23060 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2009–0083; 

4500030114] 

RIN 1018–AV84 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Determination of 

Endangered Status for Three Forks 

Springsnail and Threatened Status for 

San Bernardino Springsnail 

Throughout Their Ranges and 

Designation of Critical Habitat for Both 

Species 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), determine 

endangered status for the Three Forks 

springsnail (Pyrgulopsis trivialis) and 

threatened status for the San Bernardino 

springsnail (Pyrgulopsis bernardina); 

and designate critical habitat for both 

species under the Endangered Species 

Act of 1973, as amended (Act). In total, 

approximately 17.2 acres (6.9 hectares) 

are designated as critical habitat for 

Three Forks springsnail in Apache 

County, Arizona, and approximately 2.0 

acres (0.8 hectares) for San Bernardino 

springsnail in Cochise County, Arizona. 

This final rule implements the Federal 

protections provided by the Act for 

these species. 

DATES: This rule becomes effective on 

May 17, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: This final rule and 

associated final economic analysis are 

available on the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov or http:// 

www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/. 

Comments and materials received, as 

well as supporting documentation used 

in preparing this final rule, are available 

for public inspection, by appointment, 

during normal business hours at: U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona 

Ecological Services Field Office, 2321 

West Royal Palm Road, Suite 103, 

Phoenix, AZ 85021; telephone 602–242– 

0210; facsimile 602–242–2513. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Steve Spangle, Field Supervisor, 

Arizona Ecological Services Field Office 

(see ADDRESSES section). If you use a 

telecommunications device for the deaf 

(TDD), call the Federal Information 

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary 

Purpose of the Regulatory Action 

Under the Endangered Species Act, a 

species may warrant protection through 

listing if it is endangered or threatened 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range. The Endangered Species Act 

sets forth procedures for adding species 

to, removing species from, or 

reclassifying species on the Federal 

Lists of Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife and Plants. 

Under the Act, a species may be 

determined to be endangered or 

threatened based on any of the 

following five factors: (1) Destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of its 

habitat or range; (2) Overuse; (3) Disease 

or predation; (4) Inadequate existing 

regulations; or (5) Other natural or 

manmade factors. Based on our analysis 

under the five factors, we find that there 

are threats of sufficient imminence, 

intensity, or magnitude to cause a 

substantial decrease in distribution, or 

loss of viability of both the Three Forks 

springsnail and San Bernardino 

springsnail. Therefore, these species 

qualify for listing, which can only be 

done by issuing a rule. 

We have made the following findings 

for the Three Forks springsnail related 

to these criteria: 

• Historically, the Three Forks 

springsnail is known to have occurred 

in numerous springs and seeps in 

Apache County, Arizona. In recent 

years, the species’ range has been 

reduced to the point that it has only 

been found at two spring complexes. 

• Because the species is so limited in 

range, the magnitude of threats that are 

occurring now are high, and those that 

may impact the species in the 

foreseeable future are high as well. 

• A recent high-intensity fire that 

burned around the only remaining 

populations of the Three Forks 

springsnail has caused the habitat of the 

species to be currently threatened with 

destruction, modification, and 

curtailment due to soil erosion and 

sedimentation during storm events. 

• Also, we have found that predation 

by nonnative crayfish is currently 

threatening the Three Forks springsnail 

across its entire range. 

• In addition to the current threats, 

the Three Forks springsnail is also at a 

high risk of extinction due to threats 

that could affect the species in the 

foreseeable future, such as the use of fire 

retardant chemicals during future 

wildfires, the potential spread and 

competition with New Zealand 

springsnails, and the potential for 

climate change and drought to dry its 

springhead habitat. 

• Due to its endemic nature, the 

Three Forks springsnail may be more 

vulnerable to extinction from both 

present and future threats. 

We have made the following findings 

for the Three Forks springsnail related 

to the five factor criteria: 

• The historical range of the San 

Bernardino springsnail in the United 

States may have included several 

springs in Cochise County, Arizona. The 

current range of the species in the 

United States is now believed to be 

limited to two springs. 

• The San Bernardino springsnail was 

recently discovered to occur at five sites 

in Sonora, Mexico, in at least nine 

springs. 

• San Bernardino springsnail is not 

presently in danger of extinction 

throughout its entire range, based on the 

immediacy, severity, and extent of the 

threats. 

• However, we have determined that, 

while significant threats are not 

operative now, they are likely to cause 

the species to become in danger of 

extinction in the foreseeable future. 

• The species’ habitat is likely to be 

threatened in the foreseeable future with 

destruction, modification, and 

curtailment in part of its range due to 

the potential use of fire retardant 

chemicals in the United States, and 

throughout its entire range in both the 

United States and Mexico due to 

potential springhead inundation, and 

water depletion and diversion. 

• Also, we found that the San 

Bernardino springsnail is likely to 

become in danger of extinction in the 

foreseeable future throughout its entire 

range due to the potential invasion and 

predation by nonnative crayfish, 

invasion and competition with New 

Zealand springsnails, and climate 

change and drought drying its 

springhead habitat. 

• Due to the species’ endemic nature, 

the San Bernardino springsnail may be 

more vulnerable to extinction in the 

foreseeable future from these potential 

threats throughout its entire range. 

Summary of the Major Provisions of the 

Regulatory Action 

This document consists of: (1) A final 

rule to list the Three Forks springsnail 

as endangered; (2) a final rule to list the 

San Bernardino springsnail as 

threatened; and (3) final critical habitat 

designation for both species. 

On April 12, 2011, we proposed 

listing these species as endangered with 

critical habitat. On November 17, 2011, 

we proposed revision of the previously 

proposed critical habitat for the Three 

Forks springsnail, based on new 

information indicating the species was 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 23061 

more widely distributed. We also 

announced the receipt of new 

information confirming that populations 

of springsnails in Sonora, Mexico, are 

San Bernardino springsnail. Since the 

publication of the proposed rule, we 

have made the following changes in the 

final rule: 

• We previously proposed to list the 

San Bernardino springsnail as 

endangered, but upon review of 

additional information regarding the 

status of, and threats to, the springsnail 

in Mexico, we have determined the 

species meets the definition of 

threatened instead of endangered. We 

believe the species is likely to become 

an endangered species within the 

foreseeable future rather than being in 

danger of extinction now. 

• For the San Bernardino springsnail, 

we expanded the Summary of Factors 

Affecting the Species to include a 

discussion factors throughout the 

species’ entire range, including the 

United States and Mexico. 

We obtained opinions from 

knowledgeable individuals with 

scientific expertise to review our 

technical assumptions, analysis, 

adherence to regulations, and whether 

or not we had used the best available 

information. These peer reviewers 

generally concurred with our methods 

and conclusions and provided 

additional information, clarifications, 

and suggestions to improve the final 

listing and critical habitat rule. As a 

result, we determine endangered status 

for the Three Forks springsnail and 

threatened status for the San Bernardino 

springsnail. We also designate critical 

habitat for both species. In total, 

approximately 17.2 acres (6.9 hectares) 

are designated as critical habitat for 

Three Forks springnail in Apache 

County, Arizona, and approximately 2.0 

acres (0.8 hectares) for San Bernardino 

springsnail in Cochise County, Arizona. 

Previous Federal Actions 

We first identified the Three Forks 

springsnail as a candidate for listing on 

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

identified the San Bernardino 

springsnail as a candidate for listing on 

December 6, 2007 (72 FR 69034). 

Candidates are those fish, wildlife, and 

plants for which we have on file 

sufficient information on biological 

vulnerability and threats to support 

preparation of a listing proposal, but for 

which development of a listing 

regulation is precluded by other higher 

priority listing activities. 

On May 4, 2004, the Center for 

Biological Diversity petitioned the 

Service to list 225 species of plants and 

animals as endangered under the 

provisions of the Endangered Species 

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

seq.), including the Three Forks 

springsnail. On June 25, 2007, we 

received a petition from Forest 

Guardians to list 475 species in the 

southwestern United States as 

threatened or endangered under the 

provisions of the Act, including the San 

Bernardino springsnail. In our most 

recent annual Candidate Notice of 

Review dated November 10, 2010 (75 FR 

69222), we retained a listing priority 

number (LPN) of 2 for the Three Forks 

springsnail and the San Bernardino 

springsnail in accordance with our 

priority guidance published on 

September 21, 1983 (48 FR 43098). An 

LPN of 2 reflects threats that are both 

imminent and high in magnitude, as 

well as the taxonomic classification as 

a full species. 

On April 12, 2011, we proposed 

listing the Three Forks springsnail and 

San Bernardino springsnail as 

endangered with critical habitat (76 FR 

20464) under the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 

seq.). Proposed critical habitat for the 

Three Forks springsnail included spring 

ecosystems within Apache County, 

Arizona, and for the San Bernardino 

springsnail spring ecosystems within 

Cochise County, Arizona. 

On November 17, 2011, we reopened 

the comment period on the proposed 

rule, and announced the availability of 

a draft economic analysis (76 FR 71300). 

At that time, we proposed revision of 

the previously proposed critical habitat 

for the Three Forks springsnail, based 

on new information indicating that the 

species was more widely distributed 

along Boneyard Creek. We also 

announced the receipt of new 

information confirming that populations 

of springsnails in Sonora, Mexico, are 

San Bernardino springsnails. 

Summary of Comments and 

Recommendations 

We requested written comments from 

the public on the proposed listing and 

designation of critical habitat for the 

Three Forks springsnail and San 

Bernardino springsnail during two 

comment periods from April 12 to June 

13, 2011, and November 17 to December 

19, 2011. We did not receive any 

requests for a public hearing, and thus, 

none was held. We also contacted 

associated Federal, State, and local 

agencies, scientific organizations, and 

other interested parties and invited 

them to comment on the proposed rule 

and draft economic analysis during the 

two comment periods. 

During the 2 comment periods, we 

received 11 letters addressing the 

proposed listing and critical habitat 

designation. We did not receive any 

comments on the draft economic 

analysis associated with this 

rulemaking. However, all other 

substantive information provided 

during the comment periods has either 

been incorporated directly into this final 

determination as appropriate or 

addressed below. 

Peer Review 

In accordance with our peer review 

policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 

34270), we solicited expert opinions 

from five knowledgeable individuals 

with scientific expertise that included 

familiarity with the species, the 

geographic region in which the species 

occur, and conservation biology 

principles. We received responses from 

three of the peer reviewers. 

We reviewed all comments received 

from peer reviewers for substantive 

issues and new information regarding 

critical habitat for the two springsnails. 

The peer reviewers generally concurred 

with our methods and conclusions, and 

provided additional information, 

clarifications, and suggestions to 

improve the final critical habitat rule. 

Peer reviewer comments are addressed 

in the following summary and 

incorporated into the final rule as 

appropriate. 

Peer Reviewer Comments 

Comment (1): Peer reviewers made a 

number of technical scientific 

suggestions regarding our discussions 

and presentations of biological 

terminology, springsnail ecology, 

species’ descriptions, habitat 

associations, and species distribution. 

Our response: We have revised the 

language accordingly in this final rule. 

Comment (2): One peer reviewer 

stated that livestock grazing is a threat 

to Three Forks springsnail and their 

habitats, because the current fence 

around Boneyard Bog is inadequate as 

evidenced by the recent presence of 25 

to 35 cattle grazing near spring-seeps on 

numerous occasions. 

Our response: Based on 

communication with staff from the 

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests and 

Arizona Game and Fish Department 

(AGFD), the current fence around 

Boneyard Bog is adequate, and they 

have not observed livestock within the 

fenced exclosure. Also, since 2001, the 

AGFD has been conducting annual 

springsnail surveys (Nelson et al. 2002, 

entire) and since 1997 the ApacheSigreaves National Forests have been 

implementing special management to 

minimize potential livestock trespass 

(USFS 2011b, p. 184). For further 

information, see Ungulate discussion 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
23062 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

under Factor A analysis for this species, 

below. 

Comment (3): One peer reviewer 

stated that it is clear the abundance and 

distribution of both species has declined 

since studies were first conducted, and 

the proposed rule supports listing of 

both species. 

Our response: The Three Forks 

springsnail and San Bernardino 

springsnail have declined in abundance 

and distribution, and the available 

information continues to support listing. 

Comment (4): One peer reviewer 

suggested that the amount of occupied 

habitat (particularly spring surface area) 

is a superior metric over abundance of 

individual snails for assessing status of 

springsnails. 

Our response: When we assess the 

status of a species, we take into 

consideration the factors that may 

impact the species’ continued existence, 

as well as the species’ life history 

processes. In regards to a springsnail’s 

abundance, we agree that limits on 

springsnail productivity appear to be 

more closely related to the availability 

of suitable habitat rather than number of 

individuals, because springsnails 

exhibit high fecundity. The availability 

of suitable habitat is one of the 

components we take into consideration 

when assessing the status of the 

springsnails. 

Comment (5): One peer reviewer 

noted that numerous scattered springs 

along Boneyard Creek, downstream of 

Boneyard Bog Springs and upstream of 

Three Forks Springs, are inhabited by 

springsnails that are likely Three Forks 

springsnails and should be included as 

critical habitat. 

Our response: We agree, and based on 

this new information indicating that the 

species was more widely distributed 

along Boneyard Creek, in November 17, 

2011 (76 FR 71300), we proposed to 

revise the previously proposed critical 

habitat for the Three Forks springsnail 

by increasing the size of the Boneyard 

Bog Springs Unit, and by adding an 

additional unit, the Boneyard Creek 

Springs Unit. 

Comment (6): One peer reviewer 

noted that recent genetic work shows 

that San Bernardino springsnails inhabit 

springs in Sonora, Mexico, on the 

Rancho San Bernardino, and the 

proposed rule does not contain a threats 

assessment for that portion of its range. 

Our response: The genetic 

information was not available in early 

2011 when the proposed rule was 

published in the Federal Register. We 

have reviewed this new information and 

conducted a threats assessment for San 

Bernardino springsnail across its entire 

range as part of this final rule. 

Comment (7): One peer reviewer 

suggested that the discussion under 

Wildfire Suppression warrants 

reevaluation to avoid overstating the 

effects of aerial retardant on populations 

of Three Forks springsnail at Three 

Forks Springs. 

Our response: The available evidence 

regarding the effects of fire retardant on 

Three Forks springsnail does not 

constitute definitive proof that exposure 

to drift resulted in the extirpation of the 

species from Three Forks Springs. 

However, we are required to utilize the 

best scientific and commercial 

information available, and conclude the 

information we have cited meets the 

criteria. It is unlikely that retardant 

residue traveled upstream within 

spring-runs, and if springsnails were 

exposed to retardant it would have been 

drift from high-elevation drops. Fire 

retardant chemicals are known to be 

toxic to aquatic life, including those fire 

retardants used in the Three Forks Fire 

in 2004. We find the inability of 

surveyors to locate the species at Three 

Forks Springs since 2005, the season 

immediately following suspected 

exposure to drift, to be a compelling 

reason to suspect retardant-related 

toxicity. However, we acknowledge the 

speculative nature of this conclusion, as 

well as technical errors, such as 

overestimating the amount of retardant 

used to fight the fire, and have revised 

the language accordingly in this final 

rule. 

Comment (8): One peer reviewer did 

not believe sufficient evidence was 

provided to conclude that elk wallowing 

threatens the integrity of an entire 

spring system. 

Our response: Field observations, 

largely from Service biologists, have 

provided anecdotal evidence that wet 

seeps and boggy areas characterized by 

elk wallows are not occupied by Three 

Forks springsnails, and are unsuitable 

for the species. Even though elk 

wallowing is a factor that seems to be 

impacting the Three Forks springsnail’s 

habitat, we do not believe it is occurring 

at a scale that would cause the 

extinction of Three Forks springsnail on 

its own. However, in combination with 

the other threats identified in this fivefactor analysis, we think elk wallowing 

may be contributing to the species’ risk 

of extinction by reducing its long-term 

viability. 

Comment (9): One peer reviewer 

stated that it is unclear from the 

information in the proposed rule if 

inundation continues to be a threat, 

particularly at House Pond. 

Our response: The San Bernardino 

springsnail is mainly found near spring 

vents (area where water emerges from 

underground) and in association with 

high water velocity. Inundation can 

alter the springsnail’s preferred habitat 

by increasing water depth, reducing 

water velocity, and causing shifts in 

substrate (the base on which an 

organism lives) composition, vegetation, 

and water chemistry. Because of 

inundation’s ability to alter the 

springsnail’s preferred habitat, we 

consider springhead inundation to be a 

threat to the San Bernardino 

springsnail’s continued existence. For 

more details on this issue, please see 

Factor A analysis for the San Bernardino 

springsnail, below. 

Comment (10): One peer reviewer 

indicated that the threat of groundwater 

depletion to the San Bernardino 

springsnail is not clearly demonstrated. 

Our response: The use of the phrase 

‘‘groundwater depletion’’ has been 

revised in this final rule, because it did 

imply an unverified connection to 

identifiable groundwater pumping or 

withdrawal. The loss of habitat and the 

springsnail population at Snail Spring 

was clearly due to the loss of water 

flow. However, the underlying 

hydrologic mechanism that caused the 

spring to dry is unclear. Additionally, 

because that population is now 

extirpated, the threat from water 

depletion is no longer acting upon the 

species at that site. We have revised the 

language accordingly in this final rule. 

Comment (11): One peer reviewer 

questioned the potential effects of 

glyphosate. The reviewer stated the use 

of the herbicide glyphosate (Roundup®) 

on the John Slaughter Ranch Museum 

was not well documented, and the 

pesticide has low toxicity for freshwater 

mollusks. 

Our response: Based on a more indepth evaluation of the available 

information, the possible detrimental 

effects of glyphosate exposure to 

springsnails are not well supported. We 

have revised the language accordingly 

in this final rule. 

Comment (12): One peer reviewer 

questioned our conclusions regarding 

the potential effects of nonnative 

crayfish (Orconectis virilis) on the Three 

Forks springsnail. 

Our response: Our conclusion 

regarding the threat of crayfish 

predation on the Three Forks 

springsnail is based on the fact that 

nonnative crayfish are known predators 

of aquatic snails (Fernandez and Rosen 

1996, pp. 24–25; Parkyn et al. 1997, p. 

690), and are relatively recent invaders 

of Three Forks springsnail habitats. We 

also drew our conclusion from field 

observations that noted a concurrent 

decline in springsnail abundance in 

conjunction with an increase in crayfish 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 23063 

abundance. Therefore, based upon the 

best available information, we consider 

nonnative crayfish predation to be a 

threat to the Three Forks springsnail. 

Comment (13): One peer reviewer 

asked how haplotype differentiation 

would factor into the need to repopulate 

Three Forks Springs to ensure the 

ecological representation of the Three 

Forks springsnail. 

Our response: We believe information 

on genetic diversity will be a critical 

element in determining the most 

appropriate manner in which to 

promote recovery of the Three Forks 

springsnail, particularly at Three Forks 

Springs. It is our goal to maintain the 

genetic diversity of the species, and we 

have commissioned a genetic study to 

review the genetic relationships 

between and among Three Forks 

springsnails within each critical habitat 

unit. The decision of whether or not to 

allow natural repopulation from 

upstream populations, or to conduct 

active translocations, will be 

determined in the context of a recovery 

team comprising Service personnel, 

species experts, and other stakeholders. 

Comment (14): One peer reviewer 

stated that Tule Spring does not appear 

conducive to occupation by San 

Bernardino springsnail, particularly in 

regard to the presence of the primary 

constituent elements (PCEs), and should 

not be designated as critical habitat. 

Our response: Under the second 

prong of the Act’s definition of critical 

habitat, we can designate critical habitat 

in areas outside the geographic area 

occupied by the species at the time it is 

listed, upon a determination that such 

areas are essential for the conservation 

of the species. We have determined that 

Tule Spring is essential to the 

conservation of the San Bernardino 

springsnail, because it provides 

redundancy of the species if a 

population were to become established 

there either through natural or artificial 

reintroductions. 

Comments From the States 

Section 4(i) of the Act states the 

Secretary shall submit to the State 

agency a written justification for his 

failure to adopt regulations consistent 

with the agency’s comments or petition. 

We received two comment letters from 

the AGFD. The majority of AGFD’s 

comments were similar to those 

expressed by peer reviewers, and have 

been addressed above (see our responses 

(3), (5), (8), and (14) under Peer 

Reviewer Comments). 

Comment (15): The AGFD stated that, 

due to new information on its status and 

distribution, the San Bernardino 

springsnail is at less risk to extinction, 

and they would support not listing this 

species. 

Our response: We have reviewed the 

new information indicating the San 

Bernardino springsnail is more 

widespread than previously believed, 

particularly in Sonora, Mexico. We have 

included these sites in our five-factor 

analysis, and have concluded that 

sufficient threats still exist to warrant 

listing the species as threatened. 

Comments From the U.S. Forest Service 

We did not receive comments from 

the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) 

specifically on the proposed rule. 

However, we did receive a map from the 

USFS during the open comment period 

on the proposed rule to designate 

critical habitat for the Chiricahua 

leopard frog (Lithobates chiricahuensis) 

(76 FR 58441, September 21, 2011) 

outlining the area they are considering 

as the Three Forks Recommended 

Research Natural Area (RNA) and 

Associated Features. 

Public Comments 

Several commenters made numerous 

comments similar to those expressed by 

peer reviewers, and which have been 

addressed above (see our responses (3), 

(5), (6), (11), and (14) under Peer 

Reviewer Comments). 

Comment (16): One commenter noted 

that current husbandry research 

indicates that the Three Forks 

springsnail requires a consistent 

environment in order to thrive, 

particularly in the context of water 

quality and temperature. 

Our response: We have compiled the 

available information regarding ongoing 

research on captive populations of 

Three Forks springsnail and 

incorporated this information into the 

final rule as appropriate. 

Comment (17): One commenter stated 

that, at the time of public comment, the 

Wallow Fire was burning in the White 

Mountains, potentially threatening 

remaining populations of Three Forks 

springsnail. 

Our response: We have compiled the 

available information regarding the 

Wallow fire and incorporated it into the 

final rule as appropriate. Wildfire has 

been known to have negative effects on 

springsnails, and most Three Forks 

springsnail sites were severely burned. 

However, reporting indicates that aerial 

fire retardants were not applied along 

Boneyard Creek, because the fire burned 

too hot and fast. At this time, we do not 

know what effect the Wallow Fire will 

have on the long-term viability of Three 

Forks springsnail. We will continue to 

work with the USFS, AGFD, and 

interested stakeholders, to monitor and 

conserve the species. 

Comment (18): One commenter 

questioned what actions the Service was 

taking to alter established policies 

identified in the preamble to the 

proposed rule under The Inadequacy of 

Existing Regulatory Mechanisms. 

Our response: Many regulatory 

mechanisms discussed are under the 

purview and discretion of other Federal 

and State agencies. The Service has no 

regulatory authority to affect change to 

existing regulatory mechanisms of other 

agencies. However, we do work under 

the authorities of the Act to assist and 

coordinate with other agencies to ensure 

their actions are protective of threatened 

and endangered species and their 

critical habitats. 

Comment (19): One commenter stated 

additional suitable springs in the 

vicinity of habitat currently occupied by 

the San Bernardino springsnail should 

be designated as critical habitat. 

Our response: Other than those 

discussed in this final rule, the 

commenter did not provide nor do we 

have any information on other springs 

in the vicinity of habitat currently 

occupied by the San Bernardino 

springsnail in the United States to 

evaluate for critical habitat. Although 

several springs in Sonora, Mexico, 

provide habitat for the species, we do 

not designate critical habitat in foreign 

countries. 

Comment (20): One commenter stated 

that the Service should consider 

designation of critical habitat 

throughout the historical ranges of both 

species, and include areas that are not 

currently occupied. 

Our response: In this final critical 

habitat designation, we are including 

both occupied and unoccupied units, 

for both species. In accordance with 

section 3(5)(A) of the Act, we are 

designating critical habitat in specific 

areas within the geographic area 

occupied by the species at the time of 

listing, which contain the physical and 

biological features essential for the 

conservation of the species, and which 

may require special management, as 

well as specific areas outside the 

geographic area occupied by the species 

at the time of listing, and are essential 

to the conservation of the species. In 

this final rule, the unoccupied units we 

designated as critical habitat are areas 

within the historical ranges of both 

species. 

Summary of Changes From the 

Proposed Rule 

Since the publication of the April 12, 

2011 (76 FR 20464), proposed rule to 

list and designate critical habitat for the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
23064 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

Three Forks springsnail and San 

Bernardino springsnail, and the 

November 17, 2011 (76 FR 71300), 

proposed revision of the critical habitat 

for the Three Forks springsnail, we have 

made the following changes in this final 

rule: 

(1) We previously proposed to list the 

San Bernardino springsnail as 

endangered, but upon review of 

additional information, which we 

described in the notice announcing the 

availability of a draft economic analysis 

(76 FR 71300; November 17, 2011), 

regarding the status of, and threats to, 

the springsnail in Mexico, we have the 

determined the species meets the 

definition of threatened instead of 

endangered. Based on the best available 

information at this time, the species is 

likely to become an endangered species 

within the foreseeable future rather than 

being in danger of extinction now. 

(2) For the San Bernardino 

springsnail, we expanded the Summary 

of Factors Affecting the Species to 

include a discussion of factors 

throughout the species’ entire range, 

including the United States and Mexico. 

Endangered Status for Three Forks 

Springsnail and Threatened Status for 

San Bernardino Springsnail 

It is our intent to discuss below only 

those topics directly relevant to the 

listing of the Three Forks springsnail as 

endangered, and the San Bernardino 

springsnail as threatened, in this section 

of the final rule. 

Species Information 

Both the Three Forks springsnail and 

San Bernardino springsnail are members 

of the genus Pyrgulopsis in the family 

Hydrobiidae. In the arid Southwest, 

springsnails are largely relicts of the 

wetter Pleistocene Epoch (2.5 million to 

10,000 years ago), and are typically 

distributed across the landscape as 

geographically isolated populations 

exhibiting a high degree of endemism 

(found only in a particular area or 

region) (Bequart and Miller 1973, p. 214; 

Taylor 1987, pp. 5–6; Shepard 1993, p. 

354; Hershler and Sada 2002, p. 255). 

Springsnails are strictly aquatic, and 

respiration occurs through an internal 

gill. Springsnails in the genus 

Pyrgulopsis are egg-layers with a single 

small egg capsule deposited on a hard 

surface (Hershler 1998, p. 14; Pearson 

2011, p. 3). The larval stage is 

completed in the egg capsule, and upon 

hatching, tiny snails emerge into their 

adult habitat (Brusca and Brusca 1990, 

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

The sexes are separate, and females are 

noticeably larger than males. Mobility is 

limited, and significant migration likely 

does not occur, although aquatic snails 

have been known to disperse by 

becoming attached to the feathers of 

migratory birds (Roscoe 1955, p. 66; 

Dundee et al. 1967, pp. 89–90). 

Springsnails in the family Hydrobiidae 

feed primarily on periphyton, which is 

a complex mixture of algae, detritus, 

bacteria, and other microbes that live 

upon submerged surfaces in aquatic 

environments (Mladenka 1992, pp. 46, 

81; Hershler and Sada 2002, p. 256; 

Lysne et al. 2007, p. 649). The life span 

of most aquatic snails is 9 to 15 months 

(Pennak 1989, p. 552); the survival of 

one species in the genus Pyrgulopsis in 

the laboratory was nearly 13 months 

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

Hydrobiid snails occur in springs, 

seeps, spring runs, and a variety of 

waters, but particularly spring systems 

that produce running water. Snails in 

the genus Pyrgulopsis are rarely found 

in mud or soft sediments (Hershler 

1998, p. 14), and are typically more 

abundant in gravel-to cobble-size 

substrates (Frest and Johannes 1995, p. 

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

and Thome 2006, pp. 12–13; Lysne et al. 

2007, p. 650). These substrate types 

provide a suitable surface for 

springsnails to graze and lay eggs 

(Taylor 1987, p. 5; Hersler 1998, p. 14). 

Proximity to springheads, where 

water emerges from the ground, plays a 

key role in the life history of 

springsnails. Many springsnail species 

exhibit decreased abundance farther 

away from spring vents, presumably due 

to their need for stable water chemistry 

and flow provided by spring waters 

(Hershler 1984, p. 68; Hershler 1998, 

p. 11; Hershler and Sada 2002, p. 256; 

Martinez and Thome 2006, p. 14; Tsai 

et al. 2007, p. 216). They are sensitive 

to water quality, and each species is 

usually found within relatively narrow 

habitat parameters (Sada 2008, p. 59). 

Several habitat parameters, such as 

substrate, dissolved carbon dioxide, 

dissolved oxygen, temperature, 

conductivity, pH, and water depth, have 

been shown to influence the 

distribution and abundance of 

Pyrgulopsis snails (O’Brien and Blinn 

1999, pp. 231–232; Mladenka and 

Minshall 2001, pp. 209–211; Malcom et 

al. 2005, p. 75; Martinez and Thome 

2006. pp. 12–15; Lysne et al. 2007, 

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

Martinez and Rogowski 2011, pp. 218– 

220). Dissolved salts such as calcium 

carbonate may also be important factors 

because they are essential for shell 

formation (Pennak 1989, p. 552). 

Three Forks Springsnail 

The Three Forks springsnail was 

originally described as Fontelicella 

trivialis by Taylor (1987, pp. 30–32) and 

later Pyrgulopsis confluentis by Hershler 

and Landye (1988, pp. 32–35) from a 

spring-fed pond at Three Forks, Apache 

County, Arizona. The species was 

renamed Pyrgulopsis trivialis by 

Hershler (1994, pp. 68–69). We have 

carefully reviewed the available 

taxonomic information (Landye 1973, 

p. 49; Taylor 1987, pp. 30–32; Hershler 

and Landye 1988, pp. 32–35; Hershler 

1994, pp. 68–69; Hurt 2004, p. 1176), 

and conclude that Three Forks 

springsnail is a valid taxon (entity). The 

Three Forks springsnail is a variably 

sized species, with a shell height 

(length) of 0.06 to 0.19 inches (in) (1.5 

to 4.8 millimeters (mm). A detailed 

description of the identifying 

characteristics of the Three Forks 

springsnail is found in Taylor (1987, pp. 

30–32), Hershler and Landye (1988, pp. 

32–35), and Hershler (1994, pp. 68–69). 

Historically, the Three Forks 

springsnail is known to have occurred 

in numerous springs and seeps along 

Boneyard Creek and its confluence with 

the North Fork East Fork Black River in 

the White Mountains on the ApacheSitgreaves National Forests, in Apache 

County, east-central Arizona. In recent 

years, the springnail was found only in 

the Three Forks Springs, Boneyard Bog 

Springs, and Boneyard Creek Springs. 

Each of these spring complexes 

comprise few to many spring vents 

(Table 1) and are found in shallow 

canyon drainage or open mountain 

meadows at 8,200 feet (ft) (2,500 meters 

(m)) in elevation. These springs are 

spread across 3.7 miles (mi) (6 

kilometers (km)) of perennial flowing 

stream. The species has been found in 

free-flowing springheads, concrete 

boxed springheads, spring runs, spring 

seeps, and shallow ponded water 

(Martinez and Myers 2008, p. 189). 

Unfortunately, the species was 

extirpated from Three Forks Springs in 

2004 following the Three Forks Springs 

Fire (see a more detailed discussion on 

the effects of this fire under Factor A 

analysis for this species, below). 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 23065 

TABLE 1—OCCUPANCY OF THE THREE FORKS SPRINGSNAIL IN SPRINGS ALONG BONEYARD CREEK AND NORTH FORK

EAST FORK BLACK RIVER, ARIZONA

Area of recent occurrence Number of springs Currently occupied Year of last 

verified occupancy 

Three Forks Springs .............................. At least 8 ............................................... No .......................................................... 2003 

Boneyard Bog Springs ........................... At least 8 ............................................... Yes ........................................................ 2010 

Boneyard Creek Springs ........................ At least 11 ............................................. Yes ........................................................ 2010 

Martinez and Myers (2008, pp. 189– 

194) found that presence of Three Forks 

springsnail was associated with gravel 

and pebble substrates, shallow water up 

to 2.4 in (6 centimeters (cm)) deep, high 

conductivity, alkaline waters of pH 8, 

and the presence of pond snails (Physa 

gyrina). Martinez and Rogowski (2011, 

p. 218) found that density of Three 

Forks springsnail was greater in water 

depths less than 2.2 in (5.6 cm), where 

density of pond snails was less than 5.5 

per square yard (4.6 per square meter), 

and where distance from the springhead 

was less than 2.6 ft (0.8 m). In captivity, 

the species selected water depths of 3.2 

in (8.1 cm) in an aquarium that ranged 

from 1.9 in (4.8 cm) to 7.5 in (19.1 cm) 

in depth (Rogowski 2011, p. 1). It has 

been shown that density of Three Forks 

springsnail is significantly greater on 

gravel and cobble substrates (Martinez 

and Rogowski 2011, p. 220; Martinez 

and Myers 2002, p. 1), though the 

species has been reported as 

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

a 0.03-acre (ac) (0.01-hectare (ha)) pond 

at Three Forks Springs (Taylor 1987, p. 

32). Abundance has been found to 

decrease downstream from springheads 

(Martinez and Rogowski 2011, p. 218, 

Nelson et al. 2002, p. 11), consistent 

with studies of other springsnails 

(Hershler 1984, p. 68; Hershler 1998, 

p. 11; Hershler and Sada 2002, p. 256; 

Martinez and Thome 2006, p. 14; Tsai 

et al. 2007, p. 216). The Three Forks 

springsnail was known to occur in 

ponded springboxes and the big pond at 

Three Forks, prior to extirpation. 

Although research indicates the species 

exhibits higher density in shallower 

water, the species does not appear to be 

intolerant of deeper ponded water. In 

captive settings, the number of observed 

living springsnails declined along with 

decreasing water temperature (Phoenix 

Zoo 2009, p. 2), and the species 

preferred temperatures near 71.6 

degrees Fahrenheit (°F) (22 degrees 

Celsius (°C)) (Rogowski and Martinez 

2010, p. 1; Rogowski 2011, p. 1). 

The Three Forks springsnail was 

historically abundant within all spring 

ecosystems where found, though with 

patchy micro-distribution. Nelson et al. 

(2002, p. 5) reported Three Forks 

springsnail densities of approximately 

72 snails per square yard (60 snails per 

square meter) at Three Forks Springs, 

and approximately 945 per square yard 

(790 snails per square meter) at 

Boneyard Bog Springs. The highest 

number recorded at a single springbrook occurred in a 254-square yards 

(213-square meters) area at Three Forks 

Springs in 2002, where tens of 

thousands of individual snails were 

estimated (Martinez 2009, pp. 31–32). 

Unfortunately, the Three Forks 

springsnail was last documented at 

Three Forks Springs in 2003. The AGFD 

has been conducting annual surveys 

since 2001 (Nelson et al. 2002, entire), 

and they have been reporting very low 

numbers of the springsnails at Three 

Forks Springs since 2005 (Cox 2007, p. 

1; Bailey 2008, p. 1; Grosch 2010, p. 1). 

However, no voucher specimens 

(specimens collected to verify species 

identification) were actually collected 

until 2011, when it was discovered that 

the small snails from Three Forks 

Springs were not Three Forks 

springsnails (Sorensen 2011a, p. 1), but 

rather air-breathing, land snails 

belonging to the family Pupillidae. 

Based on this new information, the 

species is not currently considered to be 

extant at Three Forks Springs. 

Fortunately, the species continues to be 

abundant at Boneyard Bog Springs and 

Boneyard Creek Springs. 

San Bernardino Springsnail 

The San Bernardino springsnail was 

originally described as Yaquicoccus 

bernardinus by Taylor (1987, pp. 34–35) 

and later Pyrgulopsis cochisi by 

Hershler and Landye (1988, p. 41) from 

a spring in the San Bernardino Creek 

drainage, Cochise County, Arizona. The 

species was renamed Pyrgulopsis 

bernardina by Hershler (1994, pp. 21– 

22). We have reviewed the available 

taxonomic information (Landye 1973, 

p. 34; Landye 1981, p. 21; Hershler and 

Landye 1988, p. 41; Taylor 1987, p. 34; 

Hershler 1994, p. 21; Hurt 2004, p. 1176; 

Varela Romero and Myers 2010, p. 9), 

and conclude that San Bernardino 

springsnail is a valid taxon. The San 

Bernardino springsnail has a narrowconic shell and a height of 0.05 to 0.07 

in (1.3 to 1.7 mm). A detailed 

description of the identifying 

characteristics of the San Bernardino 

springsnail is found in Taylor (1987, 

pp. 35–35); Hershler and Landye (1988, 

p. 41), and Hershler (1994, pp. 21–22). 

The historical range of the San 

Bernardino springsnail in the United 

States may have included several 

springs along the Rio San Bernardino 

(also known as San Bernardino Creek or 

Black Draw) within the headwaters of 

the Rio Yaqui in Cochise County, 

southern Arizona around 3,806 ft (1,160 

m) elevation on what is now the San 

Bernardino National Wildlife Refuge 

(NWR) and the State-owned John 

Slaughter Ranch Museum, including 

Snail Spring, Horse Spring, Goat Tank 

Spring, and perhaps Tule Spring (Cox et 

al. 2007, pp. 1–2; Service 2007, pp. 82– 

83; Malcom et al. 2005, p. 75; Malcom 

et al. 2003, p. 2; Velasco 2000, p. 1). The 

current range of the species in the 

United States is now believed to be 

limited to two springs on the John 

Slaughter Ranch Museum, Goat Tank 

Spring and Horse Spring (Martinez 

2010, p. 2) (Table 2). Surveys by 

SBNWR staff confirmed the presence of 

San Bernardino springsnails in Horse 

Spring in 2009 (Martinez 2010, p. 2). 

Also, Horse Spring is now known to be 

directly connected via an underground 

pipeline to Goat Spring (which is 

occupied by thousands of springsnails), 

so the liklihood of springsnails being at 

both sites is high. 

The species was formerly collected 

and very abundant at Snail Spring on 

the John Slaughter Ranch Museum 

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

al. 2005, p. 74), but now appears to be 

extirpated having last been confirmed 

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

p. 1; Malcom 2007, p. 1; Service 2007, 

p. 83; Martinez 2010, p. 1; Varela 

Romero and Myers 2010, p. 2). 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
23066 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 2—OCCUPANCY OF SAN BERNARDINO SPRINGSNAIL IN SPRINGS IN THE SAN BERNARDINO BASIN, ARIZONA, AND

CAJO ́ N BONITO BASINS, MEXICO

Spring or springs complex Number of springs Currently occupied 

Year of last 

verified 

occupancy 

Goat Tank ................................................. 1 ............................................................... Yes ........................................................... 2010. 

Horse ......................................................... 1 ............................................................... Yes ........................................................... 2009. 

Snail .......................................................... 1 ............................................................... No ............................................................ 2002. 

Tule ........................................................... 1 ............................................................... No ............................................................ Unknown. 

Ojo El Chorro ............................................ At least 1 .................................................. Yes ........................................................... 2010. 

Los Ojitos .................................................. At least 1 .................................................. Yes ........................................................... 2010. 

Ojo El Ojito ................................................ At least 2 .................................................. Yes ........................................................... 2010. 

Ojo Agua Fria ............................................ At least 2 .................................................. Yes ........................................................... 2010. 

Ojo Caliente .............................................. At least 3 .................................................. Yes ........................................................... 2010. 

According to recent genetic studies, 

the San Bernardino springsnail occurs at 

five sites in Sonora, Mexico, in the San 

Bernardino and Cajo ́n Bonito Basins, 

including Ojo El Chorro, Los Ojitos, Ojo 

El Ojito, Ojo Agua Fria, and Ojo Caliente 

(Liu and Hershler 2005, p. 293; Varela 

and Myers 2010, pp. 5–9). All five of 

these sites are located on privately 

owned ranches. The springs where the 

San Bernardino springsnail is found at 

these sites are typical cie ́nega 

ecosystems (wet, marshy areas at the 

foot of a mountain, in a canyon, or on 

the edge of a grassland where 

groundwater bubbles to the surface) 

occurring near 3,806 ft (1,160 m) in 

elevation (Minckley and Brunelle 2007, 

pp. 421–422), and most of the sites 

contain several springheads occupied by 

the species (Varela and Myers 2010, 

pp. 6–8) (Table 2). 

Malcom et al. 2005 (pp. 71, 75–76) 

showed that density of San Bernardino 

springsnail was positively associated 

with cobble substrates, high vegetation 

density, faster water velocity, high 

dissolved oxygen, water temperatures 

ranging from 57 to 72 °F (14 to 22 °C), 

and pH values between 7.6 and 8.0. San 

Bernardino springsnail density 

exhibited positive relationships to sand 

and cobble substrates, vegetation 

density, and water velocity, and 

negative relationships to silt and organic 

substrates, and water depth (Malcom et 

al. 2005, pp. 75–76). 

Limited information is available on 

population sizes for the San Bernardino 

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

2005, p. 74) estimated former average 

springsnail density as 66,893 per square 

yard (55,929 individuals per square 

meter) at Snail Spring from September 

2001 to March 2002. The species 

formerly occurred in low population 

numbers at Goat Tank Spring, but has 

since exhibited an increase in 

abundance following the modification 

of a metal cover on the spring-box 

(Radke 2010, p. 1; Service 2011, pp. 

117–118). 

Summary of Factors Affecting the Three 

Forks Springsnail 

Section 4 of the Act and 

implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424 

set forth procedures for adding species 

to the Federal Lists of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife and Plants. A 

species may be determined to be an 

endangered or threatened species due to 

one or more of the five factors described 

in section 4(a)(1) of the Act: (A) The 

present or threatened destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of its 

habitat or range; (B) overutilization for 

commercial, recreational, scientific, or 

educational purposes; (C) disease or 

predation; (D) the inadequacy of 

existing regulatory mechanisms; and (E) 

other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence. Listing 

actions may be warranted based on any 

of the above threat factors, singly or in 

combination. Each of these factors is 

discussed below. 

A. The Present or Threatened 

Destruction, Modification, or 

Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range 

Wildfire and Suppression 

Fire frequency and intensity in 

southwestern forests are altered from 

historical conditions (Dahms and Geils 

1997, p. 34; Danzer et al. 1997, pp. 1– 

2). Before the late 1800s, surface fires 

generally occurred at least once per 

decade in montane forests with a pine 

component (Swetnam and Baisan 1996, 

p. 15), landscapes similar to those 

within which the Three Forks 

springsnail occurs. During the early 

1900s, frequent widespread ground fires 

ceased to occur due to intensive 

livestock grazing that removed fine 

fuels, such as grasses. Coupled with fire 

suppression, changes in fuel load began 

to alter forest structure and natural fire 

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

An absence of low-intensity ground fires 

allowed a buildup of woody fuels that 

resulted in infrequent, but very hot, 

stand-replacing fires (fires that kill all or 

most of above-ground parts of dominant 

vegetation, changing the above-ground 

structure substantially) (Danzer et al. 

1997, p. 9; Dahm and Geils 1997, p. 34). 

In the past decade, USFS’s lands 

around, or adjacent to, Three Forks 

springsnail habitats have been burned 

by wildfires, including the Three Forks 

Fire in 2004, and the Wallow Fire in 

2011. These fires developed into hot 

crown fires (fires burning in tree 

canopies), while the Wallow Fire also 

exhibited very hot, stand-replacing 

effects. The lack of vegetation and forest 

litter following intense fires can expose 

soils to surface erosion during storms, 

often causing sedimentation and erosion 

in downstream drainages (DeBano and 

Neary 1996, pp. 70–75). This can cause 

infilling of substrates and shifts in water 

chemistry within spring systems. 

We do not expect that surface erosion 

would have affected spring ecosystems 

occupied by Three Forks springsnail 

following the Three Forks Fire, because 

the spring areas did not burn. In 

contrast, most of the areas around 

Boneyard Bog and Boneyard Creek 

Springs, which are occupied by the 

species, were burned by the Wallow 

Fire in 2011, and these occupied springs 

are at risk from ash and sediment 

erosion during anticipated storm-water 

flows (USFS 2011a, pp. 65–69). We 

believe the species evolved with 

frequent low-intensity wildfire, and 

likely exhibits some resiliency. 

However, there is cause for concern as 

fire-induced changes in habitat for the 

Koster’s springsnail (Juturnia kosteri) in 

New Mexico, resulted in lower 

springsnail densities post-fire (Lang 

2002, pp. 5–7; NMDGF 2006, p. 9). 

Conversely, Sada and Vinyard (2002, 

p. 282) noted the presence of large 

populations of the springsnail P. glibba 

in recently burned springs in Nevada. 

Initial reports indicate that Three Forks 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 23067 

springsnails were not observed in at 

least one spring within Boneyard Bog 

Springs that was affected by recent 

flooding and ash debris (Sorensen 

2011a, p. 1). Because the Wallow Fire 

exhibited very hot, stand-replacing 

effects, and it burned around the 

entirety of the only two spring 

complexes (consisting of several 

springs) known to be occupied by the 

species, additional storm-water flows 

are likely to cause erosion and 

sedimentation to flow into the 

springsnail’s habitat, thus potentially 

resulting in the species’ decline to the 

point of extinction. 

Although the Three Forks Fire in 2004 

did not directly burn Three Forks 

springsnail habitats, fire suppression 

included application of aerial fire 

retardants (chemicals used to suppress 

fire). Fire retardants may be toxic to 

springsnails if they enter the aquatic 

systems the snails occupy. Some fire 

retardant chemicals are ammonia-based, 

which are toxic to aquatic wildlife; 

however, many formulations also 

contain yellow prussiate of soda 

(sodium ferrocyanide), which is added 

as an anticorrosive agent. Such 

formulations are toxic for fish, aquatic 

invertebrates, and algae (Angeler et al. 

2006, pp. 171–172; Calfee and Little 

2003, pp. 1527–1530; Little and Calfee 

2002, p. 5; Buhl and Hamilton 1998, 

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

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

Toxicity of these formulations is 

enhanced by sunlight (Calfee and Little 

2003, pp. 1529–1533). Contamination of 

aquatic sites can occur via direct 

application, wind drift, or runoff from 

treated uplands. 

During the 2004 fire season, it is 

suspected that surface waters within the 

Three Forks Springs area were exposed 

to fire retardant that could have drifted 

from high-elevation retardant releases 

from aircraft (USFS 2005, pp. 4, 12). 

