Proposed Rule2023-18547
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species Status for Quitobaquito Tryonia and Designation of Critical Habitat
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
September 13, 2023
Issuing agencies
Interior DepartmentFish and Wildlife Service
Abstract
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to list the Quitobaquito tryonia (Tryonia quitobaquitae), a springsnail species from Arizona, as an endangered species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). This determination also serves as our 12-month finding on a petition to list the Quitobaquito tryonia. After a review of the best available scientific and commercial information, we find that listing the species is warranted. We also propose to designate critical habitat for the Quitobaquito tryonia under the Act. In total, approximately 6,095 square feet (566 square meters) across 2 subunits in Pima County, Arizona, fall within the boundaries of the proposed critical habitat designation. We also announce the availability of a draft economic analysis (DEA) of the proposed designation of critical habitat for Quitobaquito tryonia. If we finalize this rule as proposed, it would extend the Act's protections to this species and its designated critical habitat.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 88 Issue 176 (Wednesday, September 13, 2023)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 176 (Wednesday, September 13, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 62725-62747]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2023-18547]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2023-0073; FF09E21000 FXES1111090FEDR 234]
RIN 1018-BG35
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species
Status for Quitobaquito Tryonia and Designation of Critical Habitat
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to
list the Quitobaquito tryonia (Tryonia quitobaquitae), a springsnail
species from Arizona, as an endangered species under the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). This determination also serves
as our 12-month finding on a petition to list the Quitobaquito tryonia.
After a review of the best available scientific and commercial
information, we find that listing the species is warranted. We also
propose to designate critical habitat for the Quitobaquito tryonia
under the Act. In total, approximately 6,095 square feet (566 square
meters) across 2 subunits in Pima County, Arizona, fall within the
boundaries of the proposed critical habitat designation. We also
announce the availability of a draft economic analysis (DEA) of the
proposed designation of critical habitat for Quitobaquito tryonia. If
we finalize this rule as proposed, it would extend the Act's
protections to this species and its designated critical habitat.
DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before
November 13, 2023. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES below) must be received by 11:59 p.m.
eastern time on the closing date. We must receive requests for a public
hearing, in writing, at the address shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT by October 30, 2023.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. In the Search box, enter FWS-R2-ES-2023-0073,
which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, click on the
Search button. On the resulting page, in the panel on the left side of
the screen, under the Document Type heading, check the Proposed Rule
box to locate this document. You may submit a comment by clicking on
``Comment.''
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail to: Public Comments
Processing, Attn: FWS-R2-ES-2023-0073, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
MS: PRB/3W, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.
We request that you send comments only by the methods described
above. We will post all comments on <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. This
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide
us (see Information Requested, below, for more information).
Availability of supporting materials: Supporting materials, such as
the species status assessment report, are available on the Service's
website at <a href="https://www.fws.gov/office/arizona-ecological-services">https://www.fws.gov/office/arizona-ecological-services</a>, at
<a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> at Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2023-0073, or both.
For the proposed critical habitat designation, the coordinates or plot
points or both from which the map is generated are included in the
decision file for this critical habitat designation and are available
at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> at Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2023-0073 and on
the Service's website at <a href="https://www.fws.gov/office/arizona-ecological-services">https://www.fws.gov/office/arizona-ecological-services</a>.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Heather Whitlaw, Field Supervisor,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona Ecological Services Field
Office, 9828 North 31st Ave #C3, Phoenix, AZ 85051-2517; telephone 602-
242-0210. Individuals in the United States who are deaf, deafblind,
hard of hearing, or have a speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or
TeleBraille) to access telecommunications relay services. Individuals
outside the United States should use the relay services offered within
their country to make international calls to the point-of-contact in
the United States.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Act, a species warrants
listing if it meets the definition of an endangered species (in danger
of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range) or
a threatened species (likely to become an endangered species within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its
range). If we determine that a species warrants listing, we must list
the species promptly and designate the species' critical habitat to the
maximum extent prudent and determinable. We have determined that the
Quitobaquito tryonia meets the definition of an endangered species;
therefore, we are proposing to list it as such and proposing a
designation of its critical habitat. Both listing a species as an
endangered or threatened species and making a critical habitat
determination can be completed only by issuing a rule through the
Administrative Procedure Act rulemaking process (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.).
What this document does. We propose to list the Quitobaquito
tryonia as an endangered species under the Act, and we propose the
designation of critical habitat for the species.
The basis for our action. Under the Act, we may determine that a
species is an endangered or threatened species because of any of five
factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C)
disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its
continued existence. We have determined that Quitobaquito tryonia is
endangered due to the following threats: decline in spring flow
resulting from groundwater pumping and ongoing drought; effects of
climate change; and spring modification.
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act requires the Secretary of the Interior
(Secretary), to the maximum extent prudent and determinable, to
designate critical habitat concurrent with listing. Section 3(5)(A) of
the Act defines critical habitat as (i) the specific areas within the
geographical area occupied by the species, at the time it is listed, on
which are found those physical or biological features (I) essential to
the conservation of the species and (II) which may require special
management considerations or protection; and (ii) specific areas
outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is
listed, upon a determination by the Secretary that such areas are
essential for the conservation of the species. Section 4(b)(2) of the
Act states that the Secretary must make the designation on the basis of
the best scientific data available and after taking into consideration
the economic impact, the impact on national security, and any
[[Page 62726]]
other relevant impacts of specifying any particular area as critical
habitat.
Information Requested
We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule
will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request
comments or information from other governmental agencies, Native
American Tribes, the scientific community, industry, or any other
interested parties concerning this proposed rule. We particularly seek
comments concerning:
(1) The species' biology, range, and population trends, including:
(a) Biological or ecological requirements of the species, including
habitat requirements for feeding, breeding, and sheltering;
(b) Genetics and taxonomy;
(c) Historical and current range, including distribution patterns
and the locations of any additional populations of this species;
(d) Historical and current population levels, and current and
projected trends; and
(e) Past and ongoing conservation measures for the species, its
habitat, or both.
(2) Threats and conservation actions affecting the species,
including:
(a) Factors that may be affecting the continued existence of the
species, which may include habitat modification or destruction,
overutilization, disease, predation, the inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms, or other natural or manmade factors;
(b) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning
any threats (or lack thereof) to this species; and
(c) Existing regulations or conservation actions that may be
addressing threats to this species.
(3) Additional information concerning the historical and current
status of this species.
(4) Specific information on:
(a) The amount and distribution of Quitobaquito tryonia habitat;
(b) Any additional areas occurring within the range of the species
that should be included in the designation because they (i) are
occupied at the time of listing and contain the physical or biological
features that are essential to the conservation of the species and that
may require special management considerations or protection, or (ii)
are unoccupied at the time of listing and are essential for the
conservation of the species;
(c) Special management considerations or protection that may be
needed in critical habitat areas we are proposing, including managing
for the potential effects of climate change; and
(d) Whether occupied areas are adequate for the conservation of the
species, as this will help us evaluate the potential to include areas
not occupied at the time of listing. Additionally, please provide
specific information regarding whether or not unoccupied areas would,
with reasonable certainty, contribute to the conservation of the
species and contain at least one physical or biological feature
essential to the conservation of the species. We also seek comments or
information regarding whether areas not occupied at the time of listing
qualify as habitat for the species.
(5) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the
subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat.
(6) Any probable economic, national security, or other relevant
impacts of designating any area that may be included in the final
designation, and the related benefits of including or excluding
specific areas.
(7) Information on the extent to which the description of probable
economic impacts in the draft economic analysis is a reasonable
estimate of the likely economic impacts.
(8) Whether any specific areas we are proposing for critical
habitat designation should be considered for exclusion under section
4(b)(2) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), and whether the benefits
of potentially excluding any specific area outweigh the benefits of
including that area under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. If you think we
should exclude any areas, please provide information supporting a
benefit of exclusion.
(9) Whether we could improve or modify our approach to designating
critical habitat in any way to provide for greater public participation
and understanding, or to better accommodate public concerns and
comments.
Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as
scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to
verify any scientific or commercial information you include.
Please note that submissions merely stating support for, or
opposition to, the action under consideration without providing
supporting information, although noted, do not provide substantial
information necessary to support a determination. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of
the Act directs that determinations as to whether any species is an
endangered or a threatened species must be made solely on the basis of
the best scientific and commercial data available, and section 4(b)(2)
of the Act directs that the Secretary shall designate critical habitat
on the basis of the best scientific data available.
You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed
rule by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We request that you
send comments only by the methods described in ADDRESSES.
If you submit information via <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>, your
entire submission--including any personal identifying information--will
be posted on the website. If your submission is made via a hardcopy
that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the
top of your document that we withhold this information from public
review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We
will post all hardcopy submissions on <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>.
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be
available for public inspection on <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>.
Our final determination may differ from this proposal because we
will consider all comments we receive during the comment period as well
as any information that may become available after this proposal. Based
on the new information we receive (and, if relevant, any comments on
that new information), we may conclude that the species is threatened
instead of endangered, or we may conclude that the species does not
warrant listing as either an endangered species or a threatened
species. For critical habitat, our final designation may not include
all areas proposed, may include some additional areas that meet the
definition of critical habitat, or may exclude some areas if we find
the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion and
exclusion will not result in the extinction of the species. In our
final rule, we will clearly explain our rationale and the basis for our
final decision, including why we made changes, if any, that differ from
this proposal.
Public Hearing
Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for a public hearing on this
proposal, if requested. Requests must be received by the date specified
in DATES. Such requests must be sent to the address shown in FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. We will schedule a public hearing on this
proposal, if requested, and announce the date, time, and place of the
hearing, as well as how to obtain
[[Page 62727]]
reasonable accommodations, in the Federal Register and local newspapers
at least 15 days before the hearing. We may hold the public hearing in
person or virtually via webinar. We will announce any public hearing on
our website, in addition to the Federal Register. The use of virtual
public hearings is consistent with our regulations at 50 CFR
424.16(c)(3).
Previous Federal Actions
On June 25, 2007, we received a petition dated June 18, 2007, from
Forest Guardians (now WildEarth Guardians) to list 475 species,
including the Quitobaquito tryonia, in the southwestern United States
as endangered or threatened species and to designate critical habitat
under the Act. On December 16, 2009, we published a partial 90-day
finding (74 FR 66866) on 192 species from that petition; in that
document, we announced that the petition presented substantial
information that the Quitobaquito tryonia may be warranted for listing.
Peer Review
A species status assessment (SSA) team prepared an SSA report for
the Quitobaquito tryonia. The SSA team was composed of Service
biologists, in consultation with other species experts. The SSA report
represents a compilation of the best scientific and commercial data
available concerning the status of the species, including the impacts
of past, present, and future factors (both negative and beneficial)
affecting the species.
In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the
Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), and our August 22,
2016, memorandum updating and clarifying the role of peer review of
listing actions under the Act, we solicited independent scientific
review of the information contained in the Quitobaquito tryonia SSA
report. We sent the SSA report to four independent peer reviewers and
received two responses. We also sent the SSA report to six partner
reviewers and received three responses. Results of this structured peer
review process can be found at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. In
preparing this proposed rule, we incorporated the results of these
reviews, as appropriate, into the SSA report, which is the foundation
for this proposed rule.
Summary of Peer Reviewer Comments
As discussed in Peer Review above, we received comments from two
peer reviewers on the draft SSA report. We reviewed all comments we
received from the peer reviewers for substantive issues and new
information regarding the information contained in the SSA report. The
peer reviewers generally concurred with our methods and conclusions,
and provided additional information, clarifications, and suggestions
that we incorporated into an updated version of the SSA report. One
reviewer requested that we analyze water quality quantitatively in the
report. We clarified that although some water quality parameters have
been recorded in the springs that the Quitobaquito tryonia inhabits, we
do not know the full suite of parameters, nor the thresholds to which
the species is sensitive. Otherwise, no substantive changes to our
analysis and conclusions within the SSA report were deemed necessary,
and peer reviewer comments are addressed in version 1.1 of the SSA
report (Service 2022, entire).
I. Proposed Listing Determination
Background
The Quitobaquito tryonia is a small freshwater snail with a conical
shell that measures 0.05 to 0.08 inches (in) (1.4 to 2.1 millimeters
(mm)) in length. The shell has 3.5 to 4.5 highly convex whorls with
deep sutures (or indentations where whorls meet) and is typically
clear, gray, or black in color. Quitobaquito tryonia is dioecious
(Hershler 2001, pp. 3-5), meaning male and female organs occur in
separate individuals. The lifespan of springsnails is thought to be
annual (Lysne et al. 2007, p. 649; Brown et al. 2008, p. 487), with
estimates of longevity ranging from 9 to 15 months (Pennak 1989, p.
552).
Quitobaquito tryonia is likely an herbivore or detritivore that
primarily grazes on periphyton (a mixture of algae, bacteria, detritus,
fungi, diatoms, and protozoa that grow on exposed surfaces (Lysne et
al. 2007, p. 649)) and aquatic plants (Pyron and Brown 2015, pp. 386,
401). The species can more easily consume periphyton, which is also
more nutrient-rich than aquatic plants; however, if periphyton
availability is limited or depleted, Quitobaquito tryonia will consume
aquatic plants (Pyron and Brown 2015, p. 399).
Historically, Quitobaquito tryonia is known from three proximal
springs or spring complexes, Quitobaquito Springs, Williams Spring, and
Burro Spring, that lie near the international border of the United
States (Arizona) and Mexico; these springs/spring complexes are in the
southwestern corner of Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, which is
managed by the National Park Service (NPS), in Pima County, Arizona
(Hershler and Landye 1988, p. 50). Quitobaquito tryonia was first
collected in 1963, from Quitobaquito Springs (Hershler and Landye 1988,
p. 50; Rosen et al. 2010, p. 8). The species has been extirpated from
Williams and Burro Springs but remains extant at Quitobaquito Springs.
The species is found in the 200-meter (m) (700-foot (ft)) spring
channel of Quitobaquito Springs, which is a human-made, concrete-lined
channel with riffle, run, and pool habitat types that was built as part
of a restoration project in 1989. The channel is fed by two springs,
the Northeast and Southwest springs. The NPS regularly manages
vegetation along the stream channel to reduce submerged and emergent
vegetation, creating a mosaic of available habitats and ensuring water
can flow freely through the channel.
The Quitobaquito tryonia was recently detected at a fourth location
in October 2020, a seep (Hillside Seep #2) located approximately 100 m
(328 ft) southeast of the main channel at Quitobaquito Springs.
Hillside Seep #2 is located to the southeast and slightly upslope from
the Southwest Spring at Quitobaquito. The seep is not hydrologically
connected overland to the concrete-lined spring channel at Quitobaquito
Springs and, for the purposes of this analysis, is being considered a
separate population. While there are no surface water connections
between the seep and spring channel, it is likely that they have the
same groundwater source based on proximity and local geology.
Quitobaquito tryonia is the only species in the Cochliopidae family of
small freshwater snails that occurs in the spring complex. There are
six additional seeps (including Hillside Seep #1) that have been
surveyed in the area near Quitobaquito Springs that have low flow and
possible springsnail habitat, but no Quitobaquito tryonia were found
(Sorensen 2021, p. 10). The presence of dense vegetation precluded
searching all possible habitat, so it is possible that Quitobaquito
tryonia individuals are present in the inaccessible portions of these
seeps. Based on the hydrology and geology of the area, additional
undocumented seeps may exist in the area of Quitobaquito Springs that
have not been investigated for presence of Quitobaquito tryonia.
Tohono O'odham and Hia Ced O'odham farmers inhabited the area
including the Quitobaquito Springs complex for several centuries prior
to the arrival of Europeans in the 1600s, and the spring water was used
for irrigation (Bennett and Kunzmann 1989, p. 1; Nabhan et al. 1982,
pp. 124-126). Large-scale water management of the
[[Page 62728]]
springs likely began in 1863, when Euro-American settlers excavated
Quitobaquito Pond and built a dam to hold water diverted from the two
main spring sources (Bennett and Kunzmann 1989, p. 15; Pearson and
Conner 2000, p. 392). Irrigation ditches were constructed from the pond
for agricultural fields to the south and west. In 1915-1919, grazing
pressure intensified with the establishment of a large cattle operation
and ranch that encompassed all of present-day Organ Pipe Cactus
National Monument (Bennett and Kunzmann 1989, pp. 21-22).
The Quitobaquito tryonia requires perennial spring flow, adequate
water quality, and substrates or aquatic vegetation of sufficient type
and quantity. Brooded young, juveniles, and adults all need adequate
spring flow and water quality to meet their resource functions, which
include feeding, growth, survival, and breeding (Hershler 1984, p. 68;
Hershler and Sada 2002, p. 256; Martinez and Thome 2006, p. 14).
Specifically, spring flow must be perennial to prevent desiccation
(drying out) of individuals and to maintain stable water quality
parameters. The Quitobaquito tryonia also needs suitable substrate and
aquatic vegetation for shelter and periphyton growth. While Tryonia
spp. are found on a variety of substrate types, there is some evidence
that coarse substrates may promote higher abundances of Quitobaquito
tryonia (Bogan 2018, entire; Williams and Sorensen 2019, p. 2).
For a thorough review of the taxonomy, life history, and ecology of
the Quitobaquito tryonia, please refer to the SSA report (Service 2022,
pp. 4-7).
Regulatory and Analytical Framework
Regulatory Framework
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and the implementing
regulations in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations set forth
the procedures for determining whether a species is an endangered
species or a threatened species, issuing protective regulations for
threatened species, and designating critical habitat for endangered and
threatened species. In 2019, jointly with the National Marine Fisheries
Service, the Service issued a final rule that revised the regulations
in 50 CFR part 424 regarding how we add, remove, and reclassify
endangered and threatened species and the criteria for designating
listed species' critical habitat (84 FR 45020; August 27, 2019). On the
same day, the Service also issued final regulations that, for species
listed as threatened species after September 26, 2019, eliminated the
Service's general protective regulations automatically applying to
threatened species the prohibitions that section 9 of the Act applies
to endangered species (84 FR 44753; August 27, 2019).
The Act defines an ``endangered species'' as a species that is in
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range, and a ``threatened species'' as a species that is likely to
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout
all or a significant portion of its range. The Act requires that we
determine whether any species is an endangered species or a threatened
species because of any of the following factors:
(A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes;
(C) Disease or predation;
(D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence.
These factors represent broad categories of natural or human-caused
actions or conditions that could have an effect on a species' continued
existence. In evaluating these actions and conditions, we look for
those that may have a negative effect on individuals of the species, as
well as other actions or conditions that may ameliorate any negative
effects or may have positive effects.
We use the term ``threat'' to refer in general to actions or
conditions that are known to or are reasonably likely to negatively
affect individuals of a species. The term ``threat'' includes actions
or conditions that have a direct impact on individuals (direct
impacts), as well as those that affect individuals through alteration
of their habitat or required resources (stressors). The term ``threat''
may encompass--either together or separately--the source of the action
or condition or the action or condition itself.
However, the mere identification of any threat(s) does not
necessarily mean that the species meets the statutory definition of an
``endangered species'' or a ``threatened species.'' In determining
whether a species meets either definition, we must evaluate all
identified threats by considering the species' expected response and
the effects of the threats--in light of those actions and conditions
that will ameliorate the threats--on an individual, population, and
species level. We evaluate each threat and its expected effects on the
species, then analyze the cumulative effect of all of the threats on
the species as a whole. We also consider the cumulative effect of the
threats in light of those actions and conditions that will have
positive effects on the species, such as any existing regulatory
mechanisms or conservation efforts. The Secretary determines whether
the species meets the definition of an ``endangered species'' or a
``threatened species'' only after conducting this cumulative analysis
and describing the expected effect on the species now and in the
foreseeable future.
The Act does not define the term ``foreseeable future,'' which
appears in the statutory definition of ``threatened species.'' Our
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a framework for
evaluating the foreseeable future on a case-by-case basis. The term
``foreseeable future'' extends only so far into the future as we can
reasonably determine that both the future threats and the species'
responses to those threats are likely. In other words, the foreseeable
future is the period of time in which we can make reliable predictions.
``Reliable'' does not mean ``certain''; it means sufficient to provide
a reasonable degree of confidence in the prediction. Thus, a prediction
is reliable if it is reasonable to depend on it when making decisions.
It is not always possible or necessary to define the foreseeable
future as a particular number of years. Analysis of the foreseeable
future uses the best scientific and commercial data available and
should consider the timeframes applicable to the relevant threats and
to the species' likely responses to those threats in view of its life-
history characteristics. Data that are typically relevant to assessing
the species' biological response include species-specific factors such
as lifespan, reproductive rates or productivity, certain behaviors, and
other demographic factors.
Analytical Framework
The SSA report documents the results of our comprehensive
biological review of the best scientific and commercial data regarding
the status of the species, including an assessment of the potential
threats to the species. The SSA report does not represent our decision
on whether the species should be proposed for listing as an endangered
or threatened species under the Act. However, it does provide the
scientific basis that informs our regulatory decisions, which involve
the further application of standards within the Act and its
implementing regulations and policies.
[[Page 62729]]
To assess Quitobaquito tryonia viability, we used the three
conservation biology principles of resiliency, redundancy, and
representation (Shaffer and Stein 2000, pp. 306-310). Briefly,
resiliency is the ability of the species to withstand environmental and
demographic stochasticity (for example, wet or dry, warm or cold
years), redundancy is the ability of the species to withstand
catastrophic events (for example, droughts, large pollution events),
and representation is the ability of the species to adapt to both near-
term and long-term changes in its physical and biological environment
(for example, climate conditions, pathogens). In general, species
viability will increase with increases in resiliency, redundancy, and
representation (Smith et al. 2018, p. 306). Using these principles, we
identified the species' ecological requirements for survival and
reproduction at the individual, population, and species levels, and
described the beneficial and risk factors influencing the species'
viability.
The SSA process can be categorized into three sequential stages.
During the first stage, we evaluated the individual species' life-
history needs. The next stage involved an assessment of the historical
and current condition of the species' demographics and habitat
characteristics, including an explanation of how the species arrived at
its current condition. The final stage of the SSA involved making
predictions about the species' responses to positive and negative
environmental and anthropogenic influences. Throughout all of these
stages, we used the best available information to characterize
viability as the ability of a species to sustain populations in the
wild over time. We use this information to inform our regulatory
decision.
The following is a summary of the key results and conclusions from
the SSA report; the full SSA report can be found at Docket No. FWS-R2-
ES-2023-0073 on <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> and at <a href="https://www.fws.gov/office/arizona-ecological-services">https://www.fws.gov/office/arizona-ecological-services</a>.
Summary of Biological Status and Threats
In this discussion, we review the biological condition of the
species and its resources, and the threats that influence the species'
current and future condition, in order to assess the species' overall
viability and the risks to that viability. For the Quitobaquito tryonia
to maintain viability, its populations must be highly resilient with
sufficient redundancy and representation. Several factors influence the
resiliency of the Quitobaquito tryonia populations, including: (1) the
reduction of spring discharge, (2) effects of climate change, (3)
spring modification, and (4) conservation actions. These resiliency
factors and habitat elements are discussed in detail in the SSA report
(Service 2022, entire) and are summarized here.
Species Needs
Spring Flow
Spring flow in spring systems is maintained by groundwater, and
individual springs may range widely in size, water chemistry,
morphology, landscape setting, and persistence (Springer and Stevens
2009, p. 84). Groundwater recharge of aquifers occurs through
precipitation, through surface water from rivers, or as an
anthropogenic input from irrigation and municipal returns (Tr[ccaron]ek
and Zojer 2010, p. 87). A decline in groundwater recharge or increase
in groundwater discharge (e.g., from groundwater withdrawal, drought,
or increased evapotranspiration) can lead to reductions, disruptions,
or cessation of spring flow. While the Quitobaquito tryonia possesses
an operculum (Johnson et al. 2013, p. 248), which enables the shell to
be sealed, this only provides protection from drying for a very limited
period of time (i.e., hours to days).
Water Quality
While the full suite of water quality conditions that the
Quitobaquito tryonia prefers has not been determined, water quality
measurements have been recorded for some parameters in springs
inhabited by the Quitobaquito tryonia or other closely related species.
The water chemistry of a spring is strongly influenced by aquifer
geology. Several habitat variables, such as dissolved oxygen, pH,
conductivity, and temperature, may influence the distribution and
abundance of springsnails (O'Brien and Blinn 1999, pp. 231-232;
Mladenka and Minshall 2001, pp. 209-211; Malcom et al. 2005, p. 75;
Martinez and Thome 2006, pp. 12-15; Lysne et al. 2007, p. 650). No
known sources of contaminants are present in the Quitobaquito Springs
system, although some concern has been raised regarding the aerial
application of agricultural pesticides in the Rio Sonoyta watershed of
Mexico and the threat of wind drift (NPS 2006a, p. 1). However, a
contaminant study from the early 1990s found no evidence of
contamination from sediment samples taken from Quitobaquito Pond (King
et al. 1996, pp. 3-5).
Substrate and Vegetation
While Tryonia spp. are found on a variety of substrate types, there
is some evidence that coarse substrates may promote higher abundances
of Quitobaquito tryonia. Bogan (2018, entire) noted differences in
densities of Quitobaquito tryonia within the 200-m (700-ft) spring
channel at Quitobaquito Springs. The spring channel at Quitobaquito
Springs is a concrete-lined channel with riffle, run, and pool habitat
types. The NPS regularly manages vegetation along the stream channel to
reduce submerged and emergent vegetation, creating a mosaic of
available habitats and ensuring water can flow freely through the
channel. Within the channel, Quitobaquito tryonia were densest in
gravel riffles, followed by concrete runs and riffles, then vegetated
pools. However, surveys by Arizona Game and Fish Department (AZGFD)
biologists at Quitobaquito Springs have not found any Quitobaquito
tryonia along the densely vegetated margins of the pond, located at the
terminus of the spring channel (Williams and Sorensen 2019, p. 2).
Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument was established in 1937, but
cattle operations near Quitobaquito, Williams, and Burro Springs
continued until large-scale cattle operations ended in 1976 (Warren and
Anderson 1987, p. 1). In 1978, the remaining cattle were removed from
the Monument (Bennett and Kunzmann 1989, pp. 15, 21-22). After the
large-scale cattle operations ended, spring sources became dense with
vegetation and standing water was reduced (Warren and Anderson 1987, p.
13). These effects of intensive livestock grazing on vegetation change
and soil disturbance ended in 1978-79 across the Springs at Organ Pipe
Cactus National Monument. Occasionally, trespass cattle and other
livestock (i.e., horses and burros) still occur within the greater
Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, but they are not common near
Quitobaquito Springs. The concrete channel that was installed in 1989
(NPS 1992, pp. 28-30) also created a more stable system within the
Springs, so the Quitobaquito tryonia population experiences less of an
effect of vegetation change, soil disturbance, and reductions/
fluctuations in preferred substrates.
Risk Factors for the Quitobaquito Tryonia
We reviewed the potential risk factors (i.e., threats, stressors)
that could be currently affecting the Quitobaquito tryonia. In this
proposed rule, we will discuss only those factors in detail that
[[Page 62730]]
could meaningfully impact the status of the species. Those risk factors
that are unlikely to have significant effects on the Quitobaquito
tryonia, such as vegetation and soil disturbance, invasive species, and
predation, are not discussed here but are evaluated in the SSA report.
For example, the introduction of nonnative or invasive predators has
the potential to negatively affect the Quitobaquito tryonia (Hershler
1998, p. 14; Sada 2017, p. 11). However, nonnative predators such as
bullfrogs, crayfish, and cichlids are not currently present in areas
occupied by the Quitobaquito tryonia. Quitobaquito Springs is a remote,
isolated natural water, and is neither a destination for anglers (e.g.,
bait bucket dump), nor is stocked with fish from State or Federal
hatcheries. The primary risk factors (i.e., threats) affecting the
status of the Quitobaquito tryonia are the reduction of spring
discharge (Factor A), effects of climate change (Factor E), and spring
modification (Factor A).
Reduction of Spring Discharge
Quitobaquito Springs complex is likely supplied by prehistoric
water (i.e., water that was deposited many millennia before current
day) stored beneath an area centered around Aguajita Wash with the
Quitobaquito Hills roughly delineating the western boundary, shallow
bedrock to the east, and Rio Sonoyta to the south (Carruth 1996, pp.
18, 20; see figure 4.2 in the SSA report for a map of the area).
Groundwater recharge in the approximately 100-square-mile area is
primarily from the limited infiltration (5-10 percent) of local
rainfall (6.6 inches/year; Carruth 1996, p. 18). The historically
consistent spring flows at Quitobaquito Springs were highly dependent
on large, stored water volumes (Carruth 1996, p. 21). However, long-
term spring flow has declined over the last 25 years (see figure 1,
below; Zamora 2018, p. 146; Zamora et al. 2020, pp. 5-6). Although it
is uncertain how impacts to the regional aquifer may affect
Quitobaquito Springs complex outputs (Carruth 1996, p. 21; Zamora et
al. 2020, p. 15), stressors on the Rio Sonoyta aquifer may include
municipal water usage for the city of Sonoyta (Sonora, Mexico); local
agriculture (i.e., irrigated crop fields and cattle ranching); and
water usage associated with local construction of the U.S.-Mexico
border wall.
The City of Sonoyta has grown in human population since the late
1960s (Brown 1991, p. 6). By 1988, there were 212 wells (165 for
irrigation) pumping in or near the city of Sonoyta (Brown 1991, p. 18).
Even with the Mexican government placing a moratorium on any new wells
being dug in 1988, groundwater withdrawals are exceeding recharge to
the aquifer (Brown 1991, p. 47). Under conditions in the early 1990s,
annual pumping capacity was approximately 2.5 times greater than the
annual rate of recharge (Brown 1991, p. 27), and the number of
irrigated acres has remained constant since 1982 (Brown 1991, p. 47).
Census data from 1995 to present day show a peak population for Sonoyta
and the surrounding area in 2010 with steady declines since. While the
existing pumping infrastructure is capable of greatly exceeding the
recharge rate in the Rio Sonoyta basin, during a study from 2001 to
2006, it was observed that many of the irrigation wells, pumps, and
ditches were not in use (Rosen et al. 2010, p. 13).
Additionally, beginning in 2020, there has been water withdrawal
associated with border wall construction between the United States and
Mexico; this water withdrawal affected the groundwater and aquifer
systems supplying Quitobaquito Springs. A permit filed by U.S. Customs
and Border Protection requested 84,000 gallons per day for a 45-day
build period. Two new wells were drilled to meet the water demand,
which may hasten the ``drawdown'' of water resources in an area where
groundwater withdrawals from the nearby Rio Sonoyta alluvial aquifer
exceed the recharge rate (Brown 1991, p. 27). These new wells were
located 11 to 13 kilometers (7 to 8 miles) from Quitobaquito Springs to
minimize any potential stress on spring output (Morawe 2021, pers.
comm.). Future border wall construction has been paused, but
construction, and thus water withdrawal, may resume in the future.
Drought has the potential to impact spring flow by reducing the
amount of recharge into the groundwater system and increasing
evaporation of surface water due to extended periods of high ambient
temperatures. Statewide trends in Arizona over the last 100 years show
60 percent of the last 20 years were in drought conditions (NOAA 2021,
unpaginated). Pima County, Arizona, has been in an extended drought
since 2000, which coincides with continued declines in spring flow
output at Quitobaquito Springs. Along with drought, a trend of warmer
and drier conditions in Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument has been
observed (NPS 2014, entire). Climate change is expected to further
exacerbate drought conditions.
As a result of groundwater withdrawals and drought, spring
discharge has declined at Quitobaquito, Williams, and Burro Springs.
Monitoring of spring discharge at Quitobaquito Springs began in 1973
and has continued intermittently through the present day. Methods for
measuring discharge varied over the years, but long-term spring flow
measurements show a decline in discharge over the last 25 years (see
figure 1, below; Zamora 2018, p. 146; Zamora et al. 2020, pp. 5-6). By
the early 2000s, Williams and Burro Springs had ceased flowing
completely (NPS 2006b, p. 9), and the species is now considered
extirpated from these areas, though there is some evidence of
seasonally intermittent surface water occurring at Williams Spring
(Williams and Sorensen 2019, p. 3). Burro Spring became intermittent
sometime prior to 1992 (NPS 1992, p. 28), while Williams Spring still
maintained perennial discharge during the summer of 1991 (Goodman 1992,
p. 143).
[[Page 62731]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP13SE23.001
Effects of Climate Change
There is a broad consensus among climate models that arid
ecosystems are especially vulnerable to the impacts of climate change
(Seager et al. 2007, pp. 1181-1184; Weiss and Overpeck 2005, p. 2075;
Archer and Predick 2008, p. 24). The current prognosis of climate
change impacts on the Sonoran Desert includes fewer frost days; warmer
temperatures; greater water demand by plants, animals, and people; and
an increased frequency of extreme weather events (such as heat waves,
droughts, and floods) (Weiss and Overpeck 2005, p. 2074; Archer and
Predick 2008, p. 24). For the southwestern United States, the following
influences of climate change are projected: (1) Continued warming with
longer and hotter heat waves in summer; (2) decreased average
precipitation in the southern portion; (3) more frequent and intense
extreme precipitation in winter; (4) decreased late-season snowpack;
(5) decreased river flow and soil moisture; (6) more frequent and
intense flooding in some seasons and some parts of the Southwest, and
less frequent and intense in other seasons; and (7) hotter, more
severe, and more frequent droughts in parts of the Southwest (Garfin et
al. 2013, pp. 5-6).
Reductions in annual rainfall associated with climate change,
coupled with hotter temperatures that are projected with very high
confidence, will likely bring reductions in aquifer inputs due to
reduced recharge and higher evaporation rates, and will likely have
negative effects on aquifers across the Southwest. Virtually every
plausible future climate scenario projects longer dry spells between
rains, which can have more severe impacts on the landscape, especially
in spring and summer (Lenart 2007, entire). It is therefore possible
that some existing Quitobaquito tryonia habitat will periodically dry
up in the spring and summer during the current century. Bigger and more
frequent floods caused by more intense, heavy rainfall events are also
expected episodically in the winter (Overpeck et al. 2013, p. 6) and
may be even more destructive as riparian vegetation declines within the
greater system, although flooding may not have as pronounced of an
effect on the concrete-lined channel of Quitobaquito Springs. Climate
change trends are highly likely to continue (Overpeck et al. 2013,
entire). Climatic impacts on the Quitobaquito tryonia will likely be
further complicated by interactions with other factors (e.g.,
interactions with nonnative species and other habitat-disturbing
activities).
Spring Modification
Spring modifications include channel modification, surface water
diversions, and impoundment at springs. Spring modifications may occur
for development, management, or restoration purposes and have been
extensively documented at Quitobaquito Springs, although some
modification also occurred at Williams Spring. These modifications may
be either beneficial or detrimental to springsnail populations
depending on the context. Human alterations of springheads to
concentrate or divert discharge negatively affect spring systems and
have resulted in the decline or loss of springsnail populations
throughout the southwestern United States and northern Mexico (Unmack
and Minckley 2008, p. 20; Hershler et al. 2011, p. 12; Hershler et al.
2014, pp. 51, 53, 56, 58-63). Surface water diversions are sources of
multiple stresses to springs, including altering physical integrity,
creating conditions that favor nonnative aquatic species, and degrading
habitat conditions for native riparian vegetation (Sada 2017, pp. 10-
11). Additionally, the presence of pipes, dikes, dams, impoundments,
channel modifications and dredging, or spring boxes indicate further
stress in the form of spring diversions and loss of occupancy of
springsnails at some sites. Although surface water diversions can cause
stress to springs and springsnails, populations of springsnails in
historically disturbed habitats can recover if the disturbance is low
in magnitude and infrequent (Sada 2017, p. 22).
While restoration may be a temporary source of stress to a spring
system and springsnails, there is often an overall benefit to
springsnails by improving all of the species' needs within a spring
(e.g., water quality, substrate and vegetation, and spring flow).
Aquatic habitat at Quitobaquito Springs was severely reduced in the
1970s when
[[Page 62732]]
flow from the Southwest Spring was directed into an underground pipe.
However, a restoration project in 1989 restored aboveground flow
through channel modification and the creation of a concrete-lined
stream that mimics riffle, run, and pool habitats; that stream is
currently inhabited by the Quitobaquito tryonia.
Summary
Several historical and ongoing influences, including reductions in
spring discharge, effects of climate change, and spring modification,
may affect the viability of the Quitobaquito tryonia. The most
pervasive threat to the species is the historical and ongoing loss or
decline in spring discharge. Quitobaquito tryonia populations in two
springs (Burro and Williams) are now extirpated because of a loss of
perennial flow, while Quitobaquito Springs has seen a documented
decline in discharge. The causes of the decline in spring discharge are
not definitive but are likely related to ongoing drought conditions and
groundwater pumping. Climate change is expected to exacerbate these
conditions. Spring modification has had both positive and negative
influences on the viability of the Quitobaquito tryonia. Historical
anthropogenic modification of Quitobaquito Springs severely curtailed
available habitat, while ongoing conservation efforts have restored
spring channel habitat.
Species Condition
The current condition of the Quitobaquito tryonia considers the
risks to the populations that are currently occurring. In the SSA
report, for each population, we developed and assigned condition
categories for one demographic factor and three habitat factors that
are important for the viability of the Quitobaquito tryonia. We used
abundance to measure demographics of the populations, and we
characterized habitat using spring flow, water quality, and substrate
and vegetation as our metrics. The condition scores for each factor
were then used to determine an overall condition of each population:
high, moderate, low, or extirpated.
The Quitobaquito Springs population is in high condition for all
metrics, with an overall high population resiliency. Hillside Seep #2
is in low condition for abundance, moderate condition for spring flow
and substrate and vegetation, and high condition for water quality, for
an overall moderate population resiliency (see table 1, below).
Williams Spring and Burro Spring are extirpated.
Table 1--Current Condition of the Quitobaquito Tryonia
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Demographic metric Habitat metric
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Current population
Population Substrate and resiliency
Abundance Spring flow Water quality vegetation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quitobaquito Springs............... High.................. High.................. High................. High................. High.
Hillside Seep #2................... Low................... Moderate.............. High................. Moderate............. Moderate.
Williams Spring.................... Extirpated............ Extirpated............ Extirpated........... Extirpated........... Extirpated.
Burro Spring....................... Extirpated............ Extirpated............ Extirpated........... Extirpated........... Extirpated.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Repopulation of extirpated locations (Williams Spring and Burro
Spring) is unlikely because although the springs may be intermittent,
perennial surface water is absent, making habitat unsuitable for the
Quitobaquito tryonia (Williams and Sorensen 2019, p. 3). The exact date
when the Quitobaquito tryonia became extirpated from these locations is
unknown, but habitat was deemed unsuitable for springsnails in 2004,
and no Quitobaquito tryonia were found at this time or during
subsequent visits (Martinez and Sorensen 2016, p. 4; Williams and
Sorensen 2019, p. 3).
Redundancy for the Quitobaquito tryonia is characterized by having
multiple, sufficiently resilient populations distributed across the
spring systems historically occupied by the species for the species to
be able to withstand catastrophic events. Species that are well-
distributed across their historical range are less susceptible to the
risk of extirpation (Carroll et al. 2010, entire; Redford et al. 2011,
entire). Currently, because there are two extant populations with
moderate or high resiliency and two extirpated populations, redundancy
of the species has been reduced from historical levels. Additionally,
the Quitobaquito tryonia has always been a highly localized endemic (it
historically occupied springs occurring within a 1-kilometer (0.6-mile)
radius of one another); the two extant populations are separated by
roughly only 100 m (328 ft). Thus, a catastrophic event (such as
drought) is highly likely to simultaneously affect both remaining
populations of the Quitobaquito tryonia. Conversely, despite their
proximity, the populations are isolated and not connected by overland
flow; thus, some catastrophic events, such as the introduction of an
invasive species, may only affect one of the two populations. However,
this isolation would also limit the ability of the Quitobaquito tryonia
to naturally recolonize given its limited dispersal ability. Because of
the species' small size and dependence on water, dispersal events are
rare and opportunistic, with overland transportation likely occurring
by ``hitchhiking'' on birds or other animals (Hershler et al. 2005, pp.
1755-1756, 1763). Therefore, species redundancy for the Quitobaquito
tryonia is currently limited to two populations that occur within a
reduced geographical extent, which reduces the species' ability to
withstand catastrophic events.
Representation reflects a species' capacity to adapt to changing
environmental conditions over time and can be characterized by genetic
and ecological diversity within and among populations. We describe
species representation in terms of habitat variability across its
historical range because data on the species' life history,
demographics, and population genetics are lacking. Quitobaquito Springs
has the greatest discharge of the four springs. It is possible that
some local adaptation to water temperature, flow velocity, and/or
community interactions occurred among the populations. Gene flow
between populations is unlikely due to the isolation of separate
springs and the species' limited dispersal ability. Because the species
is limited in range and dispersal abilities and the spring habitats of
its populations share several characteristics, the adaptive capacity,
and thus the species' representation, is limited.
As part of the SSA, we also developed two future condition
scenarios at two time steps (10 years and 40 years into the future) to
capture the range of uncertainties regarding future threats and the
projected responses by the Quitobaquito tryonia. Our scenarios
[[Page 62733]]
assumed a continued rate changing climate conditions, water
withdrawals, or drought that may impact groundwater levels and the rate
of spring flow decline, as well as those factors at increased levels.
Because we determined that the current condition of the Quitobaquito
tryonia is consistent with an endangered species (see Determination of
Status, below), we are not presenting the results of the future
scenarios in this proposed rule. Please refer to the SSA report
(Service 2022) for the full analysis of future scenarios.
We note that, by using the SSA framework (Service 2016) to guide
our analysis of the scientific information documented in the SSA
report, we have analyzed the cumulative effects of identified threats
and conservation actions on the species. To assess the current and
future condition of the species, we evaluate the effects of all the
relevant factors that may be influencing the species, including threats
and conservation efforts. Because the SSA framework considers not just
the presence of the factors, but to what degree they collectively
influence risk to the entire species, our assessment integrates the
cumulative effects of the factors and replaces a standalone cumulative
effects analysis.
Conservation Efforts and Regulatory Mechanisms
Several habitat management actions can benefit the viability of the
Quitobaquito tryonia by reducing or removing threats to the species.
The concrete channel that was installed in 1989 (NPS 1992, pp. 28-30)
created a more stable system within the spring population that is less
affected by vegetation change, soil disturbance, and reductions/
fluctuations in preferred substrates. The concrete channel prevents
establishment of dense vegetative stands that may impede flow, which is
required to maintain species viability. Additionally, staff at Organ
Pipe Cactus National Monument regularly remove dense aquatic vegetation
from the spring channel to maintain stream flow and provide a mosaic of
habitat types throughout the spring channel (Raymond et al. 2019, pp.
18-19; Martin 2023a, pers comm.). Quitobaquito tryonia are less
abundant in pool habitat and on aquatic vegetation compared to run or
riffle habitat and on other substrates (Bogan 2018, entire; Williams
and Sorensen 2019, p. 11; Sorensen 2021, pp. 5-8, 12). Aquatic
vegetation removal may result in the loss of some Quitobaquito tryonia
individuals, but this action is necessary to maintain flow of the
spring channel.
Determination of Quitobaquito Tryonia's Status
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing
regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for determining
whether a species meets the definition of an endangered species or a
threatened species. The Act defines an ``endangered species'' as a
species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion
of its range, and a ``threatened species'' as a species likely to
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout
all or a significant portion of its range. The Act requires that we
determine whether a species meets the definition of an endangered
species or a threatened species because of any of the following
factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C)
disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its
continued existence.
Status Throughout All of Its Range
After evaluating threats to the species and assessing the
cumulative effect of the threats under the Act's section 4(a)(1)
factors, we find that although the Quitobaquito tryonia has
sufficiently resilient extant populations, it has declined in number of
populations from known historical levels. Our analysis revealed several
factors that caused this decline and pose a meaningful risk to the
viability of the species. These threats are primarily related to
habitat changes (Factor A) and include the reduction of spring
discharge and spring modification, in addition to effects of climate
change (Factor E).
The Quitobaquito tryonia is known from four historical populations,
but two of those have become extirpated (Williams Spring and Burro
Spring). As a narrow endemic species, it historically occupied springs
occurring within a 1-kilometer (0.6-mile) radius. Because the Williams
Spring and Burro Spring populations are extirpated, current redundancy
of the species has been reduced 50 percent from historical levels. The
Quitobaquito tryonia has always been a highly localized endemic, and
the two extant populations (Quitobaquito Springs and Hillside Seep #2)
are only separated by roughly 100 m (328 ft). Therefore, a catastrophic
event, such as drought, is highly likely to simultaneously affect both
remaining populations of the Quitobaquito tryonia.
The most pervasive threat to the species is the historical and
ongoing loss or decline in spring discharge. The species' populations
at two springs (Burro Spring and Williams Spring) are extirpated
because of a loss of perennial flow, while the Quitobaquito Springs
complex has seen a documented decline in discharge. From January 2020
to October 2021, daily mean discharge ranged from 26 to 51 lpm and
averaged 35 lpm, which is a decrease from recorded levels from 1981 to
1992 of 57 to 151 lpm and averaged 106 lpm (Carruth 1996, p. 15).
Although discharge at Hillside Seep #2 has not been measured, it is a
less wetted area and has even lower flow velocity than Quitobaquito
Springs (AZGFD 2021, p. 3). The causes of the decline in spring
discharge are likely related to ongoing drought conditions and
groundwater pumping. Climate change is expected to exacerbate these
conditions with increased temperatures, and more severe and frequent
droughts. Historical modification of the spring complex has severely
curtailed available habitat, and the loss of spring flow is ongoing and
expected to continue (see figure 1, above).
Despite their proximity, the populations are isolated and not
connected by overland flow, and this isolation also limits the ability
of the Quitobaquito tryonia to naturally recolonize given the species'
lack of dispersal ability. Because of the species' small size and
dependence on water, dispersal events are rare and opportunistic, with
overland transportation likely occurring by ``hitchhiking'' on birds or
other animals (Hershler et al. 2005, pp. 1755-1756, 1763). Therefore,
gene flow between the populations is limited or nonexistent.
In summary, the Quitobaquito tryonia is more susceptible to
extirpation from catastrophic events and has reduced adaptive capacity.
The number of known populations has already been reduced by 50 percent
because of loss of spring flow, which is continuing to occur and is
impacting the remaining two populations. The species is currently in
danger of extinction because reduction of spring discharge, spring
modification, and the effects of climate change are all risks that have
historically impacted, and are currently impacting, the species and are
reducing its viability across its range. We do not find the species
meets the definition of a threatened species because the species has
already shown declines in the number and resiliency of populations. Two
of the four known populations have already become extirpated due to the
threats mentioned above. Although
[[Page 62734]]
one population is currently in high condition and the other population
is currently in moderate condition, both are currently experiencing
impacts from the aforementioned threats. Because current redundancy is
reduced from known historical levels, and representation is limited due
to the close proximity of the two remaining populations, the species is
vulnerable to catastrophic and stochastic events. Thus, after assessing
the best available information, we determine that the Quitobaquito
tryonia is in danger of extinction throughout all of its range.
Status Throughout a Significant Portion of Its Range
Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may
warrant listing if it is in danger of extinction or likely to become so
in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of
its range. We have determined that the Quitobaquito tryonia is in
danger of extinction throughout all of its range and accordingly did
not undertake an analysis of any significant portion of its range.
Because the Quitobaquito tryonia warrants listing as endangered
throughout all of its range, our determination does not conflict with
the decision in Center for Biological Diversity v. Everson, