile) radius of one another); the 

two extant populations are separated by 

roughly only 100 m (328 ft). Thus, a 

catastrophic event (such as drought) is 

highly likely to simultaneously affect 

both remaining populations of the 

Quitobaquito tryonia. Conversely, 

despite their proximity, the populations 

are isolated and not connected by 

overland flow; thus, some catastrophic 

events, such as the introduction of an 

invasive species, may only affect one of 

the two populations. However, this 

isolation would also limit the ability of 

the Quitobaquito tryonia to naturally 

recolonize given its limited dispersal 

ability. Because of the species’ small 

size and dependence on water, dispersal 

events are rare and opportunistic, with 

overland transportation likely occurring 

by ‘‘hitchhiking’’ on birds or other 

animals (Hershler et al. 2005, pp. 1755– 

1756, 1763). Therefore, species 

redundancy for the Quitobaquito tryonia 

is currently limited to two populations 

that occur within a reduced 

geographical extent, which reduces the 

species’ ability to withstand 

catastrophic events. 

Representation reflects a species’ 

capacity to adapt to changing 

environmental conditions over time and 

can be characterized by genetic and 

ecological diversity within and among 

populations. We describe species 

representation in terms of habitat 

variability across its historical range 

because data on the species’ life history, 

demographics, and population genetics 

are lacking. Quitobaquito Springs has 

the greatest discharge of the four 

springs. It is possible that some local 

adaptation to water temperature, flow 

velocity, and/or community interactions 

occurred among the populations. Gene 

flow between populations is unlikely 

due to the isolation of separate springs 

and the species’ limited dispersal 

ability. Because the species is limited in 

range and dispersal abilities and the 

spring habitats of its populations share 

several characteristics, the adaptive 

capacity, and thus the species’ 

representation, is limited. 

As part of the SSA, we also developed 

two future condition scenarios at two 

time steps (10 years and 40 years into 

the future) to capture the range of 

uncertainties regarding future threats 

and the projected responses by the 

Quitobaquito tryonia. Our scenarios 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 176 / Wednesday, September 13, 2023 / Proposed Rules 62733 

assumed a continued rate changing 

climate conditions, water withdrawals, 

or drought that may impact groundwater 

levels and the rate of spring flow 

decline, as well as those factors at 

increased levels. Because we 

determined that the current condition of 

the Quitobaquito tryonia is consistent 

with an endangered species (see 

Determination of Status, below), we are 

not presenting the results of the future 

scenarios in this proposed rule. Please 

refer to the SSA report (Service 2022) 

for the full analysis of future scenarios. 

We note that, by using the SSA 

framework (Service 2016) to guide our 

analysis of the scientific information 

documented in the SSA report, we have 

analyzed the cumulative effects of 

identified threats and conservation 

actions on the species. To assess the 

current and future condition of the 

species, we evaluate the effects of all the 

relevant factors that may be influencing 

the species, including threats and 

conservation efforts. Because the SSA 

framework considers not just the 

presence of the factors, but to what 

degree they collectively influence risk to 

the entire species, our assessment 

integrates the cumulative effects of the 

factors and replaces a standalone 

cumulative effects analysis. 

Conservation Efforts and Regulatory 

Mechanisms 

Several habitat management actions 

can benefit the viability of the 

Quitobaquito tryonia by reducing or 

removing threats to the species. The 

concrete channel that was installed in 

1989 (NPS 1992, pp. 28–30) created a 

more stable system within the spring 

population that is less affected by 

vegetation change, soil disturbance, and 

reductions/fluctuations in preferred 

substrates. The concrete channel 

prevents establishment of dense 

vegetative stands that may impede flow, 

which is required to maintain species 

viability. Additionally, staff at Organ 

Pipe Cactus National Monument 

regularly remove dense aquatic 

vegetation from the spring channel to 

maintain stream flow and provide a 

mosaic of habitat types throughout the 

spring channel (Raymond et al. 2019, 

pp. 18–19; Martin 2023a, pers comm.). 

Quitobaquito tryonia are less abundant 

in pool habitat and on aquatic 

vegetation compared to run or riffle 

habitat and on other substrates (Bogan 

2018, entire; Williams and Sorensen 

2019, p. 11; Sorensen 2021, pp. 5–8, 12). 

Aquatic vegetation removal may result 

in the loss of some Quitobaquito tryonia 

individuals, but this action is necessary 

to maintain flow of the spring channel. 

Determination of Quitobaquito 

Tryonia’s Status 

Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) 

and its implementing regulations (50 

CFR part 424) set forth the procedures 

for determining whether a species meets 

the definition of an endangered species 

or a threatened species. The Act defines 

an ‘‘endangered species’’ as a species in 

danger of extinction throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range, and a 

‘‘threatened species’’ as a species likely 

to become an endangered species within 

the foreseeable future throughout all or 

a significant portion of its range. The 

Act requires that we determine whether 

a species meets the definition of an 

endangered species or a threatened 

species because of any of the following 

factors: (A) The present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) 

overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

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

the inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms; or (E) other natural or 

manmade factors affecting its continued 

existence. 

Status Throughout All of Its Range 

After evaluating threats to the species 

and assessing the cumulative effect of 

the threats under the Act’s section 

4(a)(1) factors, we find that although the 

Quitobaquito tryonia has sufficiently 

resilient extant populations, it has 

declined in number of populations from 

known historical levels. Our analysis 

revealed several factors that caused this 

decline and pose a meaningful risk to 

the viability of the species. These 

threats are primarily related to habitat 

changes (Factor A) and include the 

reduction of spring discharge and spring 

modification, in addition to effects of 

climate change (Factor E). 

The Quitobaquito tryonia is known 

from four historical populations, but 

two of those have become extirpated 

(Williams Spring and Burro Spring). As 

a narrow endemic species, it historically 

occupied springs occurring within a 

1-kilometer (0.6-mile) radius. Because 

the Williams Spring and Burro Spring 

populations are extirpated, current 

redundancy of the species has been 

reduced 50 percent from historical 

levels. The Quitobaquito tryonia has 

always been a highly localized endemic, 

and the two extant populations 

(Quitobaquito Springs and Hillside Seep 

#2) are only separated by roughly 100 m 

(328 ft). Therefore, a catastrophic event, 

such as drought, is highly likely to 

simultaneously affect both remaining 

populations of the Quitobaquito tryonia. 

The most pervasive threat to the 

species is the historical and ongoing 

loss or decline in spring discharge. The 

species’ populations at two springs 

(Burro Spring and Williams Spring) are 

extirpated because of a loss of perennial 

flow, while the Quitobaquito Springs 

complex has seen a documented decline 

in discharge. From January 2020 to 

October 2021, daily mean discharge 

ranged from 26 to 51 lpm and averaged 

35 lpm, which is a decrease from 

recorded levels from 1981 to 1992 of 57 

to 151 lpm and averaged 106 lpm 

(Carruth 1996, p. 15). Although 

discharge at Hillside Seep #2 has not 

been measured, it is a less wetted area 

and has even lower flow velocity than 

Quitobaquito Springs (AZGFD 2021, p. 

3). The causes of the decline in spring 

discharge are likely related to ongoing 

drought conditions and groundwater 

pumping. Climate change is expected to 

exacerbate these conditions with 

increased temperatures, and more 

severe and frequent droughts. Historical 

modification of the spring complex has 

severely curtailed available habitat, and 

the loss of spring flow is ongoing and 

expected to continue (see figure 1, 

above). 

Despite their proximity, the 

populations are isolated and not 

connected by overland flow, and this 

isolation also limits the ability of the 

Quitobaquito tryonia to naturally 

recolonize given the species’ lack of 

dispersal ability. Because of the species’ 

small size and dependence on water, 

dispersal events are rare and 

opportunistic, with overland 

transportation likely occurring by 

‘‘hitchhiking’’ on birds or other animals 

(Hershler et al. 2005, pp. 1755–1756, 

1763). Therefore, gene flow between the 

populations is limited or nonexistent. 

In summary, the Quitobaquito tryonia 

is more susceptible to extirpation from 

catastrophic events and has reduced 

adaptive capacity. The number of 

known populations has already been 

reduced by 50 percent because of loss of 

spring flow, which is continuing to 

occur and is impacting the remaining 

two populations. The species is 

currently in danger of extinction 

because reduction of spring discharge, 

spring modification, and the effects of 

climate change are all risks that have 

historically impacted, and are currently 

impacting, the species and are reducing 

its viability across its range. We do not 

find the species meets the definition of 

a threatened species because the species 

has already shown declines in the 

number and resiliency of populations. 

Two of the four known populations 

have already become extirpated due to 

the threats mentioned above. Although 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
62734 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 176 / Wednesday, September 13, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

one population is currently in high 

condition and the other population is 

currently in moderate condition, both 

are currently experiencing impacts from 

the aforementioned threats. Because 

current redundancy is reduced from 

known historical levels, and 

representation is limited due to the 

close proximity of the two remaining 

populations, the species is vulnerable to 

catastrophic and stochastic events. 

Thus, after assessing the best available 

information, we determine that the 

Quitobaquito tryonia is in danger of 

extinction throughout all of its range. 

Status Throughout a Significant Portion 

of Its Range 

Under the Act and our implementing 

regulations, a species may warrant 

listing if it is in danger of extinction or 

likely to become so in the foreseeable 

future throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range. We have 

determined that the Quitobaquito 

tryonia is in danger of extinction 

throughout all of its range and 

accordingly did not undertake an 

analysis of any significant portion of its 

range. Because the Quitobaquito tryonia 

warrants listing as endangered 

throughout all of its range, our 

determination does not conflict with the 

decision in Center for Biological 

Diversity v. Everson, 435 F. Supp. 3d 69 

(D.D.C. 2020), which vacated the 

provision of the Final Policy on 

Interpretation of the Phrase ‘‘Significant 

Portion of Its Range’’ in the Endangered 

Species Act’s Definitions of 

‘‘Endangered Species’’ and ‘‘Threatened 

Species’’ (79 FR 37578; July 1, 2014) 

providing that if the Service determines 

that a species is threatened throughout 

all of its range, the Service will not 

analyze whether the species is 

endangered in a significant portion of its 

range. 

Determination of Status 

Our review of the best available 

scientific and commercial information 

indicates that the Quitobaquito tryonia 

meets the Act’s definition of an 

endangered species. Therefore, we 

propose to list the Quitobaquito tryonia 

as an endangered species in accordance 

with sections 3(6) and 4(a)(1) of the Act. 

Available Conservation Measures 

Conservation measures provided to 

species listed as endangered or 

threatened species under the Act 

include recognition as a listed species, 

planning and implementation of 

recovery actions, requirements for 

Federal protection, and prohibitions 

against certain practices. Recognition 

through listing results in public 

awareness, and conservation by Federal, 

State, Tribal, and local agencies, private 

organizations, and individuals. The Act 

encourages cooperation with the States 

and other countries and calls for 

recovery actions to be carried out for 

listed species. The protection required 

by Federal agencies, including the 

Service, 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. Section 4(f) of the 

Act calls for the Service to develop and 

implement recovery plans for the 

conservation of endangered and 

threatened species. The goal of this 

process is to restore listed species to a 

point where they are secure, selfsustaining, and functioning components 

of their ecosystems. 

The recovery planning process begins 

with development of a recovery outline 

made available to the public soon after 

a final listing determination. The 

recovery outline guides the immediate 

implementation of urgent recovery 

actions while a recovery plan is being 

developed. Recovery teams (composed 

of species experts, Federal and State 

agencies, nongovernmental 

organizations, and stakeholders) may be 

established to develop and implement 

recovery plans. The recovery planning 

process involves the identification of 

actions that are necessary to halt and 

reverse the species’ decline by 

addressing the threats to its survival and 

recovery. The recovery plan identifies 

recovery criteria for review of when a 

species may be ready for reclassification 

from endangered to threatened 

(‘‘downlisting’’) or removal from 

protected status (‘‘delisting’’), 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. Revisions of the plan 

may be done to address continuing or 

new threats to the species, as new 

substantive information becomes 

available. The recovery outline, draft 

recovery plan, final recovery plan, and 

any revisions will be available on our 

website as they are completed (https:// 

www.fws.gov/program/endangeredspecies), 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, Tribes, 

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, State, and Tribal lands. 

If this species is listed, funding for 

recovery actions will be available from 

a variety of sources, including Federal 

budgets, State programs, and cost-share 

grants for non-Federal 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 or recovery of the 

Quitobaquito tryonia. Information on 

our grant programs that are available to 

aid species recovery can be found at: 

https://www.fws.gov/service/financialassistance. 

Although the Quitobaquito tryonia is 

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 of the Act is titled 

‘‘Interagency Cooperation’’ and 

mandates all Federal action agencies to 

use their existing authorities to further 

the conservation purposes of the Act 

and to ensure that their actions are not 

likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of listed species or adversely 

modify critical habitat. Regulations 

implementing section 7 are codified at 

50 CFR part 402. 

Section 7(a)(2) states that each Federal 

action agency shall, in consultation with 

the Secretary, ensure that any action 

they authorize, fund, or carry out is not 

likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of a listed species or result in 

the destruction or adverse modification 

of designated critical habitat. Each 

Federal agency shall review its action at 

the earliest possible time to determine 

whether it may affect listed species or 

critical habitat. If a determination is 

made that the action may affect listed 

species or critical habitat, formal 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 176 / Wednesday, September 13, 2023 / Proposed Rules 62735 

consultation is required (50 CFR 

402.14(a)), unless the Service concurs in 

writing that the action is not likely to 

adversely affect listed species or critical 

habitat. At the end of a formal 

consultation, the Service issues a 

biological opinion, containing its 

determination of whether the Federal 

action is likely to result in jeopardy or 

adverse modification. 

In contrast, section 7(a)(4) of the Act 

requires Federal agencies to confer with 

the Service on any action that is likely 

to jeopardize the continued existence of 

any species proposed to be listed under 

the Act or result in the destruction or 

adverse modification of critical habitat 

proposed to be designated for such 

species. Although the conference 

procedures are required only when an 

action is likely to result in jeopardy or 

adverse modification, action agencies 

may voluntarily confer with the Service 

on actions that may affect species 

proposed for listing or critical habitat 

proposed to be designated. In the event 

that the subject species is listed or the 

relevant critical habitat is designated, a 

conference opinion may be adopted as 

a biological opinion and serve as 

compliance with section 7(a)(2) of the 

Act. 

Examples of discretionary actions for 

the Quitobaquito tryonia that may be 

subject to conference and consultation 

procedures under section 7 of the Act 

are land management or other 

landscape-altering activities on Federal 

lands administered by the National Park 

Service as well as actions on State, 

Tribal, local, or private lands that 

require a Federal permit (such as a 

permit from the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers under section 404 of the 

Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) 

or a permit from the Service under 

section 10 of the Act) or that involve 

some other Federal action (such as 

funding from the Federal Highway 

Administration, Federal Aviation 

Administration, or the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency). 

Federal actions not affecting listed 

species or critical habitat—and actions 

on State, Tribal, local, or private lands 

that are not federally funded, 

authorized, or carried out by a Federal 

agency—do not require section 7 

consultation. Federal agencies should 

coordinate with the local Service Field 

Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT) with any specific questions on 

section 7 consultation and conference 

requirements. 

The Act and its implementing 

regulations set forth a series of general 

prohibitions and exceptions that apply 

to endangered wildlife. The prohibitions 

of section 9(a)(1) of the Act, codified at 

50 CFR 17.21, make it illegal for any 

person subject to the jurisdiction of the 

United States to commit, to attempt to 

commit, to solicit another to commit, or 

to cause to be committed any of the 

following: (1) Import endangered 

wildlife into, or export from, the United 

States; (2) take (which includes harass, 

harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, 

trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to 

engage in any such conduct) endangered 

wildlife within the United States or on 

the high seas; (3) possess, sell, deliver, 

carry, transport, or ship, by any means 

whatsoever, any such wildlife that has 

been taken illegally; (4) deliver, receive, 

carry, transport, or ship in interstate or 

foreign commerce in the course of 

commercial activity; or (5) sell or offer 

for sale in interstate or foreign 

commerce. Certain exceptions to these 

prohibitions apply to employees or 

agents of the Service, the National 

Marine Fisheries Service, other Federal 

land management agencies, and State 

conservation agencies. 

We may issue permits to carry out 

otherwise prohibited activities 

involving endangered wildlife under 

certain circumstances. Regulations 

governing permits for endangered 

wildlife are codified at 50 CFR 17.22. 

With regard to endangered wildlife, a 

permit may be issued for scientific 

purposes, for enhancing the propagation 

or survival of the species, or for take 

incidental to otherwise lawful activities. 

The statute also contains certain 

exemptions from the prohibitions, 

which are found in sections 9 and 10 of 

the Act. 

It is the policy of the Services, as 

published in the Federal Register on 

July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34272), to identify, 

to the extent known at the time a 

species is listed, specific activities that 

would not be considered likely to result 

in violation of section 9 of the Act. To 

the extent possible, activities that would 

be considered likely to result in 

violation would also be identified in as 

specific a manner as possible. 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 the species 

proposed for listing. 

At this time, we are unable to identify 

specific activities that would not be 

considered likely to result in a violation 

of section 9 of the Act beyond what is 

already clear from the descriptions of 

prohibitions or already excepted 

through our regulations at 50 CFR 17.21 

(e.g., 50 CFR 17.21(c)(2), which provides 

that any person may take endangered 

wildlife in defense of his own life or the 

lives of others). Also, as discussed 

above, certain activities that are 

prohibited under section 9 may be 

permitted under section 10 of the Act. 

To the extent currently known, the 

following is a list of examples of 

activities that would be considered 

likely to result in violation of section 9 

of the Act in addition to what is already 

clear from the descriptions of the 

prohibitions found at 50 CFR 17.21: 

(1) Unauthorized handling or 

collecting of the Quitobaquito tryonia. 

(2) Destruction/alteration of 

Quitobaquito tryonia habitat by 

discharge of fill material, draining, 

ditching, tiling, pond construction, 

stream channelization or diversion, or 

removal or destruction of emergent 

aquatic vegetation; or diversion or 

alteration of surface or ground water 

flow into or out of the Quitobaquito 

Springs complex (i.e., due to roads, 

impoundments, discharge pipes, storm 

water detention basins, etc.) or in any 

body of water in which the 

Quitobaquito tryonia is known to occur. 

(3) Direct or indirect destruction of 

riparian habitat where the Quitobaquito 

tryonia occurs. 

(4) Introduction of nonnative species 

that compete with or prey upon the 

Quitobaquito tryonia, such as the 

introduction of nonnative fish and 

crayfish species into any waters in 

which the Quitobaquito tryonia is 

known to occur. 

(5) Release of biological control agents 

that attack any life stage of this species 

in or near Quitobaquito tryonia habitat. 

(6) Discharge of chemicals or fill 

material into any waters in which the 

Quitobaquito tryonia is known to occur. 

The list above is intended to be 

illustrative and not exhaustive; 

additional activities that would be 

considered likely to result in violation 

of section 9 of the Act may be identified 

during coordination with the local field 

office, and in some instances (e.g., with 

new or site-specific information), the 

Service may conclude that one or more 

activities identified here would not be 

considered likely to result in violation 

of section 9. Questions regarding 

whether specific activities would 

constitute violation of section 9 of the 

Act should be directed to the Arizona 

Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

II. Critical Habitat 

Background 

Critical habitat is defined in section 3 

of the Act as: 

(1) The specific areas within the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species, at the time it is listed in 

accordance with the Act, on which are 

found those physical or biological 

features 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
62736 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 176 / Wednesday, September 13, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

(a) Essential to the conservation of the 

species, and 

(b) Which may require special 

management considerations or 

protection; and 

(2) Specific areas outside the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species at the time it is listed, upon a 

determination that such areas are 

essential for the conservation of the 

species. 

Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 

define the geographical area occupied 

by the species as an area that may 

generally be delineated around species’ 

occurrences, as determined by the 

Secretary (i.e., range). Such areas may 

include those areas used throughout all 

or part of the species’ life cycle, even if 

not used on a regular basis (e.g., 

migratory corridors, seasonal habitats, 

and habitats used periodically, but not 

solely by vagrant individuals). 

Conservation, as defined under 

section 3 of the Act, means to use and 

the use of all methods and procedures 

that are necessary to bring an 

endangered or threatened species to the 

point at which the measures provided 

pursuant to the Act are no longer 

necessary. Such methods and 

procedures include, but are not limited 

to, all activities associated with 

scientific resources management such as 

research, census, law enforcement, 

habitat acquisition and maintenance, 

propagation, live trapping, and 

transplantation, and, in the 

extraordinary case where population 

pressures within a given ecosystem 

cannot be otherwise relieved, may 

include regulated taking. 

Critical habitat receives protection 

under section 7 of the Act through the 

requirement that each Federal action 

agency ensure, in consultation with the 

Service, that any action they authorize, 

fund, or carry out is not likely to result 

in the destruction or adverse 

modification of designated 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 also does not 

allow the government or public to 

access private lands. Such designation 

does not require implementation of 

restoration, recovery, or enhancement 

measures by non-Federal landowners. 

Rather, designation requires that, where 

a landowner requests Federal agency 

funding or authorization for an action 

that may affect an area designated as 

critical habitat, the Federal agency 

consult with the Service under section 

7(a)(2) of the Act. If the action may 

affect the listed species itself (such as 

for occupied critical habitat), the 

Federal agency would have already been 

required to consult with the Service 

even absent the designation because of 

the requirement to ensure that the 

action is not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of the species. Even 

if the Service were to conclude after 

consultation that the proposed activity 

is likely to result in destruction or 

adverse modification of the critical 

habitat, the Federal action agency and 

the landowner are not required to 

abandon the proposed activity, or to 

restore or recover the species; instead, 

they must implement ‘‘reasonable and 

prudent alternatives’’ to avoid 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat. 

Under the first prong of the Act’s 

definition of critical habitat, areas 

within the geographical area occupied 

by the species at the time it was listed 

are included in a critical habitat 

designation if they contain physical or 

biological features (1) which are 

essential to the conservation of the 

species and (2) which may require 

special management considerations or 

protection. For these areas, critical 

habitat designations identify, to the 

extent known using the best scientific 

data available, those physical or 

biological features that are essential to 

the conservation of the species (such as 

space, food, cover, and protected 

habitat). 

Under the second prong of the Act’s 

definition of critical habitat, we can 

designate critical habitat in areas 

outside the geographical area occupied 

by the species at the time it is listed, 

upon a determination that such areas 

are essential for the conservation of the 

species. 

Section 4 of the Act requires that we 

designate critical habitat on the basis of 

the best scientific data available. 

Further, our Policy on Information 

Standards Under the Endangered 

Species Act (published in the Federal 

Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271)), 

the Information Quality Act (section 515 

of the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act for 

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

5658)), and our associated Information 

Quality Guidelines provide criteria, 

establish procedures, and provide 

guidance to ensure that our decisions 

are based on the best scientific data 

available. They require our biologists, to 

the extent consistent with the Act and 

with the use of the best scientific data 

available, to use primary and original 

sources of information as the basis for 

recommendations to designate critical 

habitat. 

When we are determining which areas 

should be designated as critical habitat, 

our primary source of information is 

generally the information from the SSA 

report and information developed 

during the listing process for the 

species. Additional information sources 

may include any generalized 

conservation strategy, criteria, or outline 

that may have been developed for the 

species; the recovery plan for the 

species; articles in peer-reviewed 

journals; conservation plans developed 

by States and counties; scientific status 

surveys and studies; biological 

assessments; other unpublished 

materials; or experts’ opinions or 

personal knowledge. 

Habitat is dynamic, and species may 

move from one area to another over 

time. We recognize that critical habitat 

designated at a particular point in time 

may not include all of the habitat areas 

that we may later determine are 

necessary for the recovery of the 

species. For these reasons, a critical 

habitat designation does not signal that 

habitat outside the designated area is 

unimportant or may not be needed for 

recovery of the species. Areas that are 

important to the conservation of the 

species, both inside and outside the 

critical habitat designation, will 

continue to be subject to: (1) 

Conservation actions implemented 

under section 7(a)(1) of the Act; (2) 

regulatory protections afforded by the 

requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act 

for Federal agencies to ensure their 

actions are not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of any endangered 

or threatened species; and (3) the 

prohibitions found in section 9 of the 

Act. Federally funded or permitted 

projects affecting listed species outside 

their designated critical habitat areas 

may still result in jeopardy findings in 

some cases. These protections and 

conservation tools will continue to 

contribute to recovery of the species. 

Similarly, critical habitat designations 

made on the basis of the best available 

information at the time of designation 

will not control the direction and 

substance of future recovery plans, 

habitat conservation plans (HCPs), or 

other species conservation planning 

efforts if new information available at 

the time of those planning efforts calls 

for a different outcome. 

Physical or Biological Features 

Essential to the Conservation of the 

Species 

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

of the Act and regulations at 50 CFR 

424.12(b), in determining which areas 

we will designate as critical habitat from 

within the geographical area occupied 

by the species at the time of listing, we 

consider the physical or biological 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 176 / Wednesday, September 13, 2023 / Proposed Rules 62737 

features that are essential to the 

conservation of the species and which 

may require special management 

considerations or protection. The 

regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 define 

‘‘physical or biological features essential 

to the conservation of the species’’ as 

the features that occur in specific areas 

and that are essential to support the lifehistory needs of the species, including, 

but not limited to, water characteristics, 

soil type, geological features, sites, prey, 

vegetation, symbiotic species, or other 

features. A feature may be a single 

habitat characteristic or a more complex 

combination of habitat characteristics. 

Features may include habitat 

characteristics that support ephemeral 

or dynamic habitat conditions. Features 

may also be expressed in terms relating 

to principles of conservation biology, 

such as patch size, distribution 

distances, and connectivity. For 

example, physical features essential to 

the conservation of the species might 

include gravel of a particular size 

required for spawning, alkaline soil for 

seed germination, protective cover for 

migration, or susceptibility to flooding 

or fire that maintains necessary earlysuccessional habitat characteristics. 

Biological features might include prey 

species, forage grasses, specific kinds or 

ages of trees for roosting or nesting, 

symbiotic fungi, or absence of a 

particular level of nonnative species 

consistent with conservation needs of 

the listed species. The features may also 

be combinations of habitat 

characteristics and may encompass the 

relationship between characteristics or 

the necessary amount of a characteristic 

essential to support the life history of 

the species. 

In considering whether features are 

essential to the conservation of the 

species, we may consider an appropriate 

quality, quantity, and spatial and 

temporal arrangement of habitat 

characteristics in the context of the lifehistory needs, condition, and status of 

the species. These characteristics 

include, but are not limited to, space for 

individual and population growth and 

for normal behavior; food, water, air, 

light, minerals, or other nutritional or 

physiological requirements; cover or 

shelter; sites for breeding, reproduction, 

or rearing (or development) of offspring; 

and habitats that are protected from 

disturbance. 

Brooded young, juvenile, and adult 

Quitobaquito tryonia all need adequate 

spring flow and water quality to meet 

their resource functions, which include 

feeding, growth, survival, and breeding 

(Hershler 1984, p. 68; Hershler and Sada 

2002, p. 256; Martinez and Thome 2006, 

p. 14). Specifically, spring flow must be 

perennial to prevent desiccation and 

maintain stable water quality 

parameters. 

Quitobaquito tryonia need adequate 

periphyton growth for food. Tryonia 

species are likely herbivores or 

detritivores that primarily graze on 

periphyton and macrophytes by 

scraping surfaces with their file-like 

radula (Pyron and Brown 2015, pp. 386, 

401). Periphyton is a mixture of algae, 

bacteria, detritus, fungi, diatoms, and 

protozoa contained within a 

polysaccharide matrix known as a 

biofilm that grows on exposed surfaces, 

such as macrophytes or substrate (Lysne 

et al. 2007, p. 649). Production of 

periphyton and algae in a natural spring 

system is likely tied to water quality, 

nutrient availability, and exposure to 

sunlight (Brown et al. 2008, p. 488; 

Martinez and Thome 2006, p. 14). 

Additionally, larger substrates (such as 

gravel or cobble) develop a richer 

periphyton coating than finer substrates 

(Brown and Lydeard 2010, p. 285). 

Therefore, periphyton is essential to the 

Quitobaquito tryonia because it is its 

primary food source. 

Suitable substrate is important for 

shelter and periphyton growth. 

Substrate characteristics influence the 

abundance and productivity of 

springsnails. Tryonia spp. appear to use 

a broad array of substrate types, 

including cobble, gravel, sand, and silt 

(Hershler et al. 2011, entire), although 

Quitobaquito tryonia appear to be most 

abundant on hard substrates within the 

spring channel at Quitobaquito Springs 

(Bogan 2018, entire). We assume that if 

a substrate type has a higher density of 

Quitobaquito tryonia, then that substrate 

is preferred by the species when 

compared to other suitable substrates. 

Presumed preferred substrates include 

hard and/or coarse substrates, such as 

cobble and gravel, which increase 

springsnail productivity by promoting 

robust periphyton growth. Other 

suitable substrate includes fine-grained 

sediment, such as sand and silt. Suitable 

substrates still provide adequate food 

resources but are not as productive as 

presumed preferred substrates because 

of limited periphyton growth. Therefore, 

habitat with presumed preferred 

substrates or a combination of presumed 

preferred and suitable substrates is 

essential to the species. 

Aquatic vegetation is also important 

for shelter and periphyton growth. 

Vegetation density influences the 

abundance and productivity of 

springsnails. We assume that vegetation 

that occurs at lower densities is 

preferable to the Quitobaquito tryonia 

when compared to higher densities of 

vegetation. Important vegetation 

includes native macrophytes, such as 

sedges (Schoenoplectus spp.) and 

rushes (Juncus spp.), occurring at low 

densities that do not impede spring 

flow. Other native macrophytes may 

also be considered suitable for shelter 

and periphyton growth when they occur 

at higher densities. Therefore, habitat 

including aquatic vegetation present at 

levels that do not impede spring flow is 

essential to the species. 

The introduction of nonnative or 

invasive predators has the potential to 

negatively affect springsnails (Hershler 

1998, p. 14; Sada 2017, p. 11). The 

nonnative New Zealand mudsnail 

(Potamopyrgus antipodarum) is an 

invasive freshwater snail of the family 

Hydrobiidae that 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, pp. 647–653). New 

Zealand mudsnails may outcompete 

hydrobiid snails for food and shelter 

resources. Nonnative crayfish (notably 

Faxonius virilis and Procambarus 

clarkii) are known predators to 

springsnails and have been found in 

springs and streams at and near 

springsnail sites in Arizona. Crayfish 

have been found to consume snails that 

occupy similar habitats as springsnails 

and their eggs (Fernandez and Rosen 

1996, pp. 24–25). Therefore, the absence 

of nonnative species, or a level of 

nonnative species low enough that it 

does not impede resource availability 

for or result in mortality of Quitobaquito 

tryonia individuals, is essential to the 

Quitobaquito tryonia. 

Tryonia and other springsnails show 

a pattern of decreasing abundance with 

distance from the spring source 

(Hershler and Sada 2002, p. 256; 

Martinez and Thome 2006, p. 14; 

Rogowski 2012, pp. 34, 37), indicating 

that water chemistry such as stable 

dissolved oxygen, pH, conductivity, and 

temperature, as well as absence of or 

low enough levels of contaminants, may 

influence the distribution and 

abundance of springsnails (O’Brien and 

Blinn 1999, pp. 231–232; Mladenka and 

Minshall 2001, pp. 209–211; Malcom et 

al. 2005, p. 75; Martinez and Thome 

2006, pp. 12–15; Lysne et al. 2007, p. 

650). However, the full suite of water 

quality conditions that the Quitobaquito 

tryonia prefers has not been determined. 

Nevertheless, we assume that overall 

sufficient water quality that provides 

appropriate conditions for the 

Quitobaquito tryonia is essential to the 

species. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
62738 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 176 / Wednesday, September 13, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

Summary of Essential Physical or 

Biological Features 

We derive the specific physical or 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of the Quitobaquito tryonia 

from studies of the species’ habitat, 

ecology, and life history as described 

below. Additional information can be 

found in the SSA report (Service 2022, 

entire; available on https://

www.regulations.gov under Docket No. 

FWS–R2–ES–2023–0073). We have 

determined that the following physical 

or biological features are essential to the 

conservation of the Quitobaquito 

tryonia: 

(1) Perennially free-flowing spring 

water with sufficient flow rate. 

(2) Sufficient amount of periphyton to 

support all life stages of the 

Quitobaquito tryonia. 

(3) Presence of hard or coarse 

substrates (including cobble and gravel) 

or a combination of coarse and fine 

substrates (including sand and/or silt). 

(4) Aquatic emergent and submergent 

vegetation, including native 

macrophytes such as sedges 

(Schoenoplectus spp.) and rushes 

(Juncus spp.), occurring at densities that 

do not impede spring flow. 

(5) Water quality parameters that 

support all life stages of the 

Quitobaquito tryonia, including: 

(a) Adequate levels of temperature, 

pH, and conductivity; and 

(b) Absence of contaminants, or a 

level of contaminants low enough that 

it does not negatively impact necessary 

water quality conditions for 

Quitobaquito tryonia individuals. 

(6) Absence of nonnative species, or a 

level of nonnative species low enough 

that it does not impede resource 

availability for or result in mortality of 

Quitobaquito tryonia individuals. 

Special Management Considerations or 

Protection 

When designating critical habitat, we 

assess whether the specific areas within 

the geographical area occupied by the 

species at the time of listing contain 

features which are essential to the 

conservation of the species and which 

may require special management 

considerations or protection. The 

features essential to the conservation of 

the Quitobaquito tryonia may require 

special management considerations or 

protection to reduce the following 

threats: (1) reduction of spring 

discharge, (2) effects of climate change, 

and (3) spring modification. 

Management activities that could 

ameliorate these threats and protect the 

quantity and quality of the habitat 

include, but are not limited to: (1) 

decreasing groundwater pumping to 

maintain spring flow that supports 

spring habitat; (2) removing dense 

aquatic vegetation from the spring 

channel to maintain stream flow and 

provide a mosaic of habitat types 

throughout the spring channel; and (3) 

controlling and removing introduced 

nonnative predators and competitors, 

such as crayfish. 

Criteria Used To Identify Critical 

Habitat 

As required by section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act, we use the best scientific data 

available to designate critical habitat. In 

accordance with the Act and our 

implementing regulations at 50 CFR 

424.12(b), we review available 

information pertaining to the habitat 

requirements of the species and identify 

specific areas within the geographical 

area occupied by the species at the time 

of listing and any specific areas outside 

the geographical area occupied by the 

species to be considered for designation 

as critical habitat. We are not currently 

proposing to designate any areas outside 

the geographical area occupied by the 

species because we have not identified 

any unoccupied areas that meet the 

definition of critical habitat. No 

unoccupied areas have at least one 

essential physical or biological feature 

and a reasonable certainty of 

contributing to conservation of the 

species. 

In order to analyze possible habitat 

locations, in November 2018, several 

seeps to the northwest of Quitobaquito 

Springs were surveyed, but none had 

perennial spring flow (Williams and 

Sorensen 2019, p. 9), which is essential 

for the Quitobaquito tryonia. In October 

2020, two seeps east of Quitobaquito 

Pond were surveyed; Quitobaquito 

tryonia were detected at only Hillside 

Seep #2, one of the two surveyed 

locations. In November 2021, several 

additional seeps east of Quitobaquito 

Pond were surveyed and Hillside Seep 

#1 and #2 were revisited. Five seeps had 

low flow and possible springsnail 

habitat, but no Quitobaquito tryonia 

were found (Sorensen 2021, p. 10). 

There are other unnamed seeps that 

occur within the broader Quitobaquito 

Springs area that have yet to be fully 

surveyed for the Quitobaquito tryonia, 

but none of them occur in the historical 

range of the species. It is unknown how 

many seeps in the area have the 

perennial flow necessary for brooded 

young, juvenile, and adult Quitobaquito 

tryonia to meet their resource functions, 

which include feeding, growth, survival, 

and breeding (Service 2022, p. 13). 

Specifically, spring flow must be 

perennial to prevent desiccation and 

maintain stable water quality 

parameters (Hershler 1984, p. 68; 

Hershler and Sada 2002, p. 256; Johnson 

et al. 2013, p. 248; Martinez and Thome 

2006, p. 14). Therefore, for a seep to be 

suitable habitat and have reasonable 

certainty that it would contribute to the 

conservation of the Quitobaquito 

tryonia, it must contain the essential 

physical or biological feature of 

perennially free-flowing spring water 

with sufficient flow rate. In the current 

condition and in all plausible future 

scenarios, it is unlikely that any of the 

seeps in the area would contain or be 

able to be managed to achieve the spring 

flow necessary for the Quitobaquito 

tryonia, especially when conditions are 

exacerbated by climate change. 

Accordingly, for those springs that 

occur outside of the historical range, we 

cannot identify the exact habitat 

parameters that will ensure the success 

of the species there. Therefore, there are 

no areas other than those included in 

this proposed critical habitat 

designation that we are reasonably 

certain would contribute to the 

conservation of the Quitobaquito 

tryonia. 

We are proposing to designate critical 

habitat units that we have determined 

based on the best scientific data 

available are known to be currently 

occupied and contain the physical or 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of the Quitobaquito 

tryonia. Additional areas outside the 

aquatic habitat within each subunit are 

included in the proposed designation to 

assist in maintaining the hydrology of 

the aquatic features. Sources of 

occupancy data on the Quitobaquito 

tryonia are from all available reports 

since monitoring of the species began in 

2002 (Martinez and Sorensen 2016, 

entire; Bogan 2018, entire; Williams and 

Sorensen 2019, entire; AZGFD 2021, 

entire; Sorensen 2022, entire). We 

determined localities to be occupied at 

the time of listing if they are identified 

as extant in the SSA report (Service 

2022, pp. 16–20). Extirpated 

populations are not included because 

the spring sources that supported them 

no longer have the essential physical or 

biological features to support the 

species now or in the future. 

Specifically, these areas no longer have 

water, and it is unlikely that 

groundwater would support spring flow 

in these areas. 

We obtained information on ecology 

and habitat requirements of the 

Quitobaquito tryonia from multiple 

sources, as identified in the SSA report 

as explained above (Service 2022, pp. 7– 

13). For mapping of proposed critical 

habitat, we used Organ Pipe Cactus 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 176 / Wednesday, September 13, 2023 / Proposed Rules 62739 

National Monument geo-referenced data 

of aquatic habitats that have perennial 

spring flow, adequate water quality, and 

substrates and aquatic vegetation that 

support extant populations of the 

Quitobaquito tryonia. There are two 

areas that contain the physical or 

biological features needed by the 

Quitobaquito tryonia: a human-made 

concrete spring run and a natural seep. 

We delineated the extent of critical 

habitat along the spring run by the 

physical boundary of the concrete 

channel and southwest spring trench 

with an average width of 2 m (6.4 ft) 

along this length to capture areas where 

water pools along the channel. Water 

provided by the springs does not flow 

outside of this human-made channel 

and corresponding pools. For Hillside 

Seep #2, we delineated the extent of 

critical habitat along the seep from the 

point of origin of the seep downhill a 

distance of 15.2 m (50 ft), which is the 

longest known length of flow from the 

seep (Service 2022, p. 20). We included 

all area within 5 m (16.4 ft) of this 

length to capture any future 

hydrological changes of flow patterns 

that may occur over time in this area, 

both upslope and downslope of the 

seep. This also captures the habitat 

associated with the upslope and 

downslope of the watershed. In other 

words, this area incorporates most of the 

habitat that has the potential to impact 

the seep and any Quitobaquito tryonia 

individuals depending on that seep 

(Martin 2023b, pers. comm.). We used 

two different methods because the water 

in the channel is confined within a 

human-made concrete structure, and the 

seep is naturally occurring, so there is 

more variability in width of sheet flow 

(overland storm runoff). 

In summary, for areas within the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species at the time of listing, we 

delineated critical habitat unit 

boundaries using the following criteria: 

(1) We compiled all available data 

from observations of the Quitobaquito 

tryonia; 

(2) We identified, based on the best 

scientific data available, populations 

that are extant at the time of listing 

(current) versus those that are 

extirpated; 

(3) We identified areas containing the 

components comprising the essential 

physical or biological features that may 

require special management 

considerations or protection; and 

(4) We circumscribed boundaries of 

potential critical habitat based on the 

above information that reflect current 

habitat conditions. 

While the human-made concrete 

spring run that provides habitat for the 

Quitobaquito tryonia is included in the 

proposed critical habitat designation for 

the species, when determining proposed 

critical habitat boundaries, we made 

every effort to avoid including other 

developed areas such as lands covered 

by buildings, pavement, and other 

structures because such lands lack 

physical or biological features necessary 

for the Quitobaquito tryonia. The scale 

of the maps we prepared under the 

parameters for publication within the 

Code of Federal Regulations may not 

reflect the exclusion of such other 

developed lands. Any such lands 

inadvertently left inside critical habitat 

boundaries shown on the maps of this 

proposed rule have been excluded by 

text in the proposed rule and are not 

proposed for designation as critical 

habitat. Therefore, if the critical habitat 

is finalized as proposed, a Federal 

action involving these lands would not 

trigger section 7 consultation with 

respect to critical habitat and the 

requirement of no adverse modification 

unless the specific action would affect 

the physical or biological features in the 

adjacent critical habitat. We propose to 

designate as critical habitat areas that 

we have determined are occupied at the 

time of listing (i.e., currently occupied) 

and that contain one or more of the 

physical or biological features that are 

essential to support the life-history 

processes of the species. 

One unit, composed of two subunits, 

is proposed for designation based on 

one or more of the physical or biological 

features being present to support the 

Quitobaquito tryonia’s life-history 

processes. Both subunits contain all of 

the identified physical or biological 

features and support multiple lifehistory processes. 

The proposed critical habitat 

designation is defined by the map, as 

modified by any accompanying 

regulatory text, presented at the end of 

this document under Proposed 

Regulation Promulgation. We include 

more detailed information on the 

boundaries of the critical habitat 

designation in the preamble of this 

document. We will make the 

coordinates or plot points or both on 

which the map is based available to the 

public on https://www.regulations.gov 

at Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2023–0073 

and on our internet site at https://

www.fws.gov/office/arizona-ecologicalservices. 

Proposed Critical Habitat Designation 

We are proposing one unit, composed 

of two subunits, as critical habitat for 

the Quitobaquito tryonia. The critical 

habitat area we describe below 

constitutes our current best assessment 

of areas that meet the definition of 

critical habitat for the Quitobaquito 

tryonia. Table 2 shows the proposed 

critical habitat unit and the approximate 

area of each subunit. Both subunits of 

the Quitobaquito Unit are occupied. 

TABLE 2—PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT UNIT FOR THE QUITOBAQUITO TRYONIA

[Area estimates reflect all area within critical habitat boundaries] 

Critical Habitat Unit Critical Habitat Subunit Land Ownership by Type Size of Unit in Feet2

(Meters2) Occupied? 

Quitobaquito Unit ............... A. Spring Channel ............. Federal (NPS) ................... 4,455 (414) ........................ Yes. 

B. Hillside Seep #2 ........... Federal (NPS) ................... 1,640 (152) ........................ Yes. 

Total ........................... ....................................... ....................................... 6,095 (566) 

Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding. 

We present brief descriptions of both 

subunits, and reasons why they meet 

the definition of critical habitat for the 

Quitobaquito tryonia, below. 

Subunit A: Spring Channel 

Subunit A in the Quitobaquito Unit 

consists of 4,455 square feet (ft2) (414 

square meters (m2)) of the spring 

channel. This subunit is occupied and 

contains all of the physical or biological 

features essential to the conservation of 

the species. This subunit is entirely on 

Federal (NPS) land within Organ Pipe 

Cactus National Monument. Threats that 

are occurring in this area include 

decline in spring flow from groundwater 

withdrawal and drought, effects of 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
62740 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 176 / Wednesday, September 13, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

climate change, and spring 

modification. This subunit may require 

special management considerations, 

such as vegetation removal, and to the 

extent possible, protection from future 

groundwater withdrawals in close 

proximity. NPS is already actively 

managing this unit by periodically 

removing a portion of emergent and 

submerged vegetation to improve water 

flow from the spring source, and NPS 

has worked with U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection on placement of wells 

for border construction activities. 

Subunit B: Hillside Seep #2 

Subunit B in the Quitobaquito Unit 

consists of 1,640 ft2 (152 m2) of a seep 

located approximately 338 ft (103 m) 

from the spring channel. This subunit is 

occupied and contains all of the 

physical or biological features essential 

to the conservation of the species. This 

subunit is entirely on Federal (NPS) 

land within Organ Pipe Cactus National 

Monument. Threats that are occurring in 

this area include decline in spring flow 

from groundwater withdrawal and 

drought, effects of climate change, and 

spring modification. This subunit may 

require the same special management 

considerations and protection as 

Subunit A. The NPS may manage this 

unit similar to the management 

discussed for Subunit A by periodically 

removing a portion of emergent and 

submerged vegetation. 

Effects of Critical Habitat Designation 

Section 7 Consultation 

Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires 

Federal agencies, including the Service, 

to ensure that any action they authorize, 

fund, or carry out is not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of 

any endangered species or threatened 

species or result in the destruction or 

adverse modification of designated 

critical habitat of such species. In 

addition, section 7(a)(4) of the Act 

requires Federal agencies to confer with 

the Service on any agency action which 

is likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of any species proposed to be 

listed under the Act or result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

proposed critical habitat. 

We published a final rule revising the 

definition of destruction or adverse 

modification on August 27, 2019 (84 FR 

44976). Destruction or adverse 

modification means a direct or indirect 

alteration that appreciably diminishes 

the value of critical habitat as a whole 

for the conservation of a listed species. 

Compliance with the requirements of 

section 7(a)(2) is documented through 

our issuance of: 

(1) A concurrence letter for Federal 

actions that may affect, but are not 

likely to adversely affect, listed species 

or critical habitat; or 

(2) A biological opinion for Federal 

actions that may affect, and are likely to 

adversely affect, listed species or critical 

habitat. 

When we issue a biological opinion 

concluding that a project is likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of a 

listed species and/or destroy or 

adversely modify critical habitat, we 

provide reasonable and prudent 

alternatives to the project, if any are 

identifiable, that would avoid the 

likelihood of jeopardy and/or 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat. We define ‘‘reasonable 

and prudent alternatives’’ (at 50 CFR 

402.02) as alternative actions identified 

during consultation that: 

(1) Can be implemented in a manner 

consistent with the intended purpose of 

the action, 

(2) Can be implemented consistent 

with the scope of the Federal agency’s 

legal authority and jurisdiction, 

(3) Are economically and 

technologically feasible, and 

(4) Would, in the Service Director’s 

opinion, avoid the likelihood of 

jeopardizing the continued existence of 

the listed species and/or avoid the 

likelihood of destroying or adversely 

modifying critical habitat. 

Reasonable and prudent alternatives 

can vary from slight project 

modifications to extensive redesign or 

relocation of the project. Costs 

associated with implementing a 

reasonable and prudent alternative are 

similarly variable. 

Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 set forth 

requirements for Federal agencies to 

reinitiate consultation if any of the 

following four conditions occur: (1) the 

amount or extent of taking specified in 

the incidental take statement is 

exceeded; (2) new information reveals 

effects of the action that may affect 

listed species or critical habitat in a 

manner or to an extent not previously 

considered; (3) the identified action is 

subsequently modified in a manner that 

causes an effect to the listed species or 

critical habitat that was not considered 

in the biological opinion or written 

concurrence; or (4) a new species is 

listed or critical habitat designated that 

may be affected by the identified action. 

The reinitiation requirement applies 

only to actions that remain subject to 

some discretionary Federal involvement 

or control. As provided in 50 CFR 

402.16, the requirement to reinitiate 

consultations for new species listings or 

critical habitat designation does not 

apply to certain agency actions (e.g., 

land management plans issued by the 

Bureau of Land Management in certain 

circumstances). 

Application of the ‘‘Destruction or 

Adverse Modification’’ Standard 

The key factor related to the 

destruction or adverse modification 

determination is whether 

implementation of the proposed Federal 

action directly or indirectly alters the 

designated critical habitat in a way that 

appreciably diminishes the value of the 

critical habitat for the conservation of 

the listed species. As discussed above, 

the role of critical habitat is to support 

physical or biological features essential 

to the conservation of a listed species 

and provide for the conservation of the 

species. 

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

to briefly evaluate and describe, in any 

proposed or final regulation that 

designates critical habitat, activities 

involving a Federal action that may 

violate section 7(a)(2) of the Act by 

destroying or adversely modifying such 

habitat, or that may be affected by such 

designation. 

Activities that we may, during a 

consultation under section 7(a)(2) of the 

Act, consider likely to destroy or 

adversely modify critical habitat 

include, but are not limited to: 

(1) Actions that would decrease the 

amount of water available in the spring 

channel or seep used by the 

Quitobaquito tryonia. Such activities 

could include, but are not limited to, 

groundwater pumping, impoundment, 

and water diversion. These activities 

could decrease the amount of 

springflow so that the spring channel or 

seep becomes smaller, intermittent, or 

dry, and thereby could reduce the 

amount of space, prey, and cover 

available for Quitobaquito tryonia. 

(2) Actions that would alter habitat 

used by the Quitobaquito tryonia. Such 

actions could include the maintenance 

of springheads, stream or channel 

courses, and ponds. Maintaining 

springheads and human-made or natural 

spring channels will maximize the 

amount of springflow available to 

Quitobaquito tryonia. The spring 

channel that supports Quitobaquito 

tryonia was channelized and requires 

constant management to stop 

encroaching vegetation from completely 

filling in the channel. 

(3) Actions that would impact water 

quality of the spring system used by the 

Quitobaquito tryonia. Such activities 

could include, but are not limited to, 

presence of contaminants, livestock 

grazing, and spring modification. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 176 / Wednesday, September 13, 2023 / Proposed Rules 62741 

Exemptions 

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

Section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (16 

U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) provides that the 

Secretary shall not designate as critical 

habitat any lands or other geographical 

areas owned or controlled by the 

Department of Defense (DoD), or 

designated for its use, that are subject to 

an integrated natural resources 

management plan (INRMP) prepared 

under section 101 of the Sikes Act 

Improvement Act of 1997 (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. No DoD 

lands with a completed INRMP are 

within the proposed critical habitat 

designation. 

Consideration of Impacts Under Section 

4(b)(2) of the Act 

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

the Secretary shall designate and make 

revisions to critical habitat on the basis 

of the best available scientific data after 

taking into consideration the economic 

impact, national security impact, and 

any other relevant impact of specifying 

any particular area as critical habitat. 

The Secretary may exclude an area from 

designated critical habitat based on 

economic impacts, impacts on national 

security, or any other relevant impacts. 

Exclusion decisions are governed by the 

regulations at 50 CFR 424.19 and the 

Policy Regarding Implementation of 

Section 4(b)(2) of the Endangered 

Species Act (hereafter, the ‘‘2016 

Policy’’; 81 FR 7226, February 11, 2016), 

both of which were developed jointly 

with the National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS). We also refer to a 2008 

Department of the Interior Solicitor’s 

opinion entitled, ‘‘The Secretary’s 

Authority to Exclude Areas from a 

Critical Habitat Designation under 

Section 4(b)(2) of the Endangered 

Species Act’’ (M–37016). 

In considering whether to exclude a 

particular area from the designation, we 

identify the benefits of including the 

area in the designation, identify the 

benefits of excluding the area from the 

designation, and evaluate whether the 

benefits of exclusion outweigh the 

benefits of inclusion. If the analysis 

indicates that the benefits of exclusion 

outweigh the benefits of inclusion, the 

Secretary may exercise discretion to 

exclude the area only if such exclusion 

would not result in the extinction of the 

species. In making the determination to 

exclude a particular area, the statute on 

its face, as well as the legislative history, 

are clear that the Secretary has broad 

discretion regarding which factor(s) to 

use and how much weight to give to any 

factor. In our final rules, we explain any 

decision to exclude areas, as well as 

decisions not to exclude, to make clear 

the rational basis for our decision. We 

describe below the process that we use 

for taking into consideration each 

category of impacts and any initial 

analyses of the relevant impacts. 

Consideration of Economic Impacts 

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act and its 

implementing regulations require that 

we consider the economic impact that 

may result from a designation of critical 

habitat. To assess the probable 

economic impacts of a designation, we 

must first evaluate specific land uses or 

activities and projects that may occur in 

the area of the critical habitat. We then 

must evaluate the impacts that a specific 

critical habitat designation may have on 

restricting or modifying specific land 

uses or activities for the benefit of the 

species and its habitat within the areas 

proposed. We then identify which 

conservation efforts may be the result of 

the species being listed under the Act 

versus those attributed solely to the 

designation of critical habitat for this 

particular species. The probable 

economic impact of a proposed critical 

habitat designation is analyzed by 

comparing scenarios both ‘‘with critical 

habitat’’ and ‘‘without critical habitat.’’ 

The ‘‘without critical habitat’’ 

scenario represents the baseline for the 

analysis, which includes the existing 

regulatory and socio-economic burden 

imposed on landowners, managers, or 

other resource users potentially affected 

by the designation of critical habitat 

(e.g., under the Federal listing as well as 

other Federal, State, and local 

regulations). Therefore, the baseline 

represents the costs of all efforts 

attributable to the listing of the species 

under the Act (i.e., conservation of the 

species and its habitat incurred 

regardless of whether critical habitat is 

designated). The ‘‘with critical habitat’’ 

scenario describes the incremental 

impacts associated specifically with the 

designation of critical habitat for the 

species. The incremental conservation 

efforts and associated impacts would 

not be expected without the designation 

of critical habitat for the species. In 

other words, the incremental costs are 

those attributable solely to the 

designation of critical habitat, above and 

beyond the baseline costs. These are the 

costs we use when evaluating the 

benefits of inclusion and exclusion of 

particular areas from the final 

designation of critical habitat should we 

choose to conduct a discretionary 

section 4(b)(2) exclusion analysis. 

Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 

13563 direct Federal agencies to assess 

the costs and benefits of available 

regulatory alternatives in quantitative 

(to the extent feasible) and qualitative 

terms. Executive Order 14094 reaffirms 

the principles of E.O. 12866 and E.O. 

13563 and states that regulatory analysis 

should facilitate agency efforts to 

develop regulations that serve the 

public interest, advance statutory 

objectives, and are consistent with E.O. 

12866, E.O. 13563, and the Presidential 

Memorandum of January 20, 2021 

(Modernizing Regulatory Review). 

Consistent with the E.O. regulatory 

analysis requirements, our effects 

analysis under the Act may take into 

consideration impacts to both directly 

and indirectly affected entities, where 

practicable and reasonable. If sufficient 

data are available, we assess to the 

extent practicable the probable impacts 

to both directly and indirectly affected 

entities. Section 3(f) of E.O. 12866, as 

amended by E.O. 14094, identifies four 

criteria when a regulation is considered 

a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and 

requires additional analysis, review, and 

approval if met. The criterion relevant 

here is whether the designation of 

critical habitat may have an economic 

effect of $200 million or more in any 

given year (section 3(f)(1)). Therefore, 

our consideration of economic impacts 

uses a screening analysis to assess 

whether a designation of critical habitat 

for the Quitobaquito tryonia is likely to 

exceed the economically significant 

threshold. 

For this particular designation, we 

developed an incremental effects 

memorandum (IEM) considering the 

probable incremental economic impacts 

that may result from this proposed 

designation of critical habitat. The 

information contained in our IEM was 

then used to develop a screening 

analysis of the probable effects of the 

designation of critical habitat for the 

Quitobaquito tryonia (IEc 2023, entire). 

We began by conducting a screening 

analysis of the proposed designation of 

critical habitat in order to focus our 

analysis on the key factors that are 

likely to result in incremental economic 

impacts. The purpose of the screening 

analysis is to filter out particular 

geographical areas of critical habitat that 

are already subject to such protections 

and are, therefore, unlikely to incur 

incremental economic impacts. In 

particular, the screening analysis 

considers baseline costs (i.e., absent 

critical habitat designation) and 

includes any probable incremental 

economic impacts where land and water 

use may already be subject to 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
62742 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 176 / Wednesday, September 13, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

conservation plans, land management 

plans, best management practices, or 

regulations that protect the habitat area 

as a result of the Federal listing status 

of the species. Ultimately, the screening 

analysis allows us to focus our analysis 

on evaluating the specific areas or 

sectors that may incur probable 

incremental economic impacts as a 

result of the designation. 

The presence of the listed species in 

occupied areas of critical habitat means 

that any destruction or adverse 

modification of those areas is also likely 

to jeopardize the continued existence of 

the species. Therefore, designating 

occupied areas as critical habitat 

typically causes little if any incremental 

impacts above and beyond the impacts 

of listing the species. As a result, we 

generally focus the screening analysis 

on areas of unoccupied critical habitat 

(unoccupied units or unoccupied areas 

within occupied units). Overall, the 

screening analysis assesses whether 

designation of critical habitat is likely to 

result in any additional management or 

conservation efforts that may incur 

incremental economic impacts. This 

screening analysis combined with the 

information contained in our IEM 

constitute what we consider to be our 

draft economic analysis (DEA) of the 

proposed critical habitat designation for 

the Quitobaquito tryonia; our DEA is 

summarized in the narrative below. 

As part of our screening analysis, we 

considered the types of economic 

activities that are likely to occur within 

the areas likely affected by the critical 

habitat designation. In our evaluation of 

the probable incremental economic 

impacts that may result from the 

proposed designation of critical habitat 

for the Quitobaquito tryonia, first we 

identified, in the IEM dated March 8, 

2023, probable incremental economic 

impacts associated with the following 

categories of activities: (1) Federal lands 

management (NPS, Organ Pipe Cactus 

National Monument); (2) groundwater 

pumping; and (3) border security 

operations (U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection). We considered each 

industry or category individually. 

Additionally, we considered whether 

their activities have any Federal 

involvement. Critical habitat 

designation generally will not affect 

activities that do not have any Federal 

involvement; under the Act, designation 

of critical habitat only affects activities 

conducted, funded, permitted, or 

authorized by Federal agencies. If we 

list the species, in areas where the 

Quitobaquito tryonia is present, Federal 

agencies would be required to consult 

with the Service under section 7 of the 

Act on activities they authorize, fund, or 

carry out that may affect the species. If, 

when we list the species, we also 

finalize this proposed critical habitat 

designation, Federal agencies would be 

required to consider the effects of their 

actions on the designated habitat, and if 

the Federal action may affect critical 

habitat, our consultations would 

include an evaluation of measures to 

avoid the destruction or adverse 

modification of critical habitat. 

In our IEM, we attempted to clarify 

the distinction between the effects that 

would result from the species being 

listed and those attributable to the 

critical habitat designation (i.e., 

difference between the jeopardy and 

adverse modification standards) for the 

Quitobaquito tryonia’s critical habitat. 

Because the designation of critical 

habitat for the Quitobaquito tryonia is 

being proposed concurrently with the 

listing, it has been our experience that 

it is more difficult to discern which 

conservation efforts are attributable to 

the species being listed and those which 

would result solely from the designation 

of critical habitat. However, the 

following specific circumstances in this 

case help to inform our evaluation: (1) 

The essential physical or biological 

features identified for critical habitat are 

the same features essential for the life 

requisites of the species, and (2) any 

actions that would likely adversely 

affect the essential physical or biological 

features of occupied critical habitat are 

also likely to adversely affect the species 

itself. The IEM outlines our rationale 

concerning this limited distinction 

between baseline conservation efforts 

and incremental impacts of the 

designation of critical habitat for this 

species. This evaluation of the 

incremental effects has been used as the 

basis to evaluate the probable 

incremental economic impacts of this 

proposed designation of critical habitat. 

The proposed critical habitat 

designation for the Quitobaquito tryonia 

consists of a single unit with two 

subunits currently occupied by the 

species. We are not proposing to 

designate any units of unoccupied 

habitat. The proposed Quitobaquito 

Unit totals 6,095 square feet (566 square 

meters) and is entirely within federally 

owned land at Organ Pipe Cactus 

National Monument. In this area, any 

actions that may affect the species or its 

habitat would also affect designated 

critical habitat, and it is unlikely that 

there would be any additional 

recommendations or project 

modifications to avoid adversely 

modifying critical habitat above those 

we would recommend for avoiding 

jeopardy. Therefore, only administrative 

costs of conducting any section 7 

consultation are expected in all of the 

proposed critical habitat designation. 

While this additional analysis will 

require time and resources by both the 

Federal action agency and the Service, 

it is believed that, in most 

circumstances, these costs would 

predominantly be administrative in 

nature and would not be significant. 

We estimate that approximately one 

informal consultation may occur 

annually in proposed critical habitat 

areas. Annual incremental costs to the 

Service, Federal action agencies, and 

third parties associated with this 

consultation are anticipated to be 

approximately $2,600. The designation 

of critical habitat for the Quitobaquito 

tryonia, which is located on Federal 

lands, is not expected to trigger 

additional requirements under State or 

local regulations, nor is the designation 

expected to have perceptional effects on 

markets. Additional section 7 efforts to 

conserve the Quitobaquito tryonia are 

not predicted to result from the 

designation of critical habitat. As this 

economic screening analysis finds that 

the designation is not likely to result in 

additional or different project 

modifications, ancillary economic 

benefits are not anticipated. The abovementioned administrative costs are 

highly unlikely to exceed $200 million 

in a given year. 

We are soliciting data and comments 

from the public on the DEA discussed 

above. During the development of a 

final designation, we will consider the 

information presented in the DEA and 

any additional information on economic 

impacts we receive during the public 

comment period to determine whether 

any specific areas should be excluded 

from the final critical habitat 

designation under authority of section 

4(b)(2) of the Act, our implementing 

regulations at 50 CFR 424.19, and the 

2016 Policy. We may exclude an area 

from critical habitat if we determine that 

the benefits of excluding the area 

outweigh the benefits of including the 

area, provided the exclusion will not 

result in the extinction of this species. 

Consideration of National Security 

Impacts 

Section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act may 

not cover all DoD lands or areas that 

pose potential national-security 

concerns (e.g., a DoD installation that is 

in the process of revising its INRMP for 

a newly listed species or a species 

previously not covered). If a particular 

area is not covered under section 

4(a)(3)(B)(i), then national-security or 

homeland-security concerns are not a 

factor in the process of determining 

what areas meet the definition of 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 176 / Wednesday, September 13, 2023 / Proposed Rules 62743 

‘‘critical habitat.’’ However, the Service 

must still consider impacts on national 

security, including homeland security, 

on those lands or areas not covered by 

section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) because section 

4(b)(2) requires the Service to consider 

those impacts whenever it designates 

critical habitat. Accordingly, if DoD, 

Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS), or another Federal agency has 

requested exclusion based on an 

assertion of national-security or 

homeland-security concerns, or we have 

otherwise identified national-security or 

homeland-security impacts from 

designating particular areas as critical 

habitat, we generally have reason to 

consider excluding those areas. 

However, we cannot automatically 

exclude requested areas. When DoD, 

DHS, or another Federal agency requests 

exclusion from critical habitat on the 

basis of national-security or homelandsecurity impacts, we must conduct an 

exclusion analysis if the Federal 

requester provides information, 

including a reasonably specific 

justification of an incremental impact 

on national security that would result 

from the designation of that specific 

area as critical habitat. That justification 

could include demonstration of 

probable impacts, such as impacts to 

ongoing border-security patrols and 

surveillance activities, or a delay in 

training or facility construction, as a 

result of compliance with section 7(a)(2) 

of the Act. If the agency requesting the 

exclusion does not provide us with a 

reasonably specific justification, we will 

contact the agency to recommend that it 

provide a specific justification or 

clarification of its concerns relative to 

the probable incremental impact that 

could result from the designation. If we 

conduct an exclusion analysis because 

the agency provides a reasonably 

specific justification or because we 

decide to exercise the discretion to 

conduct an exclusion analysis, we will 

defer to the expert judgment of DoD, 

DHS, or another Federal agency as to: 

(1) Whether activities on its lands or 

waters, or its activities on other lands or 

waters, have national-security or 

homeland-security implications; (2) the 

importance of those implications; and 

(3) the degree to which the cited 

implications would be adversely 

affected in the absence of an exclusion. 

In that circumstance, in conducting a 

discretionary section 4(b)(2) exclusion 

analysis, we will give great weight to 

national-security and homeland-security 

concerns in analyzing the benefits of 

exclusion. 

In preparing this proposal, we have 

determined that the lands within the 

proposed designation of critical habitat 

for Quitobaquito tryonia are not owned 

or managed by the DoD or DHS, and, 

therefore, we anticipate no impact on 

national security or homeland security. 

Consideration of 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 discussed 

above. To identify other relevant 

impacts that may affect the exclusion 

analysis, we consider a number of 

factors, including whether there are 

permitted conservation plans covering 

the species in the area—such as HCPs, 

safe harbor agreements, or candidate 

conservation agreements with 

assurances—or whether there are nonpermitted conservation agreements and 

partnerships that may be impaired by 

designation of, or exclusion from, 

critical habitat. In addition, we look at 

whether Tribal conservation plans or 

partnerships, Tribal resources, or 

government-to-government 

relationships of the United States with 

Tribal entities may be affected by the 

designation. We also consider any State, 

local, social, or other impacts that might 

occur because of the designation. 

Summary of Exclusions Considered 

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

In preparing this proposal, we have 

determined that no HCPs or other 

management plans for the Quitobaquito 

tryonia currently exist, and the 

proposed designation does not include 

any Tribal lands or trust resources or 

any lands for which designation would 

have any economic or national security 

impacts. Therefore, we anticipate no 

impact on Tribal lands, partnerships, or 

HCPs from this proposed critical habitat 

designation; thus, as described above, 

we are not considering excluding any 

particular areas from the designation on 

the basis of the presence of conservation 

agreements or impacts to trust 

resources. 

However, if through the public 

comment period we receive information 

that we determine indicates that there 

are potential economic, national 

security, or other relevant impacts from 

designating particular areas as critical 

habitat, then as part of developing the 

final designation of critical habitat, we 

will evaluate that information and may 

conduct a discretionary exclusion 

analysis to determine whether to 

exclude those areas under the authority 

of section 4(b)(2) of the Act and our 

implementing regulations at 50 CFR 

424.19. If we receive a request for 

exclusion of a particular area and after 

evaluation of supporting information we 

do not exclude, we will fully describe 

our decision in the final rule for this 

action. 

Required Determinations 

Clarity of the Rule 

We are required by E.O.s 12866 and 

12988 and by the Presidential 

Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write 

all rules in plain language. This means 

that each rule we publish must: 

(1) Be logically organized; 

(2) Use the active voice to address 

readers directly; 

(3) Use clear language rather than 

jargon; 

(4) Be divided into short sections and 

sentences; and 

(5) Use lists and tables wherever 

possible. 

If you feel that we have not met these 

requirements, send us comments by one 

of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To 

better help us revise the rule, your 

comments should be as specific as 

possible. For example, you should tell 

us the numbers of the sections or 

paragraphs that are unclearly written, 

which sections or sentences are too 

long, the sections where you feel lists or 

tables would be useful, etc. 

Regulatory Planning and Review 

(Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 

14094) 

Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, as 

reaffirmed by E.O. 13563 and E.O. 

14094, provides that the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs 

(OIRA) in the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) will review all significant 

rules. OIRA has determined that this 

rule is not significant. 

Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the 

principles of E.O. 12866 while calling 

for improvements in the Nation’s 

regulatory system to promote 

predictability, to reduce uncertainty, 

and to use the best, most innovative, 

and least burdensome tools for 

achieving regulatory ends. The 

Executive order directs agencies to 

consider regulatory approaches that 

reduce burdens and maintain flexibility 

and freedom of choice for the public 

where these approaches are relevant, 

feasible, and consistent with regulatory 

objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes 

further that regulations must be based 

on the best available science and that 

the rulemaking process must allow for 

public participation and an open 

exchange of ideas. 

Executive Order 14094 reaffirms the 

principles of E.O. 12866 and E.O. 13563 

and states that regulatory analysis 

should facilitate agency efforts to 

develop regulations that serve the 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
62744 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 176 / Wednesday, September 13, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

public interest, advance statutory 

objectives, and are consistent with E.O. 

12866, E.O. 13563, and the Presidential 

Memorandum of January 20, 2021 

(Modernizing Regulatory Review). 

Regulatory analysis, as practicable and 

appropriate, shall recognize distributive 

impacts and equity, to the extent 

permitted by law. 

We have developed this proposed rule 

in a manner consistent with these 

requirements. 

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

et seq.) 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

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

by the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 

(SBREFA; 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), 

whenever an agency is required to 

publish a notice of rulemaking for any 

proposed or final rule, it must prepare 

and make available for public comment 

a regulatory flexibility analysis that 

describes the effects of the rule on small 

entities (i.e., small businesses, small 

organizations, and small government 

jurisdictions). However, no regulatory 

flexibility analysis is required if the 

head of the agency certifies the rule will 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. The SBREFA amended the RFA 

to require Federal agencies to provide a 

certification statement of the factual 

basis for certifying that the rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

According to the Small Business 

Administration, small entities include 

small organizations such as 

independent nonprofit organizations; 

small governmental jurisdictions, 

including school boards and city and 

town governments that serve fewer than 

50,000 residents; and small businesses 

(13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses 

include manufacturing and mining 

concerns with fewer than 500 

employees, wholesale trade entities 

with fewer than 100 employees, retail 

and service businesses with less than $5 

million in annual sales, general and 

heavy construction businesses with less 

than $27.5 million in annual business, 

special trade contractors doing less than 

$11.5 million in annual business, and 

agricultural businesses with annual 

sales less than $750,000. To determine 

whether potential economic impacts to 

these small entities are significant, we 

considered the types of activities that 

might trigger regulatory impacts under 

this designation as well as types of 

project modifications that may result. In 

general, the term ‘‘significant economic 

impact’’ is meant to apply to a typical 

small business firm’s business 

operations. 

Under the RFA, as amended, and as 

understood in light of recent court 

decisions, Federal agencies are required 

to evaluate the potential incremental 

impacts of rulemaking on those entities 

directly regulated by the rulemaking 

itself; in other words, the RFA does not 

require agencies to evaluate the 

potential impacts to indirectly regulated 

entities. The regulatory mechanism 

through which critical habitat 

protections are realized is section 7 of 

the Act, which requires Federal 

agencies, in consultation with the 

Service, to ensure that any action 

authorized, funded, or carried out by the 

agency is not likely to destroy or 

adversely modify critical habitat. 

Therefore, under section 7, only Federal 

action agencies are directly subject to 

the specific regulatory requirement 

(avoiding destruction and adverse 

modification) imposed by critical 

habitat designation. Consequently, it is 

our position that only Federal action 

agencies would be directly regulated if 

we adopt the proposed critical habitat 

designation. The RFA does not require 

evaluation of the potential impacts to 

entities not directly regulated. 

Moreover, Federal agencies are not 

small entities. Therefore, because no 

small entities would be directly 

regulated by this rulemaking, the 

Service certifies that, if made final as 

proposed, the proposed critical habitat 

designation will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

In summary, we have considered 

whether the proposed designation 

would result in a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. For the above reasons and 

based on currently available 

information, we certify that, if made 

final, the proposed critical habitat 

designation would not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small business entities. 

Therefore, an initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis is not required. 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use— 

Executive Order 13211 

Executive Order 13211 (Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use) requires agencies 

to prepare statements of energy effects 

when undertaking certain actions. In 

our economic analysis, we did not find 

that this proposed critical habitat 

designation would significantly affect 

energy supplies, distribution, or use. 

Therefore, this action is not a significant 

energy action, and no statement of 

energy effects is required. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 

U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) 

In accordance with the Unfunded 

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

seq.), we make the following finding: 

(1) This proposed rule would not 

produce a Federal mandate. In general, 

a Federal mandate is a provision in 

legislation, statute, or regulation that 

would impose an enforceable duty upon 

State, local, or Tribal governments, or 

the private sector, and includes both 

‘‘Federal intergovernmental mandates’’ 

and ‘‘Federal private sector mandates.’’ 

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

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

mandate’’ includes a regulation that 

‘‘would impose an enforceable duty 

upon State, local, or Tribal 

governments’’ with two exceptions. It 

excludes ‘‘a condition of Federal 

assistance.’’ It also excludes ‘‘a duty 

arising from participation in a voluntary 

Federal program,’’ unless the regulation 

‘‘relates to a then-existing Federal 

program under which $500,000,000 or 

more is provided annually to State, 

local, and Tribal governments under 

entitlement authority,’’ if the provision 

would ‘‘increase the stringency of 

conditions of assistance’’ or ‘‘place caps 

upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal 

Government’s responsibility to provide 

funding,’’ and the State, local, or Tribal 

governments ‘‘lack authority’’ to adjust 

accordingly. At the time of enactment, 

these entitlement programs were: 

Medicaid; Aid to Families with 

Dependent Children work programs; 

Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social 

Services Block Grants; Vocational 

Rehabilitation State Grants; Foster Care, 

Adoption Assistance, and Independent 

Living; Family Support Welfare 

Services; and Child Support 

Enforcement. ‘‘Federal private sector 

mandate’’ includes a regulation that 

‘‘would impose an enforceable duty 

upon the private sector, except (i) a 

condition of Federal assistance or (ii) a 

duty arising from participation in a 

voluntary Federal program.’’ 

The designation of critical habitat 

does not impose a legally binding duty 

on non-Federal Government entities or 

private parties. Under the Act, the only 

regulatory effect is that Federal agencies 

must ensure that their actions are not 

likely to destroy or adversely modify 

critical habitat under section 7. While 

non-Federal entities that receive Federal 

funding, assistance, or permits, or that 

otherwise require approval or 

authorization from a Federal agency for 

an action, may be indirectly impacted 

by the designation of critical habitat, the 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 176 / Wednesday, September 13, 2023 / Proposed Rules 62745 

legally binding duty to avoid 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat rests squarely on the 

Federal agency. Furthermore, to the 

extent that non-Federal entities are 

indirectly impacted because they 

receive Federal assistance or participate 

in a voluntary Federal aid program, the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would 

not apply, nor would critical habitat 

shift the costs of the large entitlement 

programs listed above onto State 

governments. 

(2) We do not believe that this rule 

would significantly or uniquely affect 

small governments because it will not 

produce a Federal mandate of $200 

million or greater in any year, that is, it 

is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ 

under the Unfunded Mandates Reform 

Act. The designation of critical habitat 

imposes no obligations on State or local 

governments. Therefore, a small 

government agency plan is not required. 

Takings—Executive Order 12630 

In accordance with E.O. 12630 

(Government Actions and Interference 

with Constitutionally Protected Private 

Property Rights), we have analyzed the 

potential takings implications of 

designating critical habitat for the 

Quitobaquito tryonia in a takings 

implications assessment. The Act does 

not authorize the Service to regulate 

private actions on private lands or 

confiscate private property as a result of 

critical habitat designation. Designation 

of critical habitat does not affect land 

ownership, or establish any closures, or 

restrictions on use of or access to the 

designated areas. Furthermore, the 

designation of critical habitat does not 

affect landowner actions that do not 

require Federal funding or permits, nor 

does it preclude development of habitat 

conservation programs or issuance of 

incidental take permits to permit actions 

that do require Federal funding or 

permits to go forward. However, Federal 

agencies are prohibited from carrying 

out, funding, or authorizing actions that 

would destroy or adversely modify 

critical habitat. A takings implications 

assessment has been completed for the 

proposed designation of critical habitat 

for the Quitobaquito tryonia, and it 

concludes that, if adopted, this 

designation of critical habitat does not 

pose significant takings implications for 

lands within or affected by the 

designation. 

Federalism—Executive Order 13132 

In accordance with E.O. 13132 

(Federalism), this proposed rule does 

not have significant Federalism effects. 

A federalism summary impact statement 

is not required. In keeping with 

Department of the Interior and 

Department of Commerce policy, we 

requested information from, and 

coordinated development of this 

proposed critical habitat designation 

with, appropriate State resource 

agencies. From a federalism perspective, 

the designation of critical habitat 

directly affects only the responsibilities 

of Federal agencies. The Act imposes no 

other duties with respect to critical 

habitat, either for States and local 

governments, or for anyone else. As a 

result, the proposed rule does not have 

substantial direct effects either on the 

States, or on the relationship between 

the Federal government and the States, 

or on the distribution of powers and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. The proposed 

designation may have some benefit to 

these governments because the areas 

that contain the features essential to the 

conservation of the species are more 

clearly defined, and the physical or 

biological features of the habitat 

necessary for 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 State and 

local governments in long-range 

planning because they no longer have to 

wait for case-by-case section 7 

consultations to occur. 

Where State and local governments 

require approval or authorization from a 

Federal agency for actions that may 

affect critical habitat, consultation 

under section 7(a)(2) of the Act would 

be required. While non-Federal entities 

that receive Federal funding, assistance, 

or permits, or that otherwise require 

approval or authorization from a Federal 

agency for an action, may be indirectly 

impacted by the designation of critical 

habitat, the legally binding duty to 

avoid destruction or adverse 

modification of critical habitat rests 

squarely on the Federal agency. 

Civil Justice Reform—Executive Order 

12988 

In accordance with E.O. 12988 (Civil 

Justice Reform), the Office of the 

Solicitor has determined that the rule 

would 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. To assist the public in 

understanding the habitat needs of the 

species, this proposed rule identifies the 

physical or biological features essential 

to the conservation of the species. The 

proposed areas of critical habitat is 

presented on a map, and the proposed 

rule provides several options for the 

interested public to obtain more 

detailed location information, if desired. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) 

This rule does not contain 

information collection requirements, 

and a submission to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) under 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) is not required. 

We may not conduct or sponsor and you 

are not required to respond to a 

collection of information unless it 

displays a currently valid OMB control 

number. 

National Environmental Policy Act (42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) 

Regulations adopted pursuant to 

section 4(a) of the Act are exempt from 

the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and do 

not require an environmental analysis 

under NEPA. We published a notice 

outlining our reasons for this 

determination in the Federal Register 

on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). This 

includes listing, delisting, and 

reclassification rules, as well as critical 

habitat designations. In a line of cases 

starting with Douglas County v. Babbitt, 

48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995), the courts 

have upheld this position. 

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 

(Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments), and the 

Department of the Interior’s manual at 

512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our 

responsibility to communicate 

meaningfully with federally recognized 

Tribes on a government-to-government 

basis. In accordance with Secretaries’ 

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 no Tribal lands fall within the 

boundaries of the proposed critical 

habitat for the Quitobaquito tryonia, so 

no Tribal lands would be affected by the 

proposed designation. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
62746 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 176 / Wednesday, September 13, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

References Cited 

A complete list of references cited in 

this rulemaking is available on the 

internet at https://www.regulations.gov 

and upon request from the Arizona 

Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Authors 

The primary authors of this proposed 

rule are the staff members of the Fish 

and Wildlife Service’s Species 

Assessment Team and the Arizona 

Ecological Services Field Office. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Plants, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation, Wildlife. 

Proposed Regulation Promulgation 

Accordingly, we propose to amend 

part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 

50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 

as set forth below: 

PART 17—ENDANGERED AND 

THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 17 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 1531– 

1544; and 4201–4245, unless otherwise 

noted. 

■ 2. In § 17.11, in paragraph (h), amend 

the List of Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife by adding an entry for 

‘‘Tryonia, Quitobaquito’’ in alphabetical 

order under SNAILS to read as follows: 

§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened 

wildlife. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

Common name Scientific name Where listed Status Listing citations and applicable rules 

*******

SNAILS

* * * * * * * 

Tryonia, Quitobaquito ............ Tryonia quitobaquitae ........... Wherever found .................... E [Federal Register citation when published as a final rule]; 

50 CFR 17.95(f).CH

* * * * * * * 

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

adding an entry for ‘‘Quitobaquito 

Tryonia (Tryonia quitobaquitae)’’ 

following the entry for ‘‘Diamond 

tryonia (Pseudotryonia adamantina) 

and Gonzales tryonia (Tryonia 

circumstriata)’’ to read as follows: 

§ 17.95 Critical habitat—fish and wildlife. 

* * * * * 

(f) Clams and Snails. 

* * * * * 

Quitobaquito Tryonia (Tryonia 

quitobaquitae) 

(1) The critical habitat unit and its 

subunits are depicted for Pima County, 

Arizona, on the map in this entry. 

(2) Within these areas, the physical or 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of the Quitobaquito tryonia 

consist of the following components: 

(i) Perennially free-flowing spring 

water with sufficient flow rate; 

(ii) Sufficient amount of periphyton to 

support all life stages of the 

Quitobaquito tryonia; 

(iii) Presence of hard or coarse 

substrates (including cobble and gravel) 

or a combination of coarse and fine 

substrates (including sand and/or silt); 

(iv) Aquatic emergent and submergent 

vegetation, including native 

macrophytes such as sedges 

(Schoenoplectus spp.) and rushes 

(Juncus spp.), occurring at densities that 

do not impede spring flow; 

(v) Water quality parameters that 

support all life stages of the 

Quitobaquito tryonia, including: 

(A) Adequate levels of temperature, 

pH, and conductivity; and 

(B) Absence of contaminants, or a 

level of contaminants low enough that 

it does not negatively impact necessary 

water quality conditions for 

Quitobaquito tryonia individuals; and 

(vi) Absence of nonnative species, or 

a level of nonnative species low enough 

that it does not impede resource 

availability for or result in mortality of 

Quitobaquito tryonia individuals. 

(3) Critical habitat includes the 

human-made concrete spring run that 

provides habitat for the Quitobaquito 

tryonia; critical habitat does not include 

other human-made structures (such as 

buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, 

and other paved areas) and the land on 

which they are located existing within 

the legal boundaries on the effective 

date of the final rule. 

(4) Data layers defining map units 

were created using ESRI ArcGIS 

mapping software along with various 

spatial layers. We used ground-truthed 

data provided by Organ Pipe Cactus 

National Monument staff that depicts all 

aquatic habitat used by the Quitobaquito 

tryonia, including southwest 

Quitobaquito Spring, a human-made 

trench that connects Quitobaquito 

Springs to a human-made channel, and 

a human-made channel that connects 

the southwest trench to the pond. 

ArcGIS was also used to calculate area 

in square feet and square meters, and 

was used to determine longitude and 

latitude coordinates in decimal degrees. 

The coordinate system used in mapping 

and calculating area and locations 

within the unit was Universal 

Transverse Mercator (UTM) conformal 

projection with 1983 North American 

Datum in Zone 12. The map in this 

entry, as modified by any accompanying 

regulatory text, establishes the 

boundaries of the critical habitat 

designation. The coordinates or plot 

points or both on which the map is 

based are available to the public at the 

Service’s internet site at https://

www.fws.gov/office/arizona-ecologicalservices, at https://www.regulations.gov 

at Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2023–0073, 

and at the field office responsible for 

this designation. You may obtain field 

office location information by 

contacting one of the Service regional 

offices, the addresses of which are listed 

at 50 CFR 2.2. 

(5) Quitobaquito Unit, Pima County, 

Arizona. 

(i) Quitobaquito Unit consists of two 

subunits: 

(A) Subunit A consists of 4,455 square 

feet (ft2) (414 square meters (m2)) of the 

spring channel. This subunit is entirely 

on federally owned land in Organ Pipe 

Cactus National Monument. 

(B) Subunit B consists of 1,640 ft2

(152 m2) of a seep located 

approximately 338 ft (103 m) from the 

spring channel. This subunit is entirely 

on federally owned land in Organ Pipe 

Cactus National Monument. 

(ii) Map of Quitobaquito Unit follows: 

Figure 1 to Quitobaquito Tryonia 

(Tryonia quitobaquitae) paragraph (5) 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 176 / Wednesday, September 13, 2023 / Proposed Rules 62747 

* * * * * 

Stephen Guertin, 

Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2023–18547 Filed 9–12–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–C 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1EP13SE23.002</GPH>