During fire suppression activities 

related to the Three Forks Fire, 

approximately 54,122 gallons (204,874 

liters) of aerial fire retardant were 

applied from aircraft (USFS 2005, p. 4). 

The nearest documented release into a 

waterway was 0.65 mi (1.05 km) from 

Three Forks Springs, though other 

undocumented aerial releases in the 

area could have been closer. Available 

data indicate that the Three Forks 

springsnail was still abundant in spring 

sites at Three Forks Springs in 2002 and 

2003, prior to the fire (AGFD 2008, 

entire; Martinez 2009, pp. 31–32), but 

has not been detected since that time. 

Although a definitive connection 

between extirpation and exposure to fire 

retardant drift has not been made, it is 

reasonable to assume that drift from the 

documented use of fire retardant 

chemicals during the 2004 fires caused 

retardant-related toxicity, and thus, the 

inability of surveyors to locate the 

species at Three Forks Springs since. 

Fortunately, the species still persists at 

Boneyard Bog Springs and Boneyard 

Creek Springs, but there is the potential 

for future wildfires to occur near these 

occupied sites. Because of the toxic 

effects to springsnails from aerial fire 

retardant chemicals and the potential 

for exposure during future wildfires, we 

consider the use of fire retardant 

chemicals to be a threat to the Three 

Forks springsnail in the foreseeable 

future. 

Ungulates 

High-intensity ungulate (hoofedmammal) grazing on spring ecosystems 

can alter or remove springsnail habitat 

and limit the distribution of 

springsnails, or result in extirpation. For 

instance, cattle trampling at a spring in 

Owens Valley, California, reduced 

banks to mud and sparse grass, limiting 

the occurrence of the endangered Fish 

Slough springsnail (Pyrgulopsis 

pertubata) (Bruce and White 1998, 

pp. 3–4). Additionally, a population of 

Chupadera springsnail, (P. chupaderae), 

endemic to Socorro County, New 

Mexico, was extirpated due to the 

impacts of intensive livestock grazing 

on its habitat (Arritt 1998, p. 10; 

NMDGF 2006, p. 13). Even though other 

springsnails have been impacted by 

high intensity ungulate grazing, we do 

not consider it to be factor for the Three 

Forks springsnail. Livestock have been 

fenced out of the springs where the 

Three Forks springsnail occurs since the 

mid- to late 1990s. 

Although fencing excludes livestock 

from springs where the Three Forks 

springsnail occurs (USFS 2011b, p. 184), 

free-ranging elk (Cervus elaphus) can 

access all the springs. Elk are able to 

jump or cross the fencing in ways that 

livestock cannot. Because elk have been 

able to access the springs, some habitat 

modification from elk wallowing has 

been observed by Service personnel 

(Martinez 2000, p. 1; Nelson 2002, p. 2). 

In 2007 and 2008, erosive soil 

conditions related to elk wallowing 

were documented at Boneyard Bog 

Springs (Myers 2007, p. 2; Martinez 

2008, p. 1). Intensive elk wallowing 

causes muddy conditions, soil loss, 

sparse grass, and stagnant, rather than 

flowing, water. These habitat conditions 

created by elk wallowing are typically 

unsuitable for the Three Forks 

springsnail, because the springsnail are 

mostly found in habitats with gravel and 

pebble substrates, and shallow running 

water (Martinez and Myers 2008, 

pp. 189–194). It appears that elk 

wallowing prevents spring seepage from 

developing into free-flowing springruns, which is the preferred habitat of 

the Three Forks springsnail. Although 

elk wallowing is a factor that seems to 

be impacting the Three Forks 

springsnail’s habitat, it is not occurring 

at a scale that would cause the 

extinction of Three Forks springsnail on 

its own. However, in combination with 

the other threats identified in this fivefactor analysis, elk wallowing may be 

contributing to the species’ risk of 

extinction by reducing its long-term 

viability. Importantly, the AGFD is 

partnering with the conservation 

community to implement habitat 

improvements for the Three Forks 

springsnail, including the construction 

of fenced elk exclosures around targeted 

spring sites (Sorensen 2011b, p. 1). 

Springhead Inundation 

Springhead inundation refers to 

pooling of water over a spring vent, 

resulting in ponded water (sometimes 

relatively deep) that would otherwise 

exist as shallow, free-flowing water. As 

noted above in the species description, 

the Three Forks springsnail was known 

to occur in ponded springboxes and the 

big pond at Three Forks, prior to 

extirpation. Although research indicates 

the species exhibits higher density in 

shallower water, the species does not 

appear to be intolerant of deeper 

ponded water. Thus springhead 

inundation is not a threat for this 

particular species because it persists in 

deeper water than many other 

springsnails. 

Summary of Factor A: At this time, 

the primary threats to the only known 

occupied habitats of Three Forks 

springsnails are soil erosion resulting 

from the high-intensity Wallow Fire that 

occurred in 2011, and the potential 

exposure of fire retardant chemicals 

during future wildfires. Also, elk 

wallowing may be contributing to the 

species’ risk of extinction by reducing 

its long-term viability. However, 

springhead inundation does not appear 

to be a threat. Based on the best 

available information, the present or 

threatened destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of the Three Forks 

springsnail’s habitat and range poses a 

significant threat to the species’ 

continued existence across its entire 

range now, and into the foreseeable 

future. 

B. Overutilization for Commercial, 

Recreational, Scientific, or Educational 

Purposes 

The Three Forks springsnail has been 

subjected to a limited number of 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
23068 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

scientific studies aimed at determining 

taxonomy, distribution, and habitat use. 

Although sampling can reduce 

population size of springsnails 

(Martinez and Sorensen 2007, p. 29), 

studies have not resulted in the removal 

of large numbers of snails, and we do 

not believe they have had discernible 

effects on any population. Unauthorized 

collecting has been identified as a threat 

to other snails, including springsnails 

(65 FR 10033, February 25, 2000; 58 FR 

5938, January 25, 1993; 56 FR 49646, 

September 30, 1991), due to their rarity, 

restricted distribution, and generally 

well-known locations. However, there is 

currently no documentation of 

collection being a significant threat to 

the Three Forks springsnail. 

In summary, the best available 

information indicates that the Three 

Forks springsnail is not threatened by 

overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes now, and we do not have any 

information to indicate that this will 

likely become a significant threat in the 

foreseeable future in any portion of its 

range. 

C. Disease or Predation 

Exceptionally heavy parasitism on the 

female reproductive system of the Three 

Forks springsnail has been observed on 

specimens from the extirpated Three 

Forks Springs population (Taylor 1987, 

p. 31). However, we have no 

information that parasitism exists in the 

remaining Three Forks springsnail 

populations at Boneyard Creek Springs 

and Boneyard Bog Springs. 

In general, springsnails are vulnerable 

to predation by a variety of fish, 

amphibians, reptiles, mammals, and 

macroinvertebrates (Dillon 2000, p. 273; 

Raisanen 1991, p. 71). Nonnative 

crayfish are known predators of aquatic 

snails (Fernandez and Rosen 1996, 

pp. 24–25; Parkyn et al. 1997, p. 690), 

and are relatively recent invaders of 

Three Forks springsnail habitats. In a 

laboratory aquaria experiment that 

mimicked stream conditions found at 

Three Forks Springs, crayfish consumed 

snails and their eggs in the family 

Physidae (which occupy similar habitats 

as springsnails) within 1 week of 

introduction (Fernandez and Rosen 

1996, pp. 24–25). 

Prior to total extirpation at Three 

Forks Springs, Three Forks springsnails 

were no longer being found in concreteboxed springheads where they had 

previously been observed in abundance 

(Myers 2000, p. 1; Martinez and Myers 

2008, p. 191). The localized extirpation 

of the species from concrete-boxed 

springheads coincided with an invasion 

by nonnative crayfish. Because Arizona 

has no native crayfish species (Inman 

1999, p. 6), the Three Forks springsnail 

likely did not evolve in the presence of 

crayfish predation. Therefore, the 

springsnail probably does not have an 

evolutionary mechanism to escape this 

type of predation. Recognizing the 

impact that nonnative crayfish were 

having on the Three Forks springsnail, 

AGFD personnel conducted an intensive 

crayfish trapping program aimed at 

reducing predatory pressure at Three 

Forks Springs (Nelson et al. 2002, pp. 4, 

6). However, complete elimination of 

crayfish from an aquatic system is 

usually not possible (Helfrich et al. 

2001, p. 4). This has been the case with 

the trapping effort at Three Forks 

Springs. More recently, crayfish have 

also been found in Boneyard Creek 

Springs and Boneyard Bog Springs. 

These efforts have not eliminated 

crayfish or prevented their spread along 

Boneyard Creek. 

In summary, parasitism is not 

currently known to be a threat to the 

Three Forks springsnail, but this factor 

may need to be investigated further 

considering that it was observed on 

specimens in the past, and it has the 

potential to contribute to population 

declines (Dillon 2000, pp. 270–272). At 

this time, we have no information to 

indicate that parasitism is occurring 

within the remaining populations or 

that it might occur at a level in the 

future that affects the species’ continued 

existence. On the other hand, we 

consider predation by nonnative 

crayfish to be a threat to the Three Forks 

springsnail across its entire range, 

because the springsnail has been locally 

extirpated from concrete-boxed 

springheads after the nonnative crayfish 

invaded. 

D. The Inadequacy of Existing 

Regulatory Mechanisms 

The primary causes of the Three Forks 

springsnail’s decline are soil erosion 

following high-intensity wildfire, 

application of aerial fire retardant, and 

predation by nonnative crayfish. 

Existing Federal, State, and local laws 

have been unable to prevent loss of 

habitat or populations, and the existing 

regulatory mechanisms are not expected 

to prevent causes of Three Forks 

springsnail decline in the future. 

The policy for delivery of wildland 

fire chemicals near waterways on USFS 

lands is described in the Interagency 

Standards for Fire and Fire Aviation 

Operations, developed by the National 

Interagency Fire Center (NIFC; NIFC 

2011). The policy directs the USFS to 

avoid aerial application of wildland fire 

chemicals within 300 ft (91 m) of 

waterways, and avoid any ground 

application of wildland fire chemicals 

into waterways (NIFC 2011, p. 3). The 

closest accidental delivery of fire 

retardant into a waterway was 

approximately 0.65 mi (1 km) upstream 

of Three Forks Springs (USFS 2005, 

p. 12), well over the 300-ft (91-m) buffer 

established by NIFC policy. 

Nevertheless, aquatic areas at Three 

Forks are suspected to have been 

affected by fire retardant drift. 

In addition to the 300-ft (91-m) buffer, 

the USFS recently adopted a policy of 

establishing avoidance areas specifically 

for listed species (USFS 2011c, p. 6). 

Although the implementation of an 

avoidance zone will likely reduce the 

probability of exposure to aerial fire 

retardants, it cannot entirely eliminate 

the possibility of an accidental 

catastrophic event. Furthermore, 

although fire retardants containing 

sodium ferrocyanide are no longer used, 

USFS (2011c, pp. 121–123) 

acknowledges that fire retardants 

currently in use still contain substances 

toxic to aquatic invertebrates, including 

mollusks. 

Take of the Three Forks springsnail is 

regulated by Arizona Game and Fish 

Commission Order 42, which 

establishes no open season (no 

collecting) for any snail species in the 

genus Pyrgulopsis (AGFD 2010, p. 29). 

Although Order 42 prohibits direct 

taking of individuals, it does not 

prohibit habitat modification. The 

species is also identified as a priority 

species in the State Wildlife Action Plan 

prepared by AGFD (AGFD 2006, pp. 

136, 419). This plan helps guide AGFD 

and other agencies in determining what 

biotic resources should receive priority 

management consideration, but this 

plan is not legally binding on any 

agency. 

In summary, current regulatory 

mechanisms are inadequate to protect 

Three Forks springsnail habitat from 

modification or destruction due to the 

threats of accidental application of 

aerial fire retardant. The USFS and State 

regulatory mechanisms are adequate to 

control scientific collecting, but this 

does not appear to be a threat to the 

species. 

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors 

Affecting Its Continued Existence 

Invasive Competitors 

The nonnative New Zealand mudsnail 

(Potamopyrgus antipodarum) is an 

invasive freshwater snail of the family 

Hydrobiidae that has become a concern 

for spring-dependent aquatic snails, 

including springsnails. The mudsnail is 

known to compete with and slow the 

growth of native freshwater snails, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 23069 

including springsnails (Lysne and 

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

2007, p. 6). There is potential for 

mudsnail invasion into spring 

ecosystems, because the mudsnail can 

be easily transported and 

unintentionally introduced into aquatic 

environments via birds, hikers, 

researchers, and resource managers. 

The mudsnail was first discovered in 

the United States in the Snake River, 

Idaho, in 1987, and has since spread to 

the Colorado River basin in the western 

United States (U.S. Geological Survey 

2002, p. 1). Mudsnails were discovered 

in Utah in 2001, and since have 

dispersed rapidly through that State 

(Vinson 2004, p. 9). Since 2002, New 

Zealand mudsnails have been detected 

in Arizona along the Colorado River at 

Lees Ferry, Diamond Creek, Lake Mead, 

and Willow Beach Fish Hatchery (AGFD 

2002, p. 1, Olson 2008, pp. 1–2, 

Montana State University 2008, p. 1, 

Sorensen 2010, p. 3). 

The mudsnail has characteristics that 

enable it to out-compete and replace 

native springsnails. Mudsnails tolerate a 

wide range of habitats, and can reach 

densities exceeding tens of thousands 

per square meter, particularly in 

systems with high primary productivity 

(system with organisms that create 

organic molecules that serve as food for 

other organisms), constant temperatures, 

and constant flow (typical of spring 

systems), though faster moving water 

seems to limit colonization (Richards et 

al. 2001, pp. 378–379). Mudsnails can 

dominate the invertebrate composition 

of an aquatic system, accounting for up 

to 97 percent of invertebrate biomass 

(Hall et al. 2003, p. 409). In doing so, 

they can consume nearly all 

microorganisms attached to submerged 

substrates, making food no longer 

available for native species, such as 

springsnails (Hall et al. 2003, p. 409). 

Invasion by mudsnails is not a current 

threat to the Three Forks springsnail. 

However, the New Zealand mudsnail is 

spreading throughout the State of 

Arizona. If they were to be introduced 

into the spring systems harboring the 

Three Forks springsnail, the effect could 

be devastating. Additionally, control 

would be difficult because mudsnails 

are small and cryptic, and chemical 

treatment to eradicate them would also 

eradicate springsnails. Because the New 

Zealand mudsnail can out-compete and 

replace native springsnails, we consider 

this nonnative competitor to be a 

potential threat to the Three Forks 

springsnail’s continued existence in the 

foreseeable future. 

Climate Change and Drought 

Our analyses under the Act include 

consideration of ongoing and projected 

changes in climate. The terms ‘‘climate’’ 

and ‘‘climate change’’ are defined by the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change (IPCC). ‘‘Climate’’ refers to the 

mean and variability of different types 

of weather conditions over time, with 30 

years being a typical period for such 

measurements, although shorter or 

longer periods also may be used (IPCC 

2007, p. 78). The term ‘‘climate change’’ 

thus refers to a change in the mean or 

variability of one or more measures of 

climate (e.g., temperature or 

precipitation) that persists for an 

extended period, typically decades or 

longer, whether the change is due to 

natural variability, human activity, or 

both (IPCC 2007, p. 78). Various types 

of changes in climate can have direct or 

indirect effects on species. These effects 

may be positive, neutral, or negative and 

they may change over time, depending 

on the species and other relevant 

considerations, such as the effects of 

interactions of climate with other 

variables (e.g., habitat fragmentation) 

(IPCC 2007, pp. 8–14, 18–19). In our 

analyses, we use our expert judgment to 

weigh relevant information, including 

uncertainty, in our consideration of 

various aspects of climate change. 

The Intergovernmental Panel on 

Climate Change (IPCC 2007, p. 7) 

summarized the likelihood of future 

trends in global climatic variables over 

most land areas, predicting: (1) Warmer 

and fewer cold days and nights, (2) 

warmer and more frequent hot days and 

nights, (3) more frequent warm spells 

and heat waves or both, (4) changes in 

precipitation patterns favoring an 

increased frequency of heavy 

precipitation events, and (5) an increase 

in area affected by drought. These global 

climate changes are expected to 

influence climatic patterns at regional 

and local scales. 

At a regional scale, there is broad 

consensus among climate models that 

the southwestern United States and 

northern Mexico will become drier in 

the twenty-first century and that the 

trend is already underway (Seager et al. 

2007). Seager et al. (2007, pp. 1181– 

1184) analyzed 19 computer models of 

different variables to estimate the future 

climatology of the southwestern United 

States and northern Mexico in response 

to predictions of changing climatic 

patterns. All but 1 of the 19 models 

predicted a drying trend, while 1 

predicted a trend toward a wetter 

climate (Seager et al. 2007, p. 1181). A 

total of 49 projections were created 

using the 19 models, and all but 3 

predicted a shift to increasing aridity 

(dryness) in the southwestern United 

States as early as 2021–2040 (Seager et 

al. 2007, p. 1181). Wetlands in the 

southwestern United States and 

northern Mexico are predicted to be at 

risk of drying (Seager et al. 2007, pp. 

1183–1184), which has severe 

implications for aquatic ecosystems. 

The current, multiyear drought in the 

southwestern United States is the most 

severe drought recorded since 1900 

(Overpeck and Udall 2010, p. 1642). 

Numerous models predict a decrease in 

annual precipitation in the 

southwestern United States and 

northern Mexico. Solomon et al. (2009, 

p. 1707) predicted precipitation in the 

southwestern United States and 

northern Mexico will decrease by 9 to 

12 percent. Christensen et al. (2007, p. 

888) contend the projection of smaller 

warming over the Pacific Ocean than 

over the continent is likely to induce a 

decrease in annual precipitation in the 

southwestern United States and 

northern Mexico. 

Maximum summer temperatures in 

the southwestern United States are 

expected to increase over time in 

response to changes in the climate 

system (Christensen et al. 2007, p. 887). 

Weiss and Overpeck (2005, p. 2075) 

examined low-temperature data over a 

40-year timeframe from numerous 

weather stations in the Sonoran desert 

ecoregion and found: (1) Widespread 

warming trends in winter and spring, (2) 

decreased frequency of freezing 

temperatures, (3) lengthening of the 

freeze-free season, and (4) increased 

minimum temperatures per winter year. 

Additionally, the timing of precipitation 

may be altered, contributing to 

significant changes in vegetation 

communities. The IPCC (2007, p. 20) 

found that winter precipitation in the 

southwestern United States is predicted 

to decline by as much as 20 percent as 

a result of climate change, while 

summer precipitation may increase 

slightly. 

Arid environments can be especially 

sensitive to climate change, because the 

biota that inhabit these areas are often 

near their physiological tolerances for 

temperature and water stress. Slight 

changes in temperature and rainfall, 

along with increases in the magnitude 

and frequency of extreme climatic 

events, can significantly alter species 

distributions and abundance (Archer 

and Predick 2008, p. 23). Nonnative 

plant species may respond positively, 

out-competing native vegetation (Smith 

et al. 2000, p. 79; Lioubimsteva and 

Adams 2004, p. 401), thereby increasing 

the risk of wildfire. Seasonal changes in 

rainfall may contribute to the spread of 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
23070 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

invasive species, which are often 

capable of explosive growth, and able to 

out-compete native species (Barrows et 

al. 2009, p. 673). 

There are three hydrologic predictions 

for anticipated effects from climate 

change in the southwestern United 

States. First, climate change is expected 

to shorten periods of snowpack 

accumulation, as well as lessen 

snowpack levels. With gradually 

increasing temperatures and reduced 

snowpack (due to higher spring 

temperatures and reduced winter-spring 

precipitation), annual runoff will be 

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

2003, p. 226), consequently reducing 

groundwater recharge. Second, 

snowmelt is expected to occur earlier in 

the calendar year, because increased 

minimum winter and spring 

temperatures could melt snowpacks 

sooner, causing peak water flows to 

occur much sooner than the historical 

spring and summer peak flows (Garfin 

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

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

230), and reducing flows later in the 

season. Third, the hydrologic cycle is 

expected to become more dynamic on 

average with climate models predicting 

increases in the variability and intensity 

of rainfall events. This will modify 

disturbance regimes by changing the 

magnitude and frequency of floods. 

Warmer water temperatures, altered 

stream flow events and groundwater 

recharge, and increased demand for 

water storage and conveyance systems 

(Rahel and Olden 2008, pp. 521–522) 

may alter spring habitats by altering 

surface water flow and ground water 

supply. 

In addition, increases in riverine 

system temperatures in drier climates 

will result in periods of prolonged low 

flows and stream drying (Rahel and 

Olden 2008, p. 526), and will increase 

demand for water storage and 

conveyance systems (Rahel and Olden 

2008, pp. 521–522). Warmer water 

temperatures across temperate regions 

are predicted to expand the distribution 

of existing aquatic nonnative species. In 

a study that compared the thermal 

tolerances of 57 fish species with 

predictions made from climate change 

temperature models, Mohseni et al. 

(2003, p. 389) concluded that there 

would be 31 percent more suitable 

habitat for aquatic nonnative species, 

which are often tropical in origin and 

adaptable to warmer water 

temperatures. This could result in an 

expansion in the ranges of nonnative 

aquatic species to the detriment of 

native species. 

Climate change and drought could 

eventually exacerbate existing threats to 

spring habitats in the southwestern 

United States. Increased and prolonged 

drought associated with changing 

climatic patterns could adversely affect 

spring habitats by reducing water 

availability, and altering food 

availability and predation rates. Drying 

of spring flow is of particular concern 

because springsnails depend on 

permanent flowing water for survival. 

At this time we have no specific 

information indicating that any springs 

occupied, or formerly occupied, by the 

Three Forks springsnail have 

experienced a decline in water flow due 

to climate change or drought. However, 

the best available information indicates 

that climate change and drought may be 

a factor in the foreseeable future that 

could adversely alter the Three Forks 

springsnail’s habitat. Therefore, the 

potential impacts from climate change 

and drought could affect the Three 

Forks springsnail’s continued existence 

in the future. 

Endemism 

Endemic species (organisms with 

narrowly distributed isolated 

populations) are often more susceptible 

to extinction from localized, 

catastrophic events. Biological and 

ecological factors that put a species at 

risk of extinction include specialized 

habitat preference, restricted 

distribution, poor dispersal ability, 

population size, fragmentation of range, 

and life history specialization 

(McKinney 1997, p. 497; O’Grady et al. 

2004, p. 514). The Three Forks 

springsnail is a highly endemic species. 

It occurs only within two spring 

complexes with a very restricted 

distribution, has limited mobility, and is 

a strict aquatic specialist requiring 

spring systems to complete its life 

history function. Endemism is not a 

threat in and of itself, but the Three 

Forks springsnail’s endemic nature may 

make them more vulnerable to 

extinction from other existing or 

potential threats. The remaining 

populations of Three Forks springsnail 

are less than 1 mi (1.6 km) apart, and 

their total overall range is 

approximately 11.1 ac (4.5 ha) in size. 

Because their range is so small, one 

catastrophic event, such as a highintensity wildfire, could potentially 

result in the entire loss of the species. 

Listing Determination for the Three 

Forks Springsnail 

Section 3 of the Act defines an 

endangered species as any species that 

is ‘‘in danger of extinction throughout 

all or a significant portion of its range’’ 

and a threatened species as any species 

that ‘‘is likely to become an endangered 

species within the foreseeable future 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range.’’ We find that the Three Forks 

springsnail is presently in danger of 

extinction throughout its entire range, 

based on the immediacy, severity, and 

extent of the threats described above. 

We have carefully assessed the best 

scientific and commercial information 

available regarding the past, present, 

and future threats to the species, and 

have determined that the Three Forks 

springsnail meets the definition of 

endangered under the Act, rather than a 

threatened species, because significant 

threats are occurring now and in the 

foreseeable future, at a high magnitude, 

and across the species’ entire range, 

making the species in danger of 

extinction at the present time. 

Based on the best scientific and 

commercial information available 

regarding the threats to the species, we 

have found that some serious threats are 

occurring now, while some will 

negatively impact the species in the 

foreseeable future. For instance, the 

high-intensity 2011 Willow Fire that 

burned around the only remaining 

populations of the Three Forks 

springsnail has caused the habitat of the 

species to be currently threatened with 

destruction, modification, and 

curtailment due to soil erosion and 

sedimentation during storm events. 

Also, we have found that predation by 

nonnative crayfish is currently 

threatening the Three Forks springsnail 

across its entire range. In addition to the 

current threats, the Three Forks 

springsnail is also at a high risk of 

extinction due to threats that could 

affect the species in the foreseeable 

future, such as the use of fire retardant 

chemicals during future wildfires, the 

potential spread and competition with 

New Zealand springsnails, and the 

potential for climate change and 

drought to dry its springhead habitat. 

Due to its endemic nature, the Three 

Forks springsnail may be more 

vulnerable to extinction from both 

present and future threats. 

Under the Act and our implementing 

regulations, a species may warrant 

listing if it is endangered or threatened 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range. We find that the threats to the 

Three Forks springsnail occur at 

relatively high magnitudes throughout 

its entire range. Historically, the Three 

Forks springsnail is known to have 

occurred in numerous springs and seeps 

along Boneyard Creek and its 

confluence with the North Fork East 

Fork Black River in the White 

Mountains on the Apache-Sitgreaves 

National Forests, in Apache County, 

Arizona. In recent years, the species’ 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 23071 

range has been reduced to the point that 

it has only been found at two spring 

complexes. These two remaining sites 

are restricted to less than 1 mi (1.6 km) 

along Boneyard Creek. Because the 

species is so limited in range, the 

magnitude of threats that are occurring 

now are high, and those that may 

impact the species in the foreseeable 

future are high as well. For example, 

one catastrophic event, such as a highintensity wildfire, could potentially 

result in the entire loss of the species. 

Accordingly, our assessment and 

determination applies to the species 

throughout its entire range. In 

conclusion, based on the immediacy, 

severity, and extent of the threats, we 

have determined that the Three Forks 

springsnail meets the definition of 

endangered under the Act. 

Summary of Factors Affecting the San 

Bernardino Springsnail 

A. The Present or Threatened 

Destruction, Modification, or 

Curtailment of its Habitat or Range 

Wildfire and Suppression 

Wildfires are common in southern 

Arizona along the border with Mexico 

(U.S. Government Accountability Office 

2011, pp. 9–12), though we have limited 

information on wildfire frequency or 

intensity in the San Bernardino or Cajo ́n 

Bonito Basins where the San Bernardino 

springsnail occurs. Even so, nonnative 

buffelgrass (Pennisetum ciliare [= 

Cenchrus ciliare]) is a concern, because 

of its potential to occur in this area and 

its ecological effects related to wildfire. 

Since its introduction in the 1940s, 

buffelgrass has become widespread in 

southeastern Arizona and northeastern 

Sonora, Mexico (Stevens and Falk 2009, 

p. 417; Van Devender and Reina 2005, 

p. 161; Cohn 2005, pp. 1–2, Yetman 

1994, pp. 1, 8). The introduction of this 

invasive species is known to result in 

the addition of fire as an ecological 

process in the normally fire-intolerant 

Sonoran desert ecosystems, changing 

the natural fire regime from infrequent, 

low-intensity, localized fires, to 

frequent, high-intensity, spreading fires 

(Van Devender and Reina 2005, p. 161; 

Stevens and Falk 2009, p. 418; Yetman 

1994, pp. 8–9). 

Buffelgrass has been documented up 

to 4,150 ft (1,265 m) in elevation 

(Arizona Sonora Desert Musuem 2012, 

p. 2), but because it is frost-intolerant, 

it is usually limited to elevations less 

than 3,300 ft (1,000 m) (Perramond 

2000, p. 5). All the sites where the San 

Bernardino springsnail is found in both 

the United States and Mexico are near 

or above 3,806 ft (1,160 m) in elevation, 

suggesting that most spring sites where 

the springsnail occurs may be protected 

from buffelgrass invasion. However, 

climatic warming trends (see Climate 

Change discussion, below) may 

facilitate future invasion by buffelgrass, 

increasing the potential for highintensity wildfire around spring sites 

occupied by San Bernardino 

springsnail. At this time, the best 

available information indicates that 

wildfire is not a current threat to the 

species. We have no information 

relating to actual impacts of wildfire on 

the San Bernardino springsnail or its 

habitat. 

If a wildfire were to occur in the 

greater San Bernardino Basin, Arizona, 

we suspect suppression efforts in the 

United States could include the 

application of fire retardant chemicals 

via aircraft, because this is one of the 

methods typically used to fight wildfires 

in this region. Should San Bernardino 

springsnails be exposed to fire 

retardants, we would expect them to 

react negatively, for the same reasons 

discussed under Factor A of the Three 

Forks springsnail, above. Wind drift of 

fire retardant has been noted in an 

unconfirmed report up to five miles 

from a drop site. So if there were a fire 

in the San Bernardino Valley, and the 

U.S. used retardant tankers, drift of the 

chemicals might reach San Bernardino 

springsnail sites in Mexico, although we 

have no confirmation of this occurring. 

Further, we have no information 

indicating that aerial fire retardants 

have been used in the area around the 

two spring sites at the John Slaughter 

Ranch Museum. We anticipate the 

probability of exposure to fire retardant 

to be low, because the two spring sites 

are surrounded by a substantial area of 

well-tended lawn turf, and this area is 

unlikely to burn. Should there be a fire 

near the John Slaughter Ranch Museum, 

we expect that conventional fire-fighting 

techniques, utilizing fire engines and 

ground-based suppression activities, 

would most likely be employed in 

fighting any fires near the two springs. 

Further, concerning the populations of 

San Bernardino springsnails recently 

discovered in Sonora, Mexico, we 

expect that similar on-the-ground firefighting techniques would be employed, 

as opposed to the application of fire 

retardant chemical from aircraft. 

However, there is a possibility that 

wildfire may occur in the San 

Bernardino Basin at some point in the 

future, and fire retardant exposure could 

happen. As such, exposure to fire 

retardant chemicals, especially exposure 

resulting from wind drift, could 

represent a threat to the species in the 

future. 

Controlled Burning 

Varela Romero and Myers (2010, pp. 

7, 10) indicate that the Los Ojitos 

cie ́nega in Sonora, Mexico, has been 

exposed to fire intentionally set to 

control cattails (Typha sp.). They noted 

ash and loss of water flow post-fire, and 

could not locate springsnails in an area 

where springsnails had occurred a few 

months prior (Varela Romero and 

Myers, 2010, p. 7). As noted above, fireinduced changes in spring habitats can 

result in lower springsnail densities 

post-fire (Lang 2002, pp. 5–7; NMDGF 

2006, p. 9). Although the available 

information is unclear regarding the 

relationship between fire at Los Ojitos 

and springsnail population viability, it 

appears that a controlled burn may have 

contributed to a decrease in springsnail 

abundance. It is premature to conclude 

that the species has been extirpated 

from Los Ojitos, considering that survey 

efforts have been limited and the genus 

appears to exhibit some resiliency to 

fire. Controlled burns are probably lowintensity wetland fires that do not 

exhibit the same effects as very hot, 

high-intensity, stand-replacing fires. 

Also, it is not clear if controlled burning 

is a regular management tool employed 

by the landowner that we can 

reasonably anticipate will reoccur with 

any frequency. However, controlled 

burning does seem likely to reoccur, 

considering that management of cattails 

with fire requires regular treatment. 

Although controlled burning likely 

impacts the species, we are unable to 

determine the long-term impacts on the 

San Bernardino springsnail or its 

habitat. We do not have any additional 

information on controlled burning at 

any other locality where San Bernardino 

springsnail occurs. 

Ungulates 

The general effects of ungulate grazing 

on springsnails and their habitats are 

discussed under Factor A for the Three 

Forks springsnail. As previously noted, 

high-intensity ungulate grazing at spring 

ecosystems can alter or remove 

springsnail habitat and limit the 

distribution of springsnails, or result in 

their extirpation (Arritt 1998, p. 10; 

Bruce and White 1998, pp. 3–4; NMDGF 

2006, p. 13). For the San Bernardino 

springsnail, we do not consider 

ungulate grazing to be a threat. Cattle 

grazing does not currently occur on the 

San Bernardino NWR. A small number 

of cattle graze on the John Slaughter 

Ranch Museum, but they do not have 

access to spring sites. Horse Spring is 

located in a horse pen (Martinez 2010, 

p. 2), but it is unclear what effect, if any, 

the horses have on the spring. LowVerDate Mar<15>2010 17:13 Apr 16, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17APR3.SGM 17APR3

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
23072 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

intensity cattle grazing does occur on 

the private ranches in Mexico, but the 

cows are removed from areas if they 

start impacting an area (Cuenca Los Ojos 

2012, p. 1; Bodner 2005, p. 6). The San 

Bernardino Valley historically 

supported extensive cattle ranching 

(Hendrickson and Minckley 1984, pp. 

142–144; Service 2007, pp. iii–iv), and 

livestock likely had access to all spring 

habitats within the Rio San Bernardino 

watershed at that time. At this time, we 

do not consider ungulate grazing to be 

a threat to the San Bernardino 

springsnail, because there is no 

information that the limited exposure of 

cattle grazing within the springsnail’s 

range is affecting the species’ continued 

existence. 

Springhead Inundation 

Springhead inundation refers to 

pooling of water over a spring vent, 

resulting in ponded water (sometimes 

relatively deep) that would otherwise 

exist as shallow, free-flowing water. As 

previously noted, the San Bernardino 

springsnail is mainly found near spring 

vents and in association with shallow 

water, but high velocity. Inundation can 

alter springsnail habitats by causing 

shifts in water depth, velocity, substrate 

composition, vegetation, and water 

chemistry. These changes in springhead 

habitat can cause reductions in the San 

Bernardino springsnail’s distribution 

and abundance. 

Springhead inundation has affected 

the San Bernardino springsnail’s habitat 

on the John Slaughter Ranch Museum. 

Cox et al. (2007, p. 1) speculated that 

the species previously occurred in the 

springs now inundated by House Pond. 

But, we have no evidence to confirm 

that they actually occurred in these 

springs, nor do we have information 

that they currently exist in the pond. As 

such, we cannot verify that inundation 

has affected the species there. However, 

because the San Bernardino springsnail 

currently exists in Goat Tank and Horse 

Springs, which both are within several 

hundred feet (meters) of House Pond, it 

is reasonable to assume that the San 

Bernardino springsnail occurred in the 

springs now inundated by House Pond. 

Thus, based on the altered habitat 

caused by inundation, it is reasonable to 

assume that inundation does affect the 

species’ continued existence in such 

areas. 

Springs in Sonora, Mexico, appear to 

have been impounded, including 

springs at Los Ojitos cie ́nega and Ojo El 

Chorro (Varela Romero and Myers 2010, 

pp. 6, 7, 10). But fortunately, 

springsnails have been found in springruns draining into impounded ponds 

and in the outflows at these sites. 

Because springsnails seem to prefer 

flowing, rather than pooled water, it is 

possible that impoundments have 

affected the species at these sites. 

Springhead inundation appears to be a 

threat that has altered the San 

Bernardino springsnail’s habitat in the 

past, but at this time we do not consider 

this threat to be ongoing. However, 

because of its ability to alter the 

springsnail’s preferred habitat in such a 

way that could affect the species 

continued existence, springhead 

inundation could be a threat to the San 

Bernardino springsnail in the 

foreseeable future. 

Water Depletion and Diversion 

Spring ecosystems rely on water 

discharged at the surface from 

underground aquifers, and depletion of 

the underground aquifers can result in 

the drying of springs. The drying of 

springs can be severe for springsnails, 

because they are strictly aquatic 

organisms. Groundwater depletion has 

been recognized as a threat to the 

continued existence of other biota 

occurring in the Rio San Bernardino and 

associated springs, such as the Yaqui 

fishes (49 FR 34490, August 31, 1984; 

Service 1994, p. 17). Several 

populations of San Bernardino 

springsnail are believed to have been 

extirpated as water was depleted and 

diverted for domestic water use (Landye 

1973, p. 34; Malcom et al. 2003, p. 2), 

though the springsnail’s actual 

occurrence in these springs prior to 

desiccation was never verified by field 

surveys. 

Two distinct aquifers exist in the San 

Bernardino Valley basin, one deep and 

the other shallow (Earman et al. 2003, 

p. 35). These aquifers exhibit different 

chemical and thermal properties. Many 

of the springs in the area are influenced 

by both the deep and the shallow 

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

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

Spring, Snail Spring, and Goat Tank 

Spring have different chemical 

compositions from one another, as well 

as from other springs in the area 

(Earman et al. 2003, p. 166). A study 

using radioactive isotopes to trace water 

flow into the springs indicated that 

some springs appear to be fed by the 

deep aquifer, some by the shallow 

aquifer and groundwater, and others are 

influenced by a mixing of the two water 

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

The John Slaughter Ranch Museum 

has an irrigation system that relies on 

the shallow aquifer and surface water 

from House Pond to provide water for 

turf grass and a cattle pasture (Malcom 

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

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

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

a visible decline in flow from Snail 

Spring and Tule Spring when this 

irrigation system was running. This 

indicates that House Pond is 

hydrologically connected to Snail 

Spring and Tule Spring. However, we 

have no hydrologic data verifying that 

this is the case. Regardless, Snail Spring 

no longer discharges flowing water from 

the springhead, and the San Bernardino 

springsnail is now extirpated from that 

site (Martinez 2010, p. 1; Varela Romero 

and Myers 2010, p. 2). 

The cessation of water flow at Snail 

Spring dates back to 2002. Following 

several years of below-average 

precipitation, Arizona faced extreme 

drought during 2002, which was the 

driest year on record for many parts of 

the State (McPhee et al. 2004, p. 1). At 

that time, the San Bernardino NWR staff 

and the John Slaughter Ranch Museum 

manager tapped into the domestic water 

supply from House Spring to try to 

maintain the springsnail’s habitat at 

Snail Spring (Smith 2003, p. 1; Malcom 

2003, p. 18; Malcom 2007, p. 1). Use of 

this domestic water supply for 

maintaining springsnail habitat was 

intended as an emergency measure only, 

and ultimately could not be sustained. 

Since 2002, surface flows at Snail 

Spring were periodically augmented by 

water diverted from House Pond. 

Unfortunately, consistent water flow has 

not been maintained at Snail Spring 

since 2005, and the San Bernardino 

springsnail has not been found at that 

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

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

Martinez 2010, p. 1). 

The Service has the right to control 

the use of water on the John Slaughter 

Ranch Museum, through a warranty 

deed that reserves water rights to The 

Nature Conservancy (TNC 1982, pp. 1– 

20). The Nature Conservancy deeded the 

water rights on the John Slaughter 

Ranch Museum to the Service, but also 

deeded ‘‘water use’’ rights to the John 

Slaughter Ranch Museum itself, with a 

stipulation that the ranch use should 

not adversely affect wildlife. Therefore, 

the Service can withhold its consent for 

planned water uses and other activities 

by the owner and managers of the John 

Slaughter Ranch Museum if it 

determines that such activities may 

have an adverse effect on the fish and 

snail species occurring on the ranch. 

However, such action appears 

unnecessary at this time, as the San 

Bernardino NWR is proactively working 

with the John Slaughter Ranch Museum 

to moderate use of irrigation water and 

to find an alternative water source to 

restore flow at Snail Spring. To offset 

the John Slaughter Ranch Museum’s 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 23073 

domestic water supply from House 

Spring, the San Bernardino NWR is 

working with the ranch to moderate use 

of irrigation water and to find an 

alternative water source to restore flow 

at Snail Spring. Two wells were drilled 

during December 2011 that are helping 

with restoration of flow at the spring. 

One well, a shallow well at the head of 

Snail Spring on the Slaughter Ranch, 

directly supplements Snail Spring to 

provide year round habitat for the 

springsnail. A second (off-site) deep 

well, located on San Bernardino NWR 

adjacent to Slaughter Ranch, will be 

used to augment the amount of water 

available for domestic water needs at 

Slaughter Ranch (Arizona Department of 

Water Resources 2012, p. 1; Service 

2012, p. 1). Preliminary analysis 

indicates that water quality between the 

well and Snail Spring is similar (Service 

2012, p. 1). 

In 2010, loss of water flow was noted 

and reported for the Los Ojitos cie ́nega 

in Sonora (Varela Romero and Myers 

2010, p. 7). The factors contributing to 

the loss of flow at that site are unknown, 

and may include manipulation of water 

control devices by land managers or 

extended drought conditions. We do not 

know if this loss of flow at Los Ojitos 

is temporary or permanent. At another 

site occupied by the San Bernardino 

springsnail, Varela Romero and Myers 

(2010, p. 10) noted water flow 

interruption at Ojo El Chorro and 

recommended monitoring of 

groundwater pumping and water 

diversions to determine if these were 

causing flow water loss. The water flow 

interruption at Ojo El Chorro must not 

be severe, because Varela Romero and 

Myers (2010, p. 10) reported a 

functioning spring system at that site. 

Water harvesting efforts (construction of 

structures that capture stormwater 

runoff) are ongoing on the Austin Ranch 

in the San Bernardino watershed in 

Mexico (Cuenca de Los Ojos 2012, 

entire). However, water depletion is still 

a threat to spring ecosystems throughout 

the watershed (Earman et al. 2003, p. 

259; Earman et al. 2008, p. 15; Hadley 

2006, p. 13; Varela-Romero and Myers 

2010, p. 10). 

We have no information indicating 

that other springs in the San Bernardino 

or Cajo ́n Bonito Basins where the San 

Bernardino springsnail occurs have 

experienced water loss or reduced water 

flow. However, the San Bernardino 

ground water table is a desirable 

domestic water source, particularly in 

Mexico, and ground water use could 

eventually have severe negative 

consequences on the viability of springs 

and wetlands in the San Bernardino 

watershed (Earman et al. 2003, p. 259; 

Earman et al. 2008, p. 15; Hadley 2006, 

p. 13). Water depletion from future 

groundwater use could eventually 

contribute to the drying of springs 

throughout the range of the San 

Bernardino springsnail, placing the 

species at increased risk of extinction. 

Pesticides 

Pesticides, including glyphosate, the 

active ingredient in the herbicides 

Roundup® and Rodeo®, have been 

reportedly used adjacent to spring 

ecosystems on the John Slaughter Ranch 

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

Service 2005, p. 6). Spring endemic 

species are typically adapted to the 

unique environmental conditions 

provided by spring water and may be 

quite sensitive to shifts in water quality 

(Hershler 1998, p. 11), including those 

caused by contamination. 

In the proposed rule, we discussed 

results presented by Tate et al. (1997, 

pp. 287–288) indicating that long-term 

exposure to glyphosate in a laboratory 

affected growth and development, egglaying capacity, and hatching of the 

mimic lymnaea (Pseudosuccinea 

columella), an unrelated freshwater 

snail. As such, we were concerned that 

sublethal, as well as lethal, effects from 

the use of glyphosate or other pesticides 

used on the John Slaughter Ranch 

Museum may be affecting the San 

Bernardino springsnail. However, upon 

further evaluation, we found that, for 

freshwater mollusks, the aquatic 

formulation of glyphosate (Rodeo®) has 

an ecotoxicity rating of Class 0 

(practically nontoxic), while the 

nonaquatic formulation (Roundup®) has 

a rating of Class 1 (slightly-tomoderately toxic) (White 2007, pp. 158, 

198). Although glyphosate can be 

slightly-to-moderately toxic to aquatic 

organisms, particularly zooplankton 

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

impacts including mortality have been 

documented in other snail species, Tate 

et al. (1997, pp. 287–288) found that 

glyphosate stimulates growth and 

development of snails at different 

concentrations. Normal use of 

glyphosate is not expected to 

detrimentally affect aquatic biota. 

In the proposed rule, we also 

presented our concern that the pesticide 

may contaminate the food base for the 

springsnail. Upon further review, we 

find contamination of the food base to 

be unlikely. Glyphosate adsorbs strongly 

to sediments and soils, and would not 

be expected to leach to surface waters at 

high levels through surface runoff 

(USEPA 2008, pp. 8, 25). Although 

direct exposure from spray drift is a 

possibility, we do not anticipate adverse 

effects to the San Bernardino springsnail 

or its food base, because long-term 

exposure is unlikely to occur in a 

natural spring setting, as flowing water 

should allow for dissipation. 

Accordingly, we do not consider the 

proper use of the pesticide to threaten 

the San Bernardino springsnail’s 

continued existence. 

Sunlight Inhibition 

Goat Tank Spring box is covered with 

a heavy metal lid that previously 

prevented significant sunlight 

penetration. The San Bernardino 

springsnail formerly occurred in very 

low population numbers at Goat Tank 

Spring, but has exhibited an increase in 

abundance following the modification 

of this cover to allow sunlight to enter 

the spring-box (Radke 2010, p. 1, 

Service 2011, pp. 117–118). Although 

this effort has successfully resulted in 

an increase in the abundance of 

springsnails, a large portion of the 

spring-box is still covered. The lack of 

direct sunlight into the aquatic 

environment likely inhibits primary 

production resulting in reduced 

availability of periphytic diatoms and 

algae, key habitat elements required by 

the San Bernardino springsnail. Radke 

(2010, p. 1) noted that the side of the 

spring-box, where the modified lid 

allows more light to enter, had a larger 

number of snails than the dark side of 

the spring-box. Although we do not 

believe this situation will result in the 

loss of the springsnail population at 

Goat Tank Spring, the continued 

maintenance of this lid likely prevents 

the population from realizing its full 

potential productivity. 

Summary of Factor A: We have 

identified a number of impacts to the 

San Bernardino springsnail’s habitat, 

which have operated in the past or that 

could impact the species in the 

foreseeable future. On the basis of this 

analysis, the potential use of fire 

retardant chemicals to fight wildfires, 

springhead inundation, and water 

depletion and diversion could result in 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of the San Bernardino 

springsnail’s habitat throughout all of its 

range in the foreseeable future. 

B. Overutilization for Commercial, 

Recreational, Scientific, or Educational 

Purposes 

Like the Three Forks springnsail, the 

San Bernardino springsnail has been 

subjected to a limited number of 

scientific studies aimed at determining 

taxonomy, distribution, and habitat use. 

The impacts to springsnails from 

collection are described under Factor B 

for the Three Forks springsnail. At this 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
23074 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

time, there is no documentation of 

collection being a significant threat to 

the San Bernardino springsnail. 

In summary, the best available 

information indicates that the San 

Bernardino springsnail is not threatened 

by overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes now, and we do not have any 

information to indicate that this will 

likely become a significant threat in the 

foreseeable future in any portion of its 

range. 

C. Disease or Predation 

We have no information regarding 

parasites on the San Bernardino 

springsnail. Also, we are unaware of the 

presence of nonnative predators within 

springs occupied by the San Bernardino 

springsnail. Field surveys have not 

detected the presence of nonnative 

crayfish within springs occupied by the 

San Bernardino springsnail, nor or we 

aware of any information indicating that 

crayfish have or will potentially invade 

the watersheds where the springsnail 

occurs. Additionally, current 

management activities are conducted on 

the private, State, and Federal lands to 

prevent the spread of nonnative species. 

Therefore, we do not consider disease or 

predation to be threats to the San 

Bernardino springsnail, now or in the 

future. 

D. The Inadequacy of Existing 

Regulatory Mechanisms 

In the proposed rule, we found the 

label restriction on Rodeo® (glyphosate) 

inadequate to protect the San 

Bernardino springsnail, because it does 

not restrict use within and near aquatic 

sites (DowAgroSciences 2006, p. 11). 

However, the low toxicity rating (as 

noted above in the Factor A discussion), 

and the fact that Rodeo® is an aquatic 

formulation, explains the lack of 

restrictions near aquatic sites. As such, 

we find the label restriction is adequate 

to protect the springsnail. Even so, 

Rodeo® still has the potential to 

negatively impact the springsnail if 

misused, but we have no evidence that 

it is being misused or is impacting the 

species. Although glyphosate is believed 

to be used on the John Slaughter Ranch 

Museum property, we have no reliable 

information regarding user application 

practices that would lead us to believe 

this pesticide is a threat to the San 

Bernardino springsnail. 

Take of the San Bernardino 

springsnail is regulated by Arizona 

Game and Fish Commission Order 42, 

which establishes no open season (no 

collecting) for any snail species in the 

genus Pyrgulopsis (AGFD 2010, p. 29). 

Although Order 42 prohibits direct 

taking of individuals, it does not 

prohibit habitat modification. The 

species is also identified as a priority 

species in the State Wildlife Action Plan 

prepared by AGFD. This plan helps 

guide AGFD and other agencies in 

determining what biotic resources 

should receive priority management 

consideration. However, this plan is not 

legally binding on any agency. 

In Mexico, the Secretaria de Medio 

Ambiente y Recursos Naturales has 

authority to designate species as 

threatened, or ‘‘Amenzadas,’’ based on 

recommendations from the Instituto 

Nacional de Ecologı ́a. Based on the best 

available information, the San 

Bernardino springsnail does not have 

special status in Mexico that would 

protect it from water depletion and 

diversion, controlled burning, or 

springhead inundation. Varela Romero 

and Myers (2010, p. 10) reported that 

these springsnails are not protected in 

Mexico, except that Mexican Federal 

permits are required to intentionally 

collect specimens for scientific study. 

In summary, the primary factors likely 

to affect the San Bernardino 

springsnail’s continued existence 

include the fire retardant chemicals, 

springhead inundation, and water 

depletion and diversion. Based on our 

analysis of the best available 

information, current regulatory 

mechanisms are inadequate to protect 

the San Bernardino springsnail’s habitat 

from these threats in the United States 

and Mexico. 

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors 

Affecting Its Continued Existence 

Invasive Competitors 

The potential threat to springsnails 

from New Zealand mudsnails is 

described under Factor E for the Three 

Forks springsnail. Although invasion by 

New Zealand mudsnails is not 

considered an immediate threat, they 

are spreading into Arizona from Utah. If 

New Zealand mudsnails were to be 

spread into the spring systems harboring 

the San Bernardino springsnail, the 

effect could be devastating. 

Additionally, control would be difficult 

because mudsnails are small and 

cryptic, and chemical treatment to 

eradicate them would also eradicate 

springsnails. Because the New Zealand 

mudsnail can outcompete and replace 

native springsnails, we consider this 

nonnative competitor to be a potential 

threat to the San Bernardino 

springsnail’s continued existence in the 

foreseeable future. 

Climate Change and Drought 

The same potential effects of climate 

change described under Factor E for the 

Three Forks springsnail apply to the San 

Bernardino springsnail. Loss of water 

flow has already manifested itself 

within the range of the San Bernardino 

springsnail, coinciding with extreme 

drought in the case of Snail Spring. 

Continued drying related to drought 

will likely exacerbate potential drying of 

springs and may lead to population 

declines and localized extirpations. In 

addition to loss of water flow, continued 

drying trends could exacerbate the 

terrestrial spread of buffelgrass, making 

San Bernardino springsnail habitats 

vulnerable to wildfires in the future. As 

such, we find that climate change and 

drought could threaten the San 

Bernardino springsnail in the future 

throughout its entire range. 

Endemism 

The increased vulnerability posed by 

endemism as described under Factor E 

for the Three Forks springsnail applies 

to the San Bernardino springsnail. 

Basically, the San Bernardino 

springsnail has suffered reductions in 

overall distribution and abundance, as 

evidenced at Snail Spring and Los 

Ojitos. We consider the San Bernardino 

springsnail to be an endemic species, 

because it only occurs at two sites in the 

United States and five sites in Mexico. 

Also, their populations are very 

restricted in distribution, have limited 

mobility, and are strictly aquatic 

specialists of spring ecosystems. 

Endemism is not a threat to the species 

in and of itself, but the San Bernardino 

springsnail’s endemic nature may make 

them more vulnerable to extinction from 

other potential threats in the future. 

Listing Determination for the San 

Bernardino Springsnail 

Section 3 of the Act defines an 

endangered species as any species that 

is ‘‘in danger of extinction throughout 

all or a significant portion of its range’’ 

and a threatened species as any species 

that ‘‘is likely to become an endangered 

species within the foreseeable future 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range.’’ We find that the San 

Bernardino springsnail is not presently 

in danger of extinction throughout its 

entire range, based on the immediacy, 

severity, and extent of the threats 

described above. However, we have 

carefully assessed the best scientific and 

commercial information available 

regarding the past, present, and future 

threats to the species, and have 

determined that the San Bernardino 

springsnail meets the definition of 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 23075 

threatened under the Act, rather than 

endangered, because significant threats 

are not operative now, but are likely to 

cause the species to become in danger 

of extinction in the foreseeable future. 

Thus the San Bernardino springsnail 

meets the definition of a threatened 

species, because it is likely to become 

endangered within the foreseeable 

future throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range. 

Based on the best scientific and 

commercial information available 

regarding the threats to the species, we 

have found that threats do not rise to the 

level such that the San Bernardino 

springsnail is in danger of extinction 

now. However, significant threats may 

rise to a level in the foreseeable future 

that the species is likely to become an 

endangered species throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range. The 

species’ habitat is likely to be threatened 

in the foreseeable future with 

destruction, modification, and 

curtailment in part of its range due to 

the potential use of fire retardant 

chemicals in the United States, and 

throughout its entire range in both the 

United States and Mexico due to 

potential springhead inundation, and 

water depletion and diversion. Also, we 

found that the San Bernardino 

springsnail is likely to become in danger 

of extinction in the foreseeable future 

throughout its entire range due to the 

potential invasion and predation by 

nonnative crayfish, invasion and 

competition with New Zealand 

springsnails, and climate change and 

drought drying its springhead habitat. 

Due to the species’ endemic nature, the 

San Bernardino springsnail may be 

more vulnerable to extinction in the 

foreseeable future from these potential 

threats throughout its entire range. 

Unlike the Three Forks springsnail, 

there are more currently occupied sites 

with San Bernardino springsnail 

populations, and the current severe 

threats of fire and crayfish predation 

identified for the Three Forks 

springsnail are not currently operative 

on the San Bernardino springsnail. The 

site locations in the United States for 

the two species are separated by over 

125 mi (200 km); the environmental 

conditions are different for the two 

species (i.e. landscape setting), and the 

threat type, magnitude, and immediacy 

are different for the two. Therefore, 

while the Three Forks springsnail meets 

the definition of an endangered species 

under the Act, we have determined that 

the San Bernardino springsnail meets 

the definition of threatened under the 

Act, rather than endangered, because 

significant threats are not immediately 

affecting the species and are not at a 

high enough magnitude that they are 

causing the species to be presently in 

danger of extinction throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range. 

Under the Act and our implementing 

regulations, a species may warrant 

listing if it is endangered or threatened 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range. The San Bernardino 

springsnail is an endemic species 

occurring at two sites in the United 

States and five sites in Mexico. We find 

that all threats to the San Bernardino 

springsnail could potentially occur 

throughout its entire range in the 

foreseeable future. Accordingly, our 

assessment and determination applies to 

the species throughout its entire range. 

Available Conservation Measures 

Conservation measures provided to 

species listed as endangered or 

threatened under the Act include 

recognition, recovery actions, 

requirements for Federal protection, and 

prohibitions against certain practices. 

Recognition through listing results in 

public awareness and conservation by 

Federal, State, Tribal, local agencies, 

private organizations, and individuals. 

The Act encourages cooperation with 

the States and requires that recovery 

actions be carried out for all listed 

species. The protection measures 

required of Federal agencies and the 

prohibitions against certain activities 

are discussed, in part, below. 

The primary purpose of the Act is the 

conservation of endangered and 

threatened species and the ecosystems 

upon which they depend. The ultimate 

goal of such conservation efforts is the 

recovery of listed species, so that they 

no longer need the protective measures 

of the Act. Subsection 4(f) of the Act 

requires the Service to develop and 

implement recovery plans for the 

conservation of endangered and 

threatened species. The recovery 

planning process involves the 

identification of actions that are 

necessary to halt or reverse the species’ 

decline by addressing the threats to its 

survival and recovery. The goal of this 

process is to restore listed species to a 

point where they are secure, selfsustaining, and functioning components 

of their ecosystems. 

Recovery planning includes the 

development of a recovery outline 

shortly after a species is listed, 

preparation of a draft and final recovery 

plan, and revisions to the plan as 

significant new information becomes 

available. The recovery outline guides 

the immediate implementation of urgent 

recovery actions and describes the 

process to be used to develop a recovery 

plan. The recovery plan identifies sitespecific management actions that will 

achieve recovery of the species, 

measurable criteria that determine when 

a species may be downlisted or delisted, 

and methods for monitoring recovery 

progress. Recovery plans also establish 

a framework for agencies to coordinate 

their recovery efforts and provide 

estimates of the cost of implementing 

recovery tasks. Recovery teams 

(comprising species experts, Federal 

and State agencies, nongovernmental 

organizations, and stakeholders) are 

often established to develop recovery 

plans. When completed, the recovery 

outline, draft recovery plan, and the 

final recovery plan will be available 

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

endangered), or from our Arizona 

Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Implementation of recovery actions 

generally requires the participation of a 

broad range of partners, including other 

Federal agencies, States, 

nongovernmental organizations, 

businesses, and private landowners. 

Examples of recovery actions include 

habitat restoration (e.g., restoration of 

native vegetation), research, captive 

propagation and reintroduction, and 

outreach and education. The recovery of 

many listed species cannot be 

accomplished solely on Federal lands 

because their range may occur primarily 

or solely on non-Federal lands. To 

achieve recovery of these species 

requires cooperative conservation efforts 

on private and State lands. 

Funding for recovery actions will be 

available from a variety of sources, 

including Federal budgets, State 

programs, and cost share grants for 

nonfederal landowners, the academic 

community, and nongovernmental 

organizations. In addition, pursuant to 

section 6 of the Act, the State of Arizona 

would be eligible for Federal funds to 

implement management actions that 

promote the protection and recovery of 

the Three Forks springsnail. Information 

on our grant programs that are available 

to aid species recovery can be found at: 

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

Please let us know if you are 

interested in participating in recovery 

efforts for the Three Forks springsnail 

and the San Bernardino springsnail. 

Additionally, we invite you to submit 

any new information on these species 

whenever it becomes available and any 

information you may have for recovery 

planning purposes (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). 

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

requires Federal agencies to evaluate 

their actions with respect to any species 

that is proposed or listed as endangered 

or threatened and with respect to its 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
23076 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

critical habitat, if any is designated. 

Regulations implementing this 

interagency cooperation provision of the 

Act are codified at 50 CFR part 402. 

Section 7(a)(1) requires Federal 

agencies, in consultation with the 

Service, to carry out programs for the 

conservation of listed species. Section 

7(a)(4) requires Federal agencies to 

confer with the Service on any action 

that is likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of a species proposed for 

listing or result in destruction or 

adverse modification of proposed 

critical habitat. If a species is 

subsequently listed, section 7(a)(2) 

requires Federal agencies to ensure that 

activities they authorize, fund, or carry 

out are not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of the species or 

destroy or adversely modify its critical 

habitat. If a Federal action may 

adversely affect a listed species or its 

critical habitat, the responsible Federal 

agency must enter into formal 

consultation with the Service. 

For the Three Forks springsnail and 

San Bernardino springsnail, Federal 

agency actions that may require 

consultation as described in the 

preceding paragraph include activities 

approved under a forest management 

plan, a refuge comprehensive 

management plan, and activities that 

require a permit from the Army Corps 

of Engineers pursuant to section 404 of 

the Clean Water Act. 

The USFS has established a closure 

around Three Forks Springs to prevent 

unauthorized access. The AGFD has 

implemented a crayfish trapping 

program and a Three Forks springsnail 

monitoring program. A captive refugium 

for Three Forks springsnail has been 

established at the Phoenix Zoo, in 

coordination with USFS and AGFD. We 

intend to continue working with the 

USFS, AGFD, the Phoenix Zoo, and a 

private landowner who owns property 

near Boneyard Bog Springs to develop 

conservation actions for the Three Forks 

springsnail. 

Efforts to rehabilitate habitat on the 

San Bernardino NWR at Tule Spring 

were initiated (Service 2003, p. 2), with 

the intention of potentially introducing 

San Bernardino springsnails. However, 

the inconsistency of water flow 

complicated the habitat reestablishment 

effort. There was not enough freeflowing water to support San 

Bernardino springsnail reintroduction at 

Tule Spring. The San Bernardino NWR 

is currently looking for opportunities to 

augment the water supply to complete 

the habitat restoration efforts at Tule 

Spring and reintroduce springsnails. 

Also, the Service is seeking to acquire, 

through donation, the John Slaughter 

Ranch Museum for incorporation into 

the San Bernardino NWR. This would 

provide tremendous opportunities to 

protect, manage, and enhance springs 

on the property. However, it is 

uncertain if this transaction will occur. 

The Service is continuing to work with 

AGFD and the John Slaughter Ranch 

Museum to develop conservation 

actions for the San Bernardino 

springsnail, including the development 

of a domestic water well to augment 

surface water flow. 

The Act and its implementing 

regulations set forth a series of general 

prohibitions and exceptions that apply 

to all endangered wildlife. The 

prohibitions, codified at 50 CFR 17.21 

for endangered wildlife, in part, make it 

illegal for any person subject to the 

jurisdiction of the United States to take 

(includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, 

shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or 

collect; or to attempt any of these), 

import, export, ship in interstate 

commerce in the course of commercial 

activity, or sell or offer for sale in 

interstate or foreign commerce any 

listed species. It is also illegal to 

possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or 

ship any such wildlife that has been 

taken illegally. Certain exceptions apply 

to agents of the Service and State 

conservation agencies. 

We may issue permits to carry out 

otherwise prohibited activities 

involving threatened or endangered 

wildlife species under certain 

circumstances. Regulations governing 

permits are codified at 50 CFR 17.22 for 

endangered species. With regard to 

endangered wildlife, a permit must be 

issued for the following purposes: For 

scientific purposes, to enhance the 

propagation or survival of the species, 

and for incidental take in connection 

with otherwise lawful activities. 

It is our policy, as published in the 

Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 

34272), to identify to the maximum 

extent practicable at the time a species 

is listed, those activities that would or 

would not constitute a violation of 

section 9 of the Act. The intent of this 

policy is to increase public awareness of 

the effect of a proposed listing on 

proposed and ongoing activities within 

the range of species proposed for listing. 

The following activities could 

potentially result in a violation of 

section 9 of the Act; this list is not 

comprehensive: 

(1) Unauthorized collecting, handling, 

possessing, selling, delivering, carrying, 

or transporting of the species, including 

import or export across State lines and 

international boundaries, except for 

properly documented antique 

specimens at least 100 years old, as 

defined by section 10(h)(1) of the Act; 

(2) Introduction of nonnative species 

that compete with or prey upon the 

Three Forks springsnail and San 

Bernardino springsnail, such as the 

introduction of competing, nonnative 

species to the State of Arizona; 

(3) Unauthorized release of biological 

control agents that attack any life stage 

of this species; 

(4) Unauthorized modification of the 

springs or water flow of any stream or 

removal or destruction of emergent 

aquatic vegetation in any body of water 

in which the Three Forks springsnail or 

San Bernardino springsnail are known 

to occur; and 

(5) Unauthorized discharge of 

chemicals or fill material into any 

waters in which the Three Forks 

springsnail or San Bernardino 

springsnail are known to occur. 

Questions regarding whether specific 

activities would constitute a violation of 

section 9 of the Act should be directed 

to the Arizona Ecological Services Field 

Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT). 

Critical Habitat 

Background 

Critical habitat is defined in section 3 

of the Act as: 

(1) The specific areas within the 

geographical area occupied by a species, 

at the time it is listed in accordance 

with the Act, on which are found those 

physical or biological features 

(a) Essential to the conservation of the 

species and 

(b) Which may require special 

management considerations or 

protection; and 

(2) Specific areas outside the 

geographical area occupied by a species 

at the time it is listed, upon a 

determination that such areas are 

essential for the conservation of the 

species. 

Conservation, as defined under 

section 3 of the Act, means the use of 

all methods and procedures that are 

necessary to bring any endangered 

species or threatened species to the 

point at which the measures provided 

under the Act are no longer necessary. 

Such methods and procedures include, 

but are not limited to, all activities 

associated with scientific resources 

management such as research, census, 

law enforcement, habitat acquisition 

and maintenance, propagation, live 

trapping, and transplantation, and, in 

the extraordinary case where population 

pressures within a given ecosystem 

cannot be otherwise relieved, may 

include regulated taking. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 23077 

Critical habitat receives protection 

under section 7 of the Act through the 

requirement that Federal agencies 

ensure, in consultation with the Service, 

that any action they authorize, fund, or 

carry out is not likely to result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat. The designation of 

critical habitat does not affect land 

ownership or establish a refuge, 

wilderness, reserve, preserve, or other 

conservation area. Such designation 

does not allow the government or public 

to access private lands. Such 

designation does not require 

implementation of restoration, recovery, 

or enhancement measures by nonFederal landowners. Where a landowner 

requests Federal agency funding or 

authorization for an action that may 

affect a listed species or critical habitat, 

the consultation requirements of section 

7(a)(2) of the Act would apply, but even 

in the event of a destruction or adverse 

modification finding, the obligation of 

the Federal action agency and the 

landowner is not to restore or recover 

the species, but to implement 

reasonable and prudent alternatives to 

avoid destruction or adverse 

modification of critical habitat. 

Under the first prong of the Act’s 

definition of critical habitat, areas 

within the geographical area occupied 

by the species at the time it was listed 

are included in a critical habitat 

designation if they contain physical or 

biological features (1) which are 

essential to the conservation of the 

species and (2) which may require 

special management considerations or 

protection. For these areas, critical 

habitat designations identify, to the 

extent known using the best scientific 

and commercial data available, those 

physical or biological features that are 

essential to the conservation of the 

species (such as space, food, cover, and 

protected habitat). In identifying those 

physical and biological features within 

an area, we focus on the principal 

biological or physical constituent 

elements (primary constituent elements, 

such as roost sites, nesting grounds, 

seasonal wetlands, water quality, tide, 

soil type) that are essential to the 

conservation of the species. Primary 

constituent elements are the specific 

elements of physical or biological 

features that, together, provide for a 

species’ life-history processes and are 

essential to the conservation of the 

species. 

Under the second prong of the Act’s 

definition of critical habitat, we can 

designate critical habitat in areas 

outside the geographical area occupied 

by the species at the time it is listed, 

upon a determination that such areas 

are essential for the conservation of the 

species. For example, an area currently 

occupied by the species, but that was 

not occupied at the time of listing, may 

be essential to the conservation of the 

species and may be included in the 

critical habitat designation. We 

designate critical habitat in areas 

outside the geographical area occupied 

by a species at its time of listing only 

when a designation limited to its then 

current range would be inadequate to 

ensure the conservation of the species. 

Section 4 of the Act requires that we 

designate critical habitat on the basis of 

the best scientific and commercial data 

available. Further, our Policy on 

Information Standards Under the 

Endangered Species Act (published in 

the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 

FR 34271)), the Information Quality Act 

(section 515 of the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act for 

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

5658)), and our associated Information 

Quality Guidelines, provide criteria, 

establish procedures, and provide 

guidance to ensure that our decisions 

are based on the best scientific data 

available. They require our biologists, to 

the extent consistent with the Act and 

with the use of the best scientific data 

available, to use primary and original 

sources of information as the basis for 

recommendations to designate critical 

habitat. 

When we are determining which areas 

should be designated as critical habitat, 

our primary source of information is 

generally the information developed 

during the listing process for the 

species. Additional information sources 

may include the recovery plan for the 

species, articles in peer-reviewed 

journals, conservation plans developed 

by States and counties, scientific status 

surveys and studies, biological 

assessments, other unpublished 

materials, or experts’ opinions or 

personal knowledge. 

Habitat is dynamic, and species may 

move from one area to another over 

time. We recognize that critical habitat 

designated at a particular point in time 

may not include all of the habitat areas 

that we may later determine are 

necessary for the recovery of the 

species. For these reasons, a critical 

habitat designation does not signal that 

habitat outside the designated area is 

unimportant or may not be needed for 

recovery of the species. Areas that are 

important to the conservation of the 

species, both inside and outside the 

critical habitat designation, will 

continue to be subject to: 

(1) Conservation actions implemented 

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

regulatory protections afforded by the 

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

for Federal agencies to insure their 

actions are not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of any endangered 

or threatened species, and (3) the 

prohibitions of section 9 of the Act if 

actions occurring in these areas may 

affect the species. Federally funded or 

permitted projects affecting listed 

species outside their designated critical 

habitat areas may still result in jeopardy 

findings in some cases. These 

protections and conservation tools will 

continue to contribute to recovery of 

this species. Similarly, critical habitat 

designations made on the basis of the 

best available information at the time of 

designation will not control the 

direction and substance of future 

recovery plans, habitat conservation 

plans (HCPs), or other species 

conservation planning efforts if new 

information available at the time of 

these planning efforts calls for a 

different outcome. 

Physical or Biological Features 

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

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

at 50 CFR 424.12, in determining which 

areas within the geographical area 

occupied at the time of listing to 

designate as critical habitat, we consider 

the physical or biological features 

(PBFs) that are essential to the 

conservation of the species, and which 

may require special management 

considerations or protection. These 

include, but are not limited to: 

(1) Space for individual and 

population growth and for normal 

behavior; 

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

other nutritional or physiological 

requirements; 

(3) Cover or shelter; 

(4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, or 

rearing (or development) of offspring; 

and 

(5) Habitats that are protected from 

disturbance or are representative of the 

historical, geographical, and ecological 

distributions of a species. 

We derive the specific PBFs from 

studies of the species’ habitats, ecology, 

and life history as described below. We 

have determined that the Three Forks 

springsnail and San Bernardino 

springsnail require the following 

physical or biological features: 

Space for Individual and Population 

Growth and Normal Behavior 

The Three Forks and San Bernardino 

springsnails occur where water emerges 

from the ground as free-flowing springs 

and spring runs. Within spring 

ecosystems, proximity to springheads is 

important due to their need for 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
23078 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

appropriate water chemistry, substrate, 

and flow characteristics of springheads. 

The Three Forks springsnail inhabits 

free-flowing springs, concrete boxed 

springheads, spring runs, spring seeps, 

and shallow pond water. In the United 

States, the San Bernardino springsnail 

inhabits free-flowing springs, a concrete 

boxed springhead, and spring runs. 

Therefore, based on the information 

above, we identify free-flowing springs, 

spring runs, spring seeps, and shallow 

pond water to be physical or biological 

features for both species. 

Food, Water, Air, Light, or Other 

Nutritional or Physiological 

Requirements 

Martinez and Myers (2008, pp. 189– 

194) found the presence of Three Forks 

springsnail was associated with gravel 

and pebble substrates, shallow water up 

to 6 cm (2.35 in) deep, high 

conductivity, alkaline waters of pH 8, 

and the presence of pond snail, Physa 

gyrina. Three Forks springsnail density 

is significantly greater on gravel and 

cobble substrates (Martinez and 

Rogowski 2011, p. 220; Martinez and 

Myers 2002, p. 1), though the species 

has been reported as ‘‘abundant’’ in the 

fine-grained mud of a 0.01 ha (0.02 ac) 

pond at Three Forks Springs (Taylor 

1987, p. 32). Flowing water is essential 

to provide for the species’ life-history 

processes. 

The density of San Bernardino 

springsnails is positively associated 

with cobble substrates, higher 

vegetation density, faster water velocity, 

higher dissolved oxygen, water 

temperature of 57 to 72 °F (14 to 22 °C), 

and pH values between 7.6 and 8.0 

(Malcom et al. 2005, pp. 71, 75–76). San 

Bernardino springsnail densities are 

higher in sand and cobble substrates, 

higher vegetation density, and higher 

water velocity, but lower in silt and 

organic substrates, and deeper water 

(Malcom et al. 2005, pp. 75–76). 

Flowing water is essential to provide for 

the species’ life-history processes. 

Three Forks and San Bernardino 

springsnails consume periphyton on 

submerged surfaces. Periphyton is a 

complex mixture of algae, detritus, 

bacteria, and other microbes that grow 

attached to submerged surfaces such as 

cobble or larger plants, such as 

watercress. Periphyton are primary 

producers of energy (organisms at the 

beginning of a food chain that produce 

biomass from inorganic compounds) 

and can be sensitive indicators of 

environmental change in flowing 

waters. Production of periphyton is 

essential to provide forage to support 

physiological health. Therefore, based 

on the information above, we identify 

substrates with periphyton to be a 

physical or biological feature for both 

species. 

Cover and Shelter 

Three Forks springsnail and San 

Bernardino springsnail utilize cobble, 

gravel, sand, woody debris, aquatic 

vegetation, and leaf matter for cover and 

shelter. These features are necessary to 

provide some protection from predators 

and competitors. Therefore, we identify 

cobble, gravel, sand, woody debris, 

aquatic vegetation, and leaf matter for 

cover and shelter to be a physical or 

biological feature for both species. 

Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, and 

Rearing and Development of Offspring 

Substrate characteristics can influence 

the productivity of Three Forks and San 

Bernardino springsnails. Suitable 

substrates are typically firm, 

characterized by cobble, gravel, sand, 

woody debris, and aquatic vegetation 

such as watercress, though this is 

influenced by water flow and depth. 

Suitable substrates increase productivity 

by providing suitable egg laying sites, 

protection of young from predators, and 

provision of food resources. Therefore, 

based on the information above, we 

identify substrates with cobble, gravel, 

pebble, sand, silt, and aquatic 

vegetation, for egg laying, maturing, 

feeding, and escape from predators to be 

physical or biological features for both 

species. 

Habitats That Are Protected From 

Disturbance or Are Representative of the 

Historical, Geographical, and Ecological 

Distribution of the Species 

The Three Forks springsnail and the 

San Bernardino springsnail have 

restricted geographic distributions. 

Endemic species whose populations 

exhibit a high degree of isolation are 

extremely susceptible to extinction from 

both random and nonrandom 

catastrophic natural or human-caused 

events. Therefore, it is essential to 

maintain the spring systems upon 

which the species’ depend. Adequate 

spring sites, free of disturbance, must 

exist to promote population expansion 

and viability. This means reasonable 

protection from disturbance caused by 

soil erosion following wildfires, 

exposure to fire retardant, water 

depletion and diversion, springhead 

inundation, and nonnative species. 

Therefore, based on the information 

above, we identify spring sites free of 

disturbance to be a physical or 

biological feature for both species. 

Primary Constituent Elements for the 

Three Forks and San Bernardino 

Springsnails 

Under the Act and its implementing 

regulations, we are required to identify 

the physical or biological features 

essential to the conservation of the 

Three Forks springsnail and San 

Bernardino springsnail in areas 

occupied at the time of listing, focusing 

on the features’ primary constituent 

elements. We consider primary 

constituent elements to be the specific 

elements of physical or biological 

features that, together, provide for a 

species’ life-history processes and are 

essential to the conservation of the 

species. 

Based on the above needs and our 

current knowledge of the life history, 

biology, and ecology of these species 

and the habitat requirements for 

sustaining the essential life-history 

functions of these species, we have 

determined that the PCEs specific to the 

Three Forks springsnail and San 

Bernardino springsnail are: 

(1) Adequately clean spring water 

(free from contamination) emerging 

from the ground and flowing on the 

surface; 

(2) Periphyton (attached algae), 

bacteria, and decaying organic material 

for food; 

(3) Substrates that include cobble, 

gravel, pebble, sand, silt, and aquatic 

vegetation, for egg laying, maturing, 

feeding, and escape from predators; and 

(4) Either an absence of nonnative 

predators (crayfish) and competitors 

(snails) or their presence at low 

population levels. 

Special Management Considerations or 

Protections 

When designating critical habitat, we 

assess whether the specific areas within 

the geographic area occupied by the 

species at the time of listing contain 

features that are essential to the 

conservation of the species and which 

may require special management 

considerations or protections. The 

features essential to the conservation of 

the Three Forks springsnail and San 

Bernardino springsnail may require 

special management considerations or 

protections to reduce the following 

threats: Soil erosion following highintensity wildfires, exposure to fire 

retardant, springhead inundation, water 

depletion and diversion, and the 

introduction of nonnative predators and 

competitors. 

For these springsnails, special 

management considerations or 

protection are needed both within and 

outside of critical habitat areas to 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 23079 

address threats. Management activities 

that could ameliorate threats include 

(but are not limited to) protecting 

against: (1) Wildfire and fire retardant 

used to fight wildfires, (2) predation by 

nonnative crayfish, (3) water depletion 

and diversion, (4) potential competition 

from nonnative New Zealand mudsnails 

or predation by nonnative crayfish, and 

(5) harm from livestock and other 

ungulates through fencing to protect 

spring habitats from damage. Special 

management is also needed for the 

purposes of adaptive management, and 

includes continuing to conduct research 

on the springsnails, and on critical 

aspects of their biology (for example, 

reproduction, sources of mortality, 

sensitivity to contaminants, dispersal 

behavior, anti-predator behavior, etc.). 

Criteria Used To Identify Critical 

Habitat 

As required by section 4(b)(1)(A) of 

the Act, we used the best scientific and 

commercial data available to designate 

critical habitat. We reviewed available 

information pertaining to the habitat 

requirements of the Three Forks 

springsnail and San Bernardino 

springsnail. In accordance with the Act 

and its implementing regulation at 50 

CFR 424.12(e), we considered whether 

designating additional areas—outside 

those currently occupied as well as 

those occupied at the time of listing— 

are necessary to ensure the conservation 

of the species. We are designating 

critical habitat in areas within the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species at the time of this final listing 

rule. We also are designating specific 

areas outside the geographical area 

occupied by the species at the time of 

this final listing rule that were 

historically occupied, but are presently 

unoccupied, because we have 

determined that such areas are essential 

for the conservation of the species. We 

are designating all habitat in the United 

States containing PCEs that we consider 

to be currently occupied, and 

unoccupied springs that are essential for 

the conservation of the species. We are 

not designating critical habitat in 

Sonora, Mexico, because we do not 

designate critical habitat outside the 

United States. 

We assessed the critical life-history 

components of these springsnail 

species, as they relate to habitat, and 

used this information to identify which 

areas to designate as critical habitat. 

Three Forks and San Bernardino 

springsnails require unpolluted spring 

water in springheads and spring runs; 

periphyton, bacteria, and decaying 

organic material for food; rock-derived 

substrates for egg-laying, maturing, 

feeding, and escape from predators; and 

absence or tolerable levels of nonnative 

predators and competitors. The areas 

designated as critical habitat for the 

Three Forks springsnail and the San 

Bernardino springsnail contain these 

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

Units were designated based on 

sufficient elements of physical or 

biological features being present to 

support the Three Forks springsnail’s 

and San Bernardino springsnail’s lifehistory processes. Some units contain 

all of the identified elements of physical 

or biological features and supported 

multiple life processes. Some units 

contain only some elements of the 

physical or biological features necessary 

to support the Three Forks springsnail’s 

and San Bernardino springsnail’s 

particular use of that habitat. Each 

specific area will be described below, 

including a discussion of why that area 

meets the definition of critical habitat. 

When determining critical habitat 

boundaries within this final rule, we 

made every effort to avoid including 

developed areas such as lands covered 

by buildings, pavement, and other 

structures because such lands lack 

physical or biological features for the 

Three Forks springsnail and San 

Bernardino springsnail. The scale of the 

maps we prepared under the parameters 

for publication within the Code of 

Federal Regulations may not reflect the 

exclusion of such developed lands. Any 

such lands inadvertently left inside 

critical habitat boundaries shown on the 

maps of this final rule have been 

excluded by text in the rule and are not 

designated as critical habitat. Therefore, 

a Federal action involving these lands 

will not trigger a section 7 consultation 

with respect to critical habitat and the 

requirement of no adverse modification 

unless the specific action would affect 

the physical or biological features in the 

adjacent critical habitat. 

Final Critical Habitat Designation 

For the Three Forks springsnail, we 

are designating critical habitat in two 

areas currently occupied, and one area 

currently unoccupied by the species, 

but considered to have been historically 

occupied. We have determined that the 

unoccupied unit, Three Forks Springs, 

is essential for the conservation of the 

species, because the geographic area 

occupied at the time of this final listing 

rule is not sufficient for recovery. The 

currently occupied areas represent a 

portion of the former range and are 

vulnerable to a single catastrophic 

event. When developing conservation 

strategies for species whose life histories 

are characterized by short generation 

time, small body size, high rates of 

population increase, and high habitat 

specificity, greater emphasis should be 

placed on the maintenance of multiple 

populations as opposed to protecting a 

single population (Murphy et al. 1990, 

pp. 41–51). 

For the San Bernardino springsnail, 

we are designating critical habitat in 

two springs currently occupied and two 

springs not currently occupied by the 

species. The unoccupied springs are 

essential to the conservation of the 

species, because the geographic area 

that is currently occupied is not 

sufficient for recovery. Even though five 

additional sites have been recently 

discovered in Sonora, Mexico, there are 

currently only two occupied units in the 

United States and all seven sites where 

the species occurs are close enough in 

they are vulnerable to a single 

catastrophic event. So, we are 

designating the unoccupied units of 

Snail and Tule Springs to increase 

species’ redundancy, resiliency, and 

representation. (Resiliency of a species 

allows the species to recover from 

periodic disturbance. Redundancy of 

populations may be needed to provide 

a margin of safety for the species to 

withstand catastrophic events. Adequate 

representation ensures that the species’ 

adaptive capabilities are conserved and 

genetic diversity is maintained.) 

The critical habitat units we describe 

below constitute our current and best 

assessment of the areas that meet the 

definition of critical habitat for the 

Three Forks springsnail and the San 

Bernardino springsnail. Table 3 

summarizes the threats and current 

occupancy of the designated critical 

habitat units. Table 4 provides 

approximate areas (ac/ha) and land 

ownership of the units. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
23080 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 3—THREATS AND OCCUPANCY IN AREAS CONTAINING FEATURES ESSENTIAL TO THE CONSERVATION OF THE

THREE FORKS AND SAN BERNARDINO SPRINGSNAILS

Critical habitat unit Threats requiring special management or protections Currently 

occupied 

Three Forks springsnail 

Three Forks Springs Unit ........... Soil erosion following wildfires, fire retardant use, nonnative predators, drought, and potential introduction of nonnative snails.No. 

Boneyard Bog Springs Unit ........ Soil erosion following wildfires, fire retardant use, nonnative predators, drought, and potential introduction of nonnative snails.Yes. 

Boneyard Creek Springs Unit ..... Soil erosion following wildfires, fire retardant use, nonnative predators, drought, and potential introduction of nonnative snails.Yes. 

San Bernardino springsnail 

Snail Spring Unit ......................... Water depletion, drought, potential introduction of nonnative snails, and potential exposure to 

fire retardant chemicals through wind drift.

No. 

Goat Tank Spring Unit ................ Water depletion, drought, potential introduction of nonnative snails, and potential exposure to 

fire retardant chemicals through wind drift.

Yes. 

Horse Spring Unit ....................... Water depletion, drought, potential introduction of nonnative snails, and potential exposure to 

fire retardant chemicals through wind drift.

Yes. 

Tule Spring Unit .......................... Fire retardant use, water depletion, drought, and potential introduction of nonnative snails .......... No. 

TABLE 4—OWNERSHIP AND APPROXIMATE AREA OF CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS FOR THE THREE FORKS AND SAN

BERDARDINO SPRINGSNAILS

Critical habitat unit Ownership Total area in acres 

(hectares) 

Three Forks springsnail 

Three Forks Springs Unit ..................................................................................... Federal .................................................. 6.1 ac (2.5 ha) 

Boneyard Bog Springs Unit .................................................................................. Federal .................................................. 5.3 ac (2.1 ha) 

Boneyard Creek Springs Unit .............................................................................. Federal .................................................. 5.8 ac (2.3 ha) 

Total .............................................................................................................. ............................................................... 17.2 ac (6.9 ha) 

San Bernardino springsnail 

Snail Spring Unit .................................................................................................. State ...................................................... 1.129 ac (0.457 ha) 

Goat Tank Spring Unit ......................................................................................... State ...................................................... 0.005 ac (0.002 ha) 

Horse Spring Unit ................................................................................................. State ...................................................... 0.078 ac (0.032 ha) 

Tule Spring Unit ................................................................................................... Federal .................................................. 0.801 ac (0.324 ha) 

Total .............................................................................................................. ............................................................... 2.013 ac (0.815 ha) 

We present brief descriptions of all 

units, and reasons why they meet the 

definition of critical habitat for the 

Three Forks springsnail and San 

Bernardino springsnail, below. Unit 

descriptions are presented separately for 

each species. 

Three Forks Springsnail 

Three Forks Springs Unit 

The Three Forks Springs Unit is a 

complex of springs, spring runs, spring 

seeps, a segment of an unnamed stream 

connecting them, and a small amount of 

upland area encircling them to make a 

single, contiguous unit of approximately 

6.1 ac (2.5 ha) in the vicinity of UTM 

Zone 12 coordinate 655710, 3747260 in 

Apache County, Arizona. The entire 

unit is in Federal ownership and 

managed by the Apache-Sitgreaves 

National Forests. The unit encompasses 

eight major springheads and spring 

runs, each flowing a short distance of 

several meters to an unnamed tributary 

of the Black River. Two of the spring 

runs flow into a shallow pond and has 

an outflow run to the unnamed 

tributary. The springs complex contains 

spring seeps along the spring runs and 

the tributary. The tributary itself 

provides habitat connectivity. The area 

within the designated unit contains a 

small amount of upland area adjacent to 

the springheads, spring runs, spring 

seeps, and the tributary segment. The 

moist soils and vegetation in the 

adjacent uplands (approximately 3.3 ft 

(1.0 m) from surface water) produce 

periphyton (food for snails) and protect 

the substrate. 

Currently, the Three Forks Springs 

Unit is not occupied. However, the 

Three Forks Springs’ first documented 

occupancy was in 1973 (Landye 1973, 

p. 49), and the species was abundant 

here until 2004 (AGFD 2008, entire), at 

which time the waters are suspected to 

have been contaminated by wildfire 

retardant drift. The last documented 

occurrence of the Three Forks 

springsnail at Three Forks Springs was 

in 2003 (AGFD 2008, entire). Fire 

retardant becomes nontoxic within a 

few days of contact with water, so 

currently, the Three Forks Springs Unit 

contains all of the PCEs. The unit is 

essential for the conservation of the 

species, because: (1) It has the ability to 

support all of the Three Forks 

springsnail life processes, (2) the 

geographic area occupied at the time of 

this final listing rule is not sufficient for 

recovery, and (3) it increases the 

species’ population redundancy. There 

are only two currently occupied areas 

representing a portion of the species’ 

former range, and these two small areas 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 23081 

cause the species to be vulnerable to 

extinction from a single, catastrophic 

event. 

Threats to the Three Forks springsnail 

in this unit include the soil erosion 

following wildfires, fire retardant 

chemicals, drought, nonnative crayfish, 

and potential introduction of nonnative 

New Zealand mudsnails. 

Boneyard Bog Springs Unit 

The Boneyard Bog Springs Unit is a 

complex of springs, spring runs, spring 

seeps, and the segment of Boneyard 

Creek connecting them, and a small 

amount of upland area encircling them 

to make them a single unit of 

approximately 5.3 ac (2.1 ha), in the 

vicinity of UTM Zone 12 coordinate 

659970, 3750730, in Apache County, 

Arizona. The entire unit is in Federal 

ownership and managed by the ApacheSitgreaves National Forests. The unit 

encompasses eight major springheads 

and spring runs, each of which flows 

several yards (meters) to Boneyard 

Creek, a tributary of the Black River. 

The spring complex contains spring 

seeps along the spring runs and the 

tributary. We are designating a 

contiguous critical habitat unit that 

includes the springheads, spring runs, 

seeps, and that portion of Boneyard 

Creek that connects the spring runs. 

Boneyard Creek is occupied where 

spring seeps are present along it, and 

the unit will provide for springsnail 

movement downstream, and is essential 

for habitat connectivity. This unit 

contains approximately 3.3 ft (1.0 m) in 

width of upland area on each side of the 

springheads, spring runs, spring seeps, 

and tributary segment, because the 

moist soils and vegetation in the 

adjacent uplands provide food for the 

snails. 

This unit is currently occupied and 

contains all the PBFs essential for the 

conservation of the species. Also, the 

PBFs that may require special 

management are adequately flowing 

springs, runs, and seeps that are free of 

contaminants and disturbance from 

nonnative species. Special management 

is needed to protect against the threats 

of wildfire, fire retardant used to fight 

wildfires, elk wallowing, predation by 

nonnative crayfish, drought, and 

potential competition from nonnative 

New Zealand mudsnails. 

Boneyard Creek Springs Unit 

The Boneyard Creek Springs Unit is a 

complex of springs, spring runs, spring 

seeps, and the segment of Boneyard 

Creek connecting them, and a small 

amount of upland area encompassing 

them, in a single, contiguous unit of 

approximately 5.8 ac (2.3 ha), in the 

vicinity of UTM Zone 12 coordinate 

658300, 3749790, in Apache County, 

Arizona. The entire unit is in Federal 

ownership and managed by the ApacheSitgreaves National Forests. The unit 

encompasses at least 11 major 

springheads and spring runs, which 

each flow a distance of several meters 

(yards) to Boneyard Creek, a tributary of 

the Black River. The spring complex 

contains spring seeps along the spring 

runs and the tributary. We are 

designating as critical habitat a 

contiguous unit that includes the 

springheads, spring runs, seeps, and 

that portion of Boneyard Creek that 

connects the spring runs. Boneyard 

Creek is occupied where there are 

spring seeps along it, and it should 

provide for springsnail movement 

downstream and is essential for habitat 

connectivity. The area within the unit 

contains approximately 3.3 ft (1.0 m) in 

width of upland area on each side of the 

springheads, spring runs, spring seeps, 

and tributary segment. The moist soils 

and vegetation in the adjacent uplands 

produce food for the snails and protect 

the substrate they use. 

The Boneyard Creek Springs Unit is 

currently occupied and contains all the 

PBFs essential for the conservation of 

the species. The PBFs that may require 

special management are adequately 

flowing springs, runs, and seeps that are 

free of contaminants and disturbance 

from nonnative species. Threats to the 

Three Forks springsnail in this unit that 

may require special management 

include wildfire, fire retardant used to 

fight wildfires, predation by nonnative 

crayfish, drought, and potential 

competition from nonnative New 

Zealand mudsnails. 

San Bernardino Springsnail 

Snail Spring Unit 

The Snail Spring Unit encompasses 

1.129 ac (0.457 ha) in Cochise County, 

Arizona. The entire unit is owned by the 

State of Arizona and managed by the 

John Slaughter Ranch Museum. The 

spring is approximately 16 ft (5 m) in 

diameter, and has a spring run that goes 

south from the spring approximately 77 

ft (23 m) to a manmade ditch, which 

runs 34 ft (10 m) to a dirt road. It passes 

under the road in a 12-ft (4-m) culvert, 

then flows approximately 56 ft (17 m) 

below the road. We are not designating 

the road as critical habitat, but we are 

designating the culvert beneath the 

road, because it contains flowing water 

that provides PCE 1. The spring and 

spring run down to the ditch are dry 

and unoccupied, though they contain 

PCE 3, substrate. The ditch is 

unoccupied, though all the PCEs are 

present. We are including as part of this 

critical habitat designation a 3.3-ft (1-m) 

upland area on each side of the spring, 

spring run and ditch, because moist 

soils and upland vegetation are 

necessary to produce food for the snails 

and protect the substrate they use. 

Because of the small size of the spring, 

spring run, and ditch, we are precluded 

from mapping them precisely due to 

inaccuracies inherent in the use of 

satellites for locating and mapping. 

Therefore, for mapping purposes we 

created a circle that encompasses them. 

The critical habitat is the spring, spring 

run, ditch and buffer within the 249-ft 

(76-m) diameter circle centered on UTM 

coordinate 663858, 3468182 in Zone 12. 

The Snail Spring Unit is currently 

unoccupied by the San Bernardino 

springsnail, but it was historically 

occupied. This Snail Spring Unit is 

essential for the conservation of the 

species, because it will provide 

population redundancy following future 

reintroduction of the species. 

Goat Tank Spring Unit 

This unit encompasses 0.005 ac (0.002 

ha) in Cochise County, Arizona. The 

entire unit is in State ownership and 

managed by the John Slaughter Ranch 

Museum. The spring is contained 

within a square concrete box 

approximately 2 ft by 3 ft (0.6 m by 0.9 

m). There is also some spring seepage 

emanating from the base of a 

cottonwood tree about 6.6 ft (2 m) from 

the spring-box. We are designating as 

critical habitat a 3.3-ft (1-m) upland area 

on each side of the springbox and spring 

seepage, because it has moist soils and 

vegetation that produces food for the 

snails and protects the substrate the 

snails use. Because of the small size of 

the spring-box and spring seepage, we 

are precluded from mapping them 

precisely due to inaccuracies inherent 

in the use of satellites for locating and 

mapping. Therefore, for mapping 

purposes we created a circle that 

encompasses them. The critical habitat 

designation is the spring-box, spring 

seepage, and buffer within the 16-ft 

(5-m) diameter circle centered on UTM 

coordinate 663725, 3468162 in Zone 12. 

This unit is occupied at the time of 

this final listing rule, and contains all 

the PBFs essential for the conservation 

of the species. The PBFs which may 

require special management are freeflowing springs and habitat free of 

disturbance from nonnative 

competitors. Threats to the San 

Bernardino springsnail in this unit that 

may require special management 

include water depletion and drought. 

Water depletion has affected the species 

with a loss of flowing water at nearby 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
23082 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

Snail Spring in the recent past (Cox et 

al. 2007, p. 2; Smith et al. 2003, p. 1; 

Malcom et al. 2003, p. 18). Also, 

potential threats may be posed by 

nonnative snails, should they be 

introduced, and by fire retardant 

chemicals, should they be applied in 

other portions of the San Bernardino 

Valley and carried into this unit by 

wind drift. 

Horse Spring Unit 

This unit encompasses 0.078 ac (0.032 

ha) in Cochise County, Arizona. The 

entire unit is State-owned and managed 

by the John Slaughter Ranch Museum. 

The spring emerges from a PVC pipe, 

which is enclosed in a spring-box, and 

water flows out in a spring-run that is 

approximately 1.6 ft (0.5 m) wide and 

51 ft (16 m) in length. We are 

designating as critical habitat a 3.3-ft 

(1-m) buffer of upland area on each side 

of the springhead and spring-run, 

because it has moist soils and vegetation 

that produce food for the snails and 

protect the substrate they use. Because 

of the small size of the springhead and 

spring-run, we are precluded from 

mapping them precisely due to 

inaccuracies inherent in the use of 

satellites for locating and mapping. 

Therefore, for mapping purposes we 

created a circle that encompasses them. 

The designated critical habitat is the 

spring-box, spring seepage, and buffer 

within the 66 ft (20 m) diameter circle 

centered on UTM coordinate 663772, 

3468091 in Zone 12. 

The Horse Spring Unit is occupied at 

the time of this listing, and contains all 

the PBFs essential for the conservation 

of the species. The PBFs which may 

require special management are freeflowing springs and habitat free of 

disturbance from nonnative 

competitors. Threats to the San 

Bernardino springsnail in this unit that 

may require special management 

include groundwater depletion and 

drought. Groundwater depletion has 

affected the species with a loss of 

flowing water at nearby Snail Spring in 

the recent past (Cox et al. 2007, p. 2; 

Smith et al. 2003; p. 1, Malcom et al. 

2003, p. 18), and may threaten this site 

in the future. Also, potential threats may 

be posed by nonnative snails, should 

they be introduced, and by fire retardant 

chemicals, should they be applied in 

other portions of the San Bernardino 

Valley and carried into this unit by 

wind drift. 

Tule Spring Unit 

This unit encompasses 0.801 ac (0.324 

ha) in Cochise County, Arizona. The 

entire unit is in Federal ownership and 

managed by the San Bernardino NWR. 

The spring forms a pond approximately 

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

m) east-west, and it has a spring-run 

that is approximately 71 ft (22 m) in 

length. The spring run emerges from the 

southeastern side of the spring pond, 

runs northeast for approximately 41 ft 

(13 m) to a manmade ditch, which runs 

southeast 30 ft (9 m). We are designating 

as critical habitat a 3.3-ft (1-m) buffer of 

upland area on each side of the spring, 

spring-run, and ditch, because it has 

moist soils and vegetation that produce 

food for the snails and protect the 

substrate they use. Although there is a 

pond at this location, the seeps where 

the water emerges are not located within 

the pond. The pond is included in the 

designation, because, along with the 

spring, seeps, spring run, ditch, and 

upland buffer, it comprises an interrelated, functioning aquatic system 

important for the springsnails and the 

fish. The water from the pond will 

maintain a springbrook, and the 

springbrook will drain into other ponds. 

Because of the small size of the 

spring, spring-run, and ditch, we are 

precluded from mapping them precisely 

due to inaccuracies inherent in the use 

of satellites for locating and mapping. 

Therefore, for mapping purposes we 

created a circle that encompasses them. 

The critical habitat is the spring, springrun, ditch and buffer within the 210-ft 

(64-m) diameter circle centered on UTM 

coordinate 664259, 3468499 in Zone 12. 

The Tule Spring Unit is currently 

unoccupied by the San Bernardino 

springsnail at the time of this listing, but 

is considered to have been historically 

occupied (Malcom et al. 2003, p. 19), 

and shares a common aquifer and 

similarities in water chemistry, 

temperature, and hydrology with Snail 

Spring. We consider the Tule Spring 

Unit to be essential to the conservation 

of the species, because it contains all the 

PCEs necessary for the life-history 

processes, and it provides population 

redundancy following future 

reintroduction of the species. 

Threats to the San Bernardino 

springsnail in this unit include the 

potential use of fire retardant chemicals, 

water depletion, drought, and the 

potential introduction of nonnative 

snails. 

Effects of Critical Habitat Designation 

Section 7 Consultation 

Section 7 of the Act requires Federal 

agencies, including the Service, to 

ensure that actions they fund, authorize, 

or carry out are not likely to jeopardize 

the continued existence of a listed 

species or destroy or adversely modify 

critical habitat. Decisions by the courts 

of appeals for the Fifth and Ninth 

Circuit Courts of Appeals have 

invalidated our definition of 

‘‘destruction or adverse modification’’ 

(50 CFR 402.02) (see Gifford Pinchot 

Task Force v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

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

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

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

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

rely on this regulatory definition when 

analyzing whether an action is likely to 

destroy or adversely modify critical 

habitat. Under the statutory provisions 

of the Act, we determine destruction or 

adverse modification on the basis of 

whether, with implementation of the 

proposed Federal action, the affected 

critical habitat would remain functional 

(or retain those PCEs that relate to the 

ability of the area to periodically 

support the species) to serve its 

intended conservation role for the 

species. 

If a species is listed or critical habitat 

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

requires Federal agencies to ensure that 

activities they authorize, fund, or carry 

out are not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of the species or to 

destroy or adversely modify its critical 

habitat. If a Federal action may affect a 

listed species or its critical habitat, the 

responsible Federal agency (action 

agency) must enter into consultation 

with us. As a result of this consultation, 

we document compliance with the 

requirements of section 7(a)(2) through 

our issuance of: 

(1) A concurrence letter for Federal 

actions that may affect, but are not 

likely to adversely affect, listed species 

or critical habitat; or 

(2) A biological opinion for Federal 

actions that may affect, or are likely to 

adversely affect, listed species or critical 

habitat. 

When we issue a biological opinion 

concluding that a project is likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of a 

listed species or destroy or adversely 

modify critical habitat, we also provide 

reasonable and prudent alternatives to 

the project, if any are identifiable. We 

define ‘‘Reasonable and prudent 

alternatives’’ at 50 CFR 402.2 as 

alternative actions identified during 

consultation that: 

(1) Can be implemented in a manner 

consistent with the intended purpose of 

the action; 

(2) Can be implemented consistent 

with the scope of the Federal agency’s 

legal authority and jurisdiction; 

(3) Are economically and 

technologically feasible; and 

(4) Would, in the Director’s opinion, 

avoid jeopardizing the continued 

existence of the listed species or 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 23083 

destroying or adversely modifying 

critical habitat. 

Reasonable and prudent alternatives 

can vary from slight project 

modifications to extensive project 

redesign or relocation of the project. 

Costs associated with implementing 

reasonable and prudent alternatives are 

similarly variable. 

Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require 

Federal agencies to reinitiate 

consultation on previously reviewed 

actions in instances where we have 

listed a new species or subsequently 

designated critical habitat that may have 

been affected and the Federal agency 

has retained discretionary involvement 

or control over the action (or the 

agency’s discretionary involvement or 

control is authorized by law). 

Consequently, Federal agencies may 

sometimes need to request reinitiation 

of consultation with us on actions for 

which formal consultation has been 

completed, if those actions with 

discretionary involvement or control 

may affect subsequently listed species 

or designated critical habitat. 

Federal actions that may affect the 

Three Forks springsnail or the San 

Bernardino springsnail or their 

designated critical habitat require 

section 7(a)(2) consultation under the 

Act. On private lands in the United 

States, examples of Federal actions 

include, but are not limited to, 

Environmental Protection Agency 

authorization of discharges under the 

National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System and registration of 

pesticides; Federal Highway 

Administration approval of funding of 

road or highway infrastructure and 

maintenance; Corps authorization of 

discharges of dredged and fill material 

into waters of the United States under 

section 404 of the CWA; U.S. 

Department of Agriculture (USDA) 

Natural Resources Conservation Service 

technical assistance and other programs; 

USDA—Rural Utilities Service 

infrastructure or development; U.S. 

Department of Homeland Security 

activities in regard to immigration 

enforcement and regulation; the 

Department of Housing and Urban 

Development Small Cities Community 

Development Block Grant and home 

loan programs; or a permit from us 

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

Federal actions not affecting listed 

species or critical habitat, and actions 

on State, Tribal, local, or private lands 

that are not federally funded, 

authorized, or permitted, do not require 

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

to several of the specific examples 

above, other Federal actions that may 

require consultation on Federal lands 

include land-management actions 

implemented by the applicable Federal 

land management agency. 

Application of the ‘‘Adverse 

Modification’’ Standard 

The key factor related to the adverse 

modification determination is whether, 

with implementation of the proposed 

Federal action, the affected critical 

habitat would continue to serve its 

intended conservation role for the 

species, or would retain those PCEs that 

relate to the ability of the area to 

periodically support the species. 

Activities that may destroy or adversely 

modify critical habitat are those that 

alter the PCEs to an extent that 

appreciably reduces the conservation 

value of critical habitat for the Three 

Forks springsnail or the San Bernardino 

springsnail. As discussed above, the role 

of critical habitat is to support the lifehistory needs of the species and provide 

for the conservation of the species. 

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

to briefly evaluate and describe, in any 

proposed or final regulation that 

designates critical habitat, activities 

involving Federal actions that may 

adversely modify such habitat, or that 

may be affected by such designation. 

Activities that, when carried out, 

funded, or authorized by a Federal 

agency, may affect critical habitat and, 

therefore, should result in consultation 

for the Three Forks springsnail and the 

San Bernardino springsnail include, but 

are not limited to: 

(1) Actions that would reduce the 

quantity of water flow within the spring 

systems designated as critical habitat. 

(2) Actions that would result in the 

inundation of springheads within the 

spring systems designated as critical 

habitat. 

(3) Actions that would degrade water 

quality within the spring systems 

designated as critical habitat. 

(4) Actions that would reduce the 

availability of course, firm aquatic 

substrates within the spring systems 

that are designated as critical habitat. 

(5) Actions that would reduce the 

occurrence of native aquatic 

macrophytes, algae, and/or periphyton 

within the spring systems designated as 

critical habitat. 

(6) Actions that would cause, 

promote, or maintain the presence of 

nonnative predators and competitors at 

unacceptable levels within the spring 

systems designated as critical habitat. 

Exemptions 

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

The Sikes Act Improvement Act of 

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

required each military installation that 

includes land and water suitable for the 

conservation and management of 

natural resources to complete an 

integrated natural resources 

management plan (INRMP) by 

November 17, 2001. An INRMP 

integrates implementation of the 

military mission of the installation with 

stewardship of the natural resources 

found on the base. Each INRMP 

includes: 

(1) An assessment of the ecological 

needs on the installation, including the 

need to provide for the conservation of 

listed species; 

(2) A statement of goals and priorities; 

(3) A detailed description of 

management actions to be implemented 

to provide for these ecological needs; 

and 

(4) A monitoring and adaptive 

management plan. 

Among other things, each INRMP 

must, to the extent appropriate and 

applicable, provide for fish and wildlife 

management; fish and wildlife habitat 

enhancement or modification; wetland 

protection, enhancement, and 

restoration where necessary to support 

fish and wildlife; and enforcement of 

applicable natural resource laws. 

The National Defense Authorization 

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

136) amended the Act to limit areas 

eligible for designation as critical 

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

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

now provides: ‘‘The Secretary shall not 

designate as critical habitat any lands or 

other geographical areas owned or 

controlled by the Department of Defense 

(DOD), or designated for its use, that are 

subject to an integrated natural 

resources management plan prepared 

under section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 

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

in writing that such plan provides a 

benefit to the species for which critical 

habitat is proposed for designation.’’ 

There are no DOD lands with a 

completed INRMP within the critical 

habitat designation. Therefore, we are 

not exempting lands from this final 

designation of critical habitat for the 

San Bernardino or Three Forks 

springsnails pursuant to section 

4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act. 

Exclusions 

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

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

the Secretary must designate and revise 

critical habitat on the basis of the best 

available scientific data after taking into 

consideration the economic impact, 

national security impact, and any other 

relevant impact of specifying any 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
23084 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

particular area as critical habitat. The 

Secretary may exclude an area from 

critical habitat if he determines that the 

benefits of such exclusion outweigh the 

benefits of specifying such area as part 

of the critical habitat, unless he 

determines, based on the best scientific 

data available, that the failure to 

designate such area as critical habitat 

will result in the extinction of the 

species. The statute on its face, as well 

as the legislative history, is clear that 

the Secretary has broad discretion 

regarding which factor(s) to use and 

how much weight to give to any factor 

in making that determination. 

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

Secretary may exclude an area from 

designated critical habitat based on 

economic impacts, impacts on national 

security, or any other relevant impacts. 

In considering whether to exclude a 

particular area from the designation, we 

identify the benefits of including the 

area in the designation, identify the 

benefits of excluding the area from the 

designation, and evaluate whether the 

benefits of exclusion outweigh the 

benefits of inclusion. If the analysis 

indicates that the benefits of exclusion 

outweigh the benefits of inclusion, the 

Secretary may exercise his discretion to 

exclude the area only if such exclusion 

would not result in the extinction of the 

species. 

Exclusions Based on Economic Impacts 

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

consider the economic impacts of 

specifying any particular area as critical 

habitat. In order to consider economic 

impacts, we prepared a draft economic 

analysis of the proposed critical habitat 

designation and related factors 

(Industrial Economics 2011). The draft 

economic analysis, dated October 24, 

2011, was made available for public 

review on November 17, 2011 (76 FR 

71300). We accepted comments on the 

draft analysis until December 19, 2011. 

Following the close of the comment 

periods, a final analysis of the potential 

economic effects of the designation was 

completed on January 11, 2012, taking 

into consideration the public comments 

and any new information (Industrial 

Economics 2012). 

The intent of the final economic 

analysis (FEA) is to quantify the 

economic impacts of all potential 

conservation efforts for Three Forks 

springsnail and San Bernardino 

springsnail; some of these costs will 

likely be incurred regardless of whether 

we designate critical habitat (baseline). 

The economic impact of the final 

critical habitat designation is analyzed 

by comparing scenarios both ‘‘with 

critical habitat’’ and ‘‘without critical 

habitat.’’ The ‘‘without critical habitat’’ 

scenario represents the baseline for the 

analysis, considering protections 

already in place for the species (e.g., 

under the Federal listing and other 

Federal, State, and local regulations). 

The baseline, therefore, represents the 

costs incurred regardless of whether 

critical habitat is designated. The ‘‘with 

critical habitat’’ scenario describes the 

incremental impacts associated 

specifically with the designation of 

critical habitat for the species. The 

incremental conservation efforts and 

associated impacts are those not 

expected to occur absent the designation 

of critical habitat for the species. In 

other words, the incremental costs are 

those attributable solely to the 

designation of critical habitat above and 

beyond the baseline costs; these are the 

costs we consider in the final 

designation of critical habitat. The 

analysis forecasts both baseline and 

incremental impacts likely to occur with 

the designation of critical habitat. 

The FEA also addresses how potential 

economic impacts are likely to be 

distributed, including an assessment of 

any local or regional impacts of habitat 

conservation and the potential effects of 

conservation activities on government 

agencies, private businesses, and 

individuals. The FEA measures lost 

economic efficiency associated with 

residential and commercial 

development and public projects and 

activities, such as economic impacts on 

water management and transportation 

projects, Federal lands, small entities, 

and the energy industry. Decisionmakers can use this information to 

assess whether the effects of the 

designation might unduly burden a 

particular group or economic sector. 

Finally, the FEA considers economic 

impacts to activities from 2012 (the year 

of this final critical habitat designation) 

through 2024 (the length of guidance 

and information for project and activity 

decisionmaking for the ApacheSitgreaves National Forest’s Land 

Management Plan). The FEA quantifies 

economic impacts of Three Forks 

springsnail and San Bernardino 

springsnail conservation efforts 

associated with the following categories 

of activity: pesticide use, wildfire 

suppression, and ungulate grazing 

(Industrial Economics 2012, p. ES–1). 

Only minor administrative impacts 

are likely to result from the designation 

of critical habitat. This result is 

attributed to several factors, including: 

(1) Four of the seven proposed units 

already receive extensive protection 

from the Federal agencies managing the 

parcels; (2) three of the four federallyowned units are occupied, and thus, 

will require consultation regardless of 

the designation; (3) reintroduction of the 

San Bernardino springsnail to the 

unoccupied units is planned regardless 

of critical habitat designation; and (4) 

project modifications necessary to avoid 

adverse modification are 

indistinguishable from those necessary 

to avoid jeopardizing the species, 

because the species’ existence heavily 

depends upon the spring systems in 

which they occur. 

We anticipate seven potential section 

7 consultations related to activities on 

federally managed lands. Both the 

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests and 

San Bernardino NWR will need to 

address the springsnails in their 

management plans to prevent adverse 

modification of these units. Given the 

presence of springsnails in the ApacheSitgreaves National Forests, the five 

consultations would occur without the 

designation. We anticipate the U.S. 

Forest Service will reinitiate two 

programmatic consultations, one for the 

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests’ 

Management Plan, and one for its 

nationwide plan on the use of fire 

retardants across national forests. 

Additionally, we anticipate up to three 

formal consultations, one for the 

response to the 2011 Wallow Fire, one 

for potential long-term burn area 

rehabilitation after the Wallow Fire, and 

one for salvaging trees within the fire 

perimeter. Incremental impacts are 

limited to the additional administrative 

costs (approximately $48,500) of 

considering the potential for the plans 

and projects to adversely modify critical 

habitat. 

The San Bernardino NWR will likely 

reinitiate one programmatic 

consultation with the Service regarding 

its management plan, and participate in 

one formal consultation to reintroduce 

the springsnail to the Tule Spring Unit. 

Because the Service plans to reintroduce 

the springsnail at this site regardless of 

whether critical habitat is designated, 

incremental costs are limited to the 

administrative costs ($22,200) of 

considering adverse modification during 

the consultations. 

Because we do not have information 

regarding the timing of likely 

consultations, we conservatively assume 

costs are incurred immediately 

following promulgation of this final 

rule. Total undiscounted costs are 

$70,700. In conformance with the Office 

of Management and Budget guidance, 

we also report present-value impacts 

and impacts on an annualized basis 

applying real discount rates of 3 and 7 

percent. No small entities are 

anticipated to be affected by the 

designation. Also, we do not anticipate 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 23085 

impacts to the supply, distribution, or 

use of energy related to this critical 

habitat designation. 

Our economic analysis did not 

identify any disproportionate costs that 

are likely to result from the designation. 

Consequently, the Secretary is not 

exerting his discretion to exclude any 

areas from this designation of critical 

habitat for the Three Forks and San 

Bernardino springsnails based on 

economic impacts. A copy of the final 

economic analysis with supporting 

documents may be obtained by 

contacting the Arizona Ecological 

Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES) or 

by downloading from the Internet at 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

Exclusions Based on National Security 

Impacts 

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

consider whether there are lands owned 

or managed by the DOD where a 

national security impact might exist. In 

preparing this rule, we have determined 

that the lands within the designated 

critical habitat for the Three Forks and 

San Bernardino springsnails are not 

owned or managed by the DOD, and 

therefore, anticipate no impact to 

national security. There are no areas 

excluded based on impacts on national 

security. 

Exclusions Based on Other Relevant 

Impacts 

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

consider any other relevant impacts, in 

addition to economic impacts and 

impacts on national security. We 

consider a number of factors including 

whether the landowners have developed 

any HCPs or other management plans 

for the area, or whether there are 

conservation partnerships that would be 

encouraged by designation of, or 

exclusion from, critical habitat. In 

addition, we look at any Tribal issues, 

and consider the government-togovernment relationship of the United 

States with Tribal entities. We also 

consider any social impacts that might 

occur because of the designation. 

We have determined that the 

designation does not include any Tribal 

lands. We anticipate no impact to Tribal 

lands, partnerships, or HCPs from this 

critical habitat designation. 

Additionally, there are currently no 

conservation plans for the private lands 

containing springs occupied by the San 

Bernardino springsnail. Accordingly, 

the Secretary is not exercising his 

discretion to exclude any areas from this 

designation based on other relevant 

impacts. 

Required Determinations 

Regulatory Planning and Review 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has determined that this rule is 

not significant and has not reviewed 

this rule under Executive Order 12866. 

OMB bases its determination upon the 

following four criteria: 

(a) Whether the rule will have an 

annual effect of $100 million or more on 

the economy or adversely affect an 

economic sector, productivity, jobs, the 

environment, or other units of the 

government. 

(b) Whether the rule will create 

inconsistencies with other Federal 

agencies’ actions. 

(c) Whether the rule will materially 

affect entitlements, grants, user fees, 

loan programs, or the rights and 

obligations of their recipients. 

(d) Whether the rule raises novel legal 

or policy issues. 

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

et seq.) 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

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

by the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 

1996), whenever an agency must 

publish a notice of rulemaking for any 

proposed or final rule, it must prepare 

and make available for public comment 

a regulatory flexibility analysis that 

describes the effects of the rule on small 

entities (i.e., small businesses, small 

organizations, and small government 

jurisdictions). However, no regulatory 

flexibility analysis is required if the 

head of the agency certifies the rule will 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. The SBREFA amended RFA to 

require Federal agencies to provide a 

statement of the factual basis for 

certifying that the rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. In 

this final rule, we are certifying that the 

critical habitat designations for Three 

Forks and San Bernardino springsnails 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. The following discussion 

explains our rationale. 

According to the Small Business 

Administration, small entities include 

small organizations, such as 

independent nonprofit organizations; 

small governmental jurisdictions, 

including school boards and city and 

town governments that serve fewer than 

50,000 residents; as well as small 

businesses. Small businesses include 

manufacturing and mining concerns 

with fewer than 500 employees, 

wholesale trade entities with fewer than 

100 employees, retail and service 

businesses with less than $5 million in 

annual sales, general and heavy 

construction businesses with less than 

$27.5 million in annual business, 

special trade contractors doing less than 

$11.5 million in annual business, and 

agricultural businesses with annual 

sales less than $750,000. To determine 

if potential economic impacts to these 

small entities are significant, we 

consider the types of activities that 

might trigger regulatory impacts under 

this rule, as well as the types of project 

modifications that may result. In 

general, the term ‘‘significant economic 

impact’’ is meant to apply to a typical 

small business firm’s business 

operations. 

To determine if the rule could 

significantly affect a substantial number 

of small entities, we consider the 

number of small businesses affected 

within particular types of economic 

activities. In Appendix A of the FEA, 

the analysis did not anticipate impacts 

to small entities as a result of this 

designation. We apply the ‘‘substantial 

number’’ test individually to each 

industry to determine if certification is 

appropriate. However, the SBREFA does 

not explicitly define ‘‘substantial 

number’’ or ‘‘significant economic 

impact.’’ Consequently, to assess 

whether a ‘‘substantial number’’ of 

small entities is affected by this 

designation, this analysis considers the 

relative number of small entities likely 

to be impacted in an area. In some 

circumstances, especially with critical 

habitat designations of limited extent, 

we may aggregate across all industries 

and consider whether the total number 

of small entities affected is substantial. 

In estimating the number of small 

entities potentially affected, we also 

consider whether their activities have 

any Federal involvement. 

Designation of critical habitat only 

affects activities authorized, funded, or 

carried out by Federal agencies. Some 

kinds of activities are unlikely to have 

any Federal involvement and so will not 

be affected by critical habitat 

designation. In areas where the species 

is present, Federal agencies already are 

required to consult with us under 

section 7 of the Act on activities they 

authorize, fund, or carry out that may 

affect the Three Forks springsnail. 

Federal agencies also must consult with 

us if their activities may affect critical 

habitat. Designation of critical habitat, 

therefore, could result in an additional 

economic impact on small entities due 

to the requirement to reinitiate 

consultation for ongoing Federal 

activities (see Application of the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
23086 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

‘‘Adverse Modification’’ Standard 

section). 

In our final economic analysis of the 

critical habitat designation, we 

evaluated the potential economic effects 

on small business entities resulting from 

conservation actions related to the 

listing of the species and the 

designation of critical habitat. The 

analysis is based on the estimated 

impacts associated with the rulemaking 

as described in the analysis and 

evaluates the potential for economic 

impacts. We did not anticipate any 

activities occurring within the next 13 

years within or adjacent to the critical 

habitat we are designating that could 

potentially affect small businesses. 

We determined from our analysis 

(Appendix A in FEA) that there will be 

no additional economic impacts to 

small entities resulting from the 

designation of critical habitat, because 

almost all of the potential costs of 

modification of activities and 

conservation identified in the economic 

analysis represent baseline costs that 

would be realized in the absence of 

critical habitat. The economic analysis 

estimates the overall annual incremental 

costs associated with the designation of 

critical habitat to be very modest, at 

approximately $70,700. All of these 

costs would derive from the added effort 

associated with considering adverse 

modification in the context of section 7 

consultations. 

In summary, we considered whether 

this designation would result in a 

significant economic effect on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Based on our analysis and currently 

available information, we concluded 

that this rule will not result in a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Therefore, we are certifying that the 

designation of critical habitat for Three 

Forks and San Bernardino springsnails 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities, and a regulatory flexibility 

analysis is not required. 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use— 

Executive Order 13211 

Executive Order 13211 (Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use) requires agencies 

to prepare Statements of Energy Effects 

when undertaking certain actions. The 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has provided guidance for 

implementing this Executive Order that 

outlines nine outcomes that may 

constitute ‘‘a significant adverse effect’’ 

when compared to not taking the 

regulatory action under consideration. 

As none of the outcomes that may 

constitute ‘‘a significant adverse effect’’ 

are relevant to this analysis, energyrelated impacts within the critical 

habitat designation are not anticipated. 

The economic analysis finds that 

extraction, energy production, and 

distribution are not expected to be 

affected (Industrial Economics 2012, p. 

A–8). Thus, based on information in the 

economic analysis, energy-related 

impacts associated with Three Forks 

and San Bernardino springsnail 

conservation activities within critical 

habitat are not expected. As such, the 

designation of critical habitat is not 

expected to significantly affect energy 

supplies, distribution, or use. Therefore, 

this action is not a significant energy 

action, and no Statement of Energy 

Effects is required. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

In accordance with the Unfunded 

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

seq.), we make the following findings: 

(1) This final rule will not produce a 

Federal mandate. In general, a Federal 

mandate is a provision in legislation, 

statute, or regulation that would impose 

an enforceable duty upon State, local, or 

tribal governments, or the private sector 

and includes both ‘‘Federal 

intergovernmental mandates’’ and 

‘‘Federal private sector mandates.’’ 

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

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

mandate’’ includes a regulation that 

‘‘would impose an enforceable duty 

upon State, local, or [T]ribal 

governments,’’ with two exceptions. It 

excludes ‘‘a condition of Federal 

assistance.’’ It also excludes ‘‘a duty 

arising from participation in a voluntary 

Federal program,’’ unless the regulation 

‘‘relates to a then-existing Federal 

program under which $500,000,000 or 

more is provided annually to State, 

local, and [T]ribal governments under 

entitlement authority,’’ if the provision 

would ‘‘increase the stringency of 

conditions of assistance’’ or ‘‘place caps 

upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal 

Government’s responsibility to provide 

funding,’’ and the State, local, or 

[T]ribal governments ‘‘lack authority’’ to 

adjust accordingly. At the time of 

enactment, these entitlement programs 

were: Medicaid; AFDC work programs; 

Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social 

Services Block Grants; Vocational 

Rehabilitation State Grants; Foster Care, 

Adoption Assistance, and Independent 

Living; Family Support Welfare 

Services; and Child Support 

Enforcement. ‘‘Federal private sector 

mandate’’ includes a regulation that 

would impose an enforceable duty upon 

the private sector, except (i) a condition 

of Federal assistance or (ii) a duty 

arising from participation in a voluntary 

Federal program. 

The designation of critical habitat 

does not impose a legally binding duty 

on non-Federal Government entities or 

private parties. Under the Act, the only 

regulatory effect is that Federal agencies 

must ensure that their actions do not 

destroy or adversely modify critical 

habitat under section 7. While nonFederal entities that receive Federal 

funding, assistance, or permits, or that 

otherwise require approval or 

authorization from a Federal agency for 

an action, may be indirectly impacted 

by the designation of critical habitat, the 

legally binding duty to avoid 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat rests squarely on the 

Federal agency. Furthermore, to the 

extent that non-Federal entities are 

indirectly impacted because they 

receive Federal assistance or participate 

in a voluntary Federal aid program, the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would 

not apply; nor would critical habitat 

shift the costs of the large entitlement 

programs listed above onto State 

governments. 

(2) We do not expect this rule to 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. Small governments will 

be affected only to the extent that any 

programs having Federal funds, permits, 

or other authorized activities must 

ensure that their actions will not 

adversely affect the critical habitat. 

Therefore, a Small Government Agency 

Plan is not required. 

Takings—Executive Order 12630 

In accordance with E.O. 12630 

(Government Actions and Interference 

with Constitutionally Protected Private 

Property Rights), we have analyzed the 

potential takings implications of 

designating critical habitat for the Three 

Forks springsnail and San Bernardino 

springsnail in a takings implications 

assessment. Critical habitat designation 

does not affect landowner actions that 

do not require Federal funding or 

permits, nor does it preclude 

development of habitat conservation 

programs or issuance of incidental take 

permits to permit actions that do require 

Federal funding or permits to go 

forward. The takings implications 

assessment concludes that this 

designation of critical habitat does not 

pose significant takings implications for 

lands within or affected by the 

designation. 

Federalism—Executive Order 13132 

In accordance with E.O. 13132 

(Federalism), this final rule does not 

have significant Federalism effects. A 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 23087 

federalism impact summary statement is 

not required. In keeping with 

Department of the Interior and 

Department of Commerce policy, we 

requested information from, and 

coordinated development of, this final 

critical habitat designation with 

appropriate State resource agencies in 

Arizona. We received comments from 

AGFD and have addressed them in the 

Summary of Comments and 

Recommendations section of this rule. 

The designation of critical habitat on 

Federal lands currently occupied by the 

Three Forks springsnail or San 

Bernardino springsnail imposes no 

additional restrictions to those currently 

in place and, therefore, has little 

incremental impact on State and local 

governments and their activities. The 

designation may have some benefit to 

these governments because the areas 

that contain the features essential to the 

conservation of the species are more 

clearly defined, and the physical or 

biological features of the habitat 

necessary to the conservation of the 

species are specifically identified. This 

information does not alter where and 

what federally sponsored activities may 

occur. However, it may assist local 

governments in long-range planning 

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

occur). 

Where state and local governments 

require approval or authorization from a 

Federal agency for actions that may 

affect critical habitat, consultation 

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

While non-Federal entities that receive 

Federal funding, assistance, or permits, 

or that otherwise require approval or 

authorization from a Federal agency for 

an action, may be indirectly impacted 

by the designation of critical habitat, the 

legally binding duty to avoid 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat rests squarely on the 

Federal agency. 

Civil Justice Reform—Executive Order 

12988 

In accordance with E.O. 12988 (Civil 

Justice Reform), the Office of the 

Solicitor has determined that the rule 

does not unduly burden the judicial 

system and that it meets the 

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

of the Order. We are designating critical 

habitat in accordance with the 

provisions of the Act. This final rule 

uses standard property descriptions and 

identifies the physical or biological 

features within the designated areas to 

assist the public in understanding the 

habitat needs of the Three Forks 

springsnail and San Bernardino 

springsnail. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) 

This final rule does not contain any 

new collections of information that 

require approval by OMB under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

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

impose recordkeeping or reporting 

requirements on State or local 

governments, individuals, businesses, or 

organizations. An agency may not 

conduct or sponsor, and a person is not 

required to respond to, a collection of 

information unless it displays a 

currently valid OMB control number. 

National Environmental Policy Act (42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) 

We have determined that 

environmental assessments and 

environmental impact statements, as 

defined under the authority of the 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not 

be prepared in connection with listing 

a species as endangered or threatened 

under the Endangered Species Act. We 

published a notice outlining our reasons 

for this determination in the Federal 

Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 

49244). 

It is our position that, outside the 

jurisdiction of the U.S. Court of Appeals 

for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to 

prepare environmental analyses 

pursuant to NEPA in connection with 

designating critical habitat under the 

Endangered Species Act. We published 

a notice outlining our reasons for this 

determination in the Federal Register 

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

position was upheld by the U.S. Court 

of the Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 

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

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

U.S. 1042 (1996)). 

Government-to-Government 

Relationship With Tribes 

In accordance with the President’s 

memorandum of April 29, 1994, 

‘‘Government-to-Government Relations 

with Native American Tribal 

Governments’’ (59 FR 22951), E.O. 

13175, and the Department of the 

Interior’s manual at 512 DM 2, we 

readily acknowledge our responsibility 

to communicate meaningfully with 

recognized Federal Tribes on a 

government-to-government basis. In 

accordance with Secretarial Order 3206 

of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal 

Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust 

Responsibilities, and the Endangered 

Species Act), we readily acknowledge 

our responsibilities to work directly 

with Tribes in developing programs for 

healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that 

tribal lands are not subject to the same 

controls as Federal public lands, to 

remain sensitive to Indian culture, and 

to make information available to Tribes. 

We have determined that there are no 

Tribal lands occupied at the time of 

listing with features essential for the 

conservation, and no Tribal lands that 

are essential for the conservation, of the 

Three Forks springsnail and San 

Bernardino springsnail. Therefore, we 

have not designated critical habitat on 

Tribal lands for the Three Forks 

springsnail and San Bernardino 

springsnail. 

References Cited 

A complete list of all references cited 

in this rule is available on the Internet 

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

request from the Field Supervisor, 

Arizona Ecological Services Field Office 

(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Authors 

The primary authors of this document 

are the staff members of the Arizona 

Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation. 

Regulation Promulgation 

Accordingly, we amend part 17, 

subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth 

below: 

PART 17—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 17 

continues to read as follows: 

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

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

625, 100 Stat. 3500, unless otherwise noted. 

■ 2. In § 17.11(h), add entries for 

‘‘Springsnail, San Bernardino’’ and 

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

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife in 

alphabetic order under SNAILS to read 

as follows: 

§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened 

wildlife. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
23088 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

Species 

Historic range 

Vertebrate population where 

endangered or 

threatened 

Status When listed Critical 

habitat 

Special 

rules Common name Scientific name 

*******

SNAILS

* * * * * * * 

Springsnail, San 

Bernardino.

Pyrgulopsis 

bernardina.

U.S.A. (AZ) .............

Mexico (Sonora) .....

Entire ...................... T .................... 17.95(f) NA 

* * * * * * * 

Springsnail, Three 

Forks.

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

* * * * * * * 

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

adding entries for ‘‘San Bernardino 

Springsnail (Pyrgulopsis bernardina)’’ 

and ‘‘Three Forks Springsnail 

(Pyrgulopsis trivialis)’’ after the entry for 

‘‘Koster’s Springsnail (Juturnia Kosteri) 

and Roswell’s Springsnail (Pyrgulopsis 

Roswellensis),’’ to read as follows: 

§ 17.95 Critical habitat—fish and wildlife. 

* * * * * 

(f) Clams and Snails. 

* * * * * 

San Bernardino Springsnail 

(Pyrgulopsis bernardina) 

(1) Critical habitat units are depicted 

for Cochise County, Arizona, on the 

map in paragraph (5) of this entry. 

(2) Within these areas, the primary 

constituent elements of the physical or 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of the San Bernardino 

springsnail consist of four components: 

(i) Adequately clean spring water (free 

from contamination) emerging from the 

ground and flowing on the surface; 

(ii) Periphyton (attached algae), 

bacteria, and decaying organic material 

for food; 

(iii) Substrates that include cobble, 

gravel, pebble, sand, silt, and aquatic 

vegetation, for egg laying, maturing, 

feeding, and escape from predators; and 

(iv) Either an absence of nonnative 

predators (crayfish) and competitors 

(snails) or their presence at low 

population levels. 

(3) Critical habitat does not include 

manmade structures other than the road 

culvert and concrete spring-boxes, 

which are included to protect the water 

flowing within them. 

(4) Critical habitat map units. Data 

layers defining map units were plotted 

on 2007 USGS Digital Ortho Quarter 

Quad maps using Universal Transverse 

Mercator (UTM) coordinates in ArcMap. 

Because of the small size of the springs, 

spring runs and ditches, for mapping 

purposes we created a circle that 

encompasses them. 

(5) Note: Index map of critical habitat 

for the San Bernardino springsnail 

follows: 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 23089 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 

(6) Snail Spring Unit contains 

approximately 0.457 ha (1.129 ac) in 

Cochise County, Arizona. This critical 

habitat unit is a spring approximately 5 

m (16 ft) in diameter and has a spring 

run that goes south from the spring 

approximately 23.5 m (77 ft) to a 

manmade ditch, which runs 10.2 m 

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

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

flows approximately 17 m (56 ft) below 

the road. The culvert beneath the road 

is included in critical habitat, but not 

the road itself. We include a 1-m (3.3- 

ft) upland area on each side of the 

spring, spring run, and ditch. The 

critical habitat unit is the spring, spring 

run, ditch, and buffer within the 76-m 

(249-ft) diameter circle centered on 

UTM coordinate 663858, 3468182 in 

Zone 12 with the units in meters using 

North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 

83). 

(7) Goat Tank Spring Unit contains 

approximately 0.002 ha (0.005 ac) in 

Cochise County, Arizona. The unit is a 

spring contained entirely within a 

square concrete box approximately 0.61 

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

emanating from the base of a 

cottonwood tree about 2 m (7 ft) from 

the spring-box. This unit includes a 1- 

m (3.3-ft) upland area on each side of 

the spring box and spring. The critical 

habitat is the spring-box, spring seepage, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3ER17AP12.044</GPH>
23090 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

and buffer within the 5-m (16.4-ft) 

diameter circle centered on UTM 

coordinate 663725, 3468162 in Zone 12 

with the units in meters using North 

American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83). 

(8) Horse Spring Unit contains 

approximately 0.032 ha (0.078 ac) in 

Cochise County, Arizona. The unit is a 

spring and springrun approximately 0.5 

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

length. We include a 1-m (3.3-ft) upland 

area on each side of the springhead and 

spring-run. The designated critical 

habitat unit is the spring-box, spring 

seepage, and buffer within the 20-m (66- 

ft) diameter circle centered on UTM 

coordinate 663772, 3468091 in Zone 12 

with the units in meters using North 

American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83). 

(9) Tule Spring Unit contains 

approximately 0.324 ha (0.801 ac) in 

Cochise County, Arizona. The unit is a 

spring, which forms a pond 

approximately 23 m (75 ft) north-south 

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

spring run that is approximately 22 m 

(71 ft) in length. The spring run emerges 

from the southeastern side of the spring 

pond, runs northeast for approximately 

12.5 m (41 ft) to a manmade ditch, 

which runs southeast 9.2 m (30 ft). This 

unit includes a 1-m (3.3-ft) upland area 

on each side of the spring, spring run, 

and ditch. The designated critical 

habitat unit is the spring, spring-run, 

ditch, and buffer within the 64-m (210- 

ft) diameter circle centered on UTM 

coordinate 664259, 3468499 in Zone 12 

with the units in meters using North 

American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83). 

Three Forks Springsnail (Pyrgulopsis 

trivialis) 

(1) Critical habitat units are depicted 

for Apache County, Arizona, on the map 

at paragraph (5) of this entry. 

(2) Within these areas, the primary 

constituent elements of the physical or 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of the San Bernardino 

springsnail consist of four components: 

(i) Adequately clean spring water (free 

from contamination) emerging from the 

ground and flowing on the surface; 

(ii) Periphyton (attached algae), 

bacteria, and decaying organic material 

for food; 

(iii) Substrates that include cobble, 

gravel, pebble, sand, silt, and aquatic 

vegetation, for egglaying, maturing, 

feeding, and escape from predators; and 

(iv) Either an absence of nonnative 

predators (crayfish) and competitors 

(snails) or their presence at low 

population levels. 

(3) Critical habitat does not include 

manmade structures other than concrete 

spring-boxes, which are included to 

protect the flowing water within them. 

(4) Critical habitat map units were 

plotted on 2007 USGS Digital Ortho 

Quarter Quad maps using Universal 

Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinates 

in ArcMap. 

(5) Note: Index map of critical habitat 

for the Three Forks springsnail follows: 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 23091 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3ER17AP12.045</GPH>
23092 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

(6) Three Forks Springs Unit (2.5 ha; 

6.1 ac). The Three Forks Spring Unit 

consists of all areas within boundary 

points with the following coordinates in 

UTM Zone 12 with the units in meters 

using North American Datum of 1983 

(NAD 83): 655708, 3747262; 655714, 

3747269; 655746, 3747258; 655777, 

3747256; 655802, 3747270; 655808, 

3747288; 655815, 3747304; 655877, 

3747299; 655898, 3747291; 655911, 

3747271; 655922, 3747253; 655932, 

3747227; 655932, 3747209; 655939, 

3747196; 655948, 3747186; 655958, 

3747165; 655969, 3747142; 655979, 

3747116; 655998, 3747094; 656013, 

3747078; 656022, 3747061; 656023, 

3747050; 656013, 3747052; 656001, 

3747065; 655991, 3747086; 655973, 

3747112; 655963, 3747133; 655951, 

3747166; 655931, 3747191; 655906, 

3747198; 655886, 3747201; 655869, 

3747198; 655836, 3747179; 655826, 

3747158; 655830, 3747123; 655841, 

3747098; 655838, 3747083; 655818, 

3747085; 655785, 3747097; 655771, 

3747122; 655782, 3747144; 655784, 

3747170; 655752, 3747216; 655715, 

3747232; 655707, 3747242; Thence 

returning to 655708, 3747262. 

(7) Boneyard Bog Springs Unit (2.1 ha; 

5.3 ac). The Boneyard Bog Springs Unit 

consists of all areas within boundary 

points with the following coordinates in 

UTM Zone 12 with the units in meters 

using North American Datum of 1983 

(NAD 83): 659968, 3750753; 659990, 

3750731; 660021, 3750713; 660060, 

3750717; 660070, 3750742; 660176, 

3750787; 660190, 3750781; 660199, 

3750758; 660208, 3750744; 660159, 

3750685; 660125, 3750680; 660088, 

3750684; 660081, 3750690; 660072, 

3750691; 660072, 3750676; 660076, 

3750675; 660076, 3750664; 660069, 

3750664; 660067, 3750663; 660060, 

3750654; 660052, 3750648; 660034, 

3750649; 660029, 3750654; 660027, 

3750663; 660008, 3750659; 659997, 

3750649; 659997, 3750639; 659988, 

3750639; 659982, 3750641; 659958, 

3750660; 659954, 3750671; 659945, 

3750675; 659942, 3750688; 659933, 

3750685; 659904, 3750662; 659889, 

3750669; 659885, 3750687; 659902, 

3750702; 659919, 3750712; Thence 

returning to 659968, 3750753. 

(8) Boneyard Creek Springs Unit (2.3 

ha; 5.8 ac). The Boneyard Creek Springs 

Unit consists of all areas within 

boundary points with the following 

coordinates in UTM Zone 12 with the 

units in meters using North American 

Datum of 1983 (NAD 83): 658758, 

3750008; 658765, 3749996; 658763, 

3749984; 658732, 3749975; 658714, 

3749981; 658698, 3749968; 658661, 

3749971; 658655, 3749981; 658655, 

3749998; 658642, 3750000; 658638, 

3750024; 658623, 3750034; 658606, 

3750036; 658580, 3750029; 658568, 

3750020; 658553, 3750013; 658537, 

3750005; 658519, 3749993; 658507, 

3749985; 658492, 3749992; 658479, 

3749976; 658469, 3749960; 658467, 

3749945; 658460, 3749935; 658452, 

3749913; 658405, 3749863; 658371, 

3749841; 658343, 3749805; 658312, 

3749789; 658273, 3749741; 658272, 

3749733; 658268, 3749725; 658261, 

3749722; 658254, 3749720; 658242, 

3749699; 658211, 3749682; 658184, 

3749655; 658140, 3749634; 658119, 

3749610; 658074, 3749624; 658024, 

3749603; 657999, 3749549; 657932, 

3749492; 657916, 3749492; 657904, 

3749509; 657912, 3749527; 657933, 

3749545; 657982, 3749559; 658020, 

3749623; 658072, 3749642; 658111, 

3749632; 658129, 3749649; 658174, 

3749667; 658201, 3749691; 658223, 

3749705; 658246, 3749743; 658311, 

3749811; 658336, 3749826; 658403, 

3749893; 658410, 3749904; 658420, 

3749908; 658434, 3749917; 658447, 

3749962; 658473, 3749991; 658493, 

3750013; 658509, 3750003; 658523, 

3750019; 658528, 3750030; 658538, 

3750043; 658564, 3750055; 658584, 

3750053; 658598, 3750061; 658616, 

3750068; 658657, 3750052; 658658, 

3750032; 658656, 3750020; 658667, 

3750002; 658666, 3749982; 658692, 

3749984; 658712, 3749994; 658730, 

3749994; Thence returning to 658758, 

3750008. 

* * * * * 

Dated: April 4, 2012. 

Eileen Sobeck, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and 

Wildlife and Parks. 

[FR Doc. 2012–8811 Filed 4–16–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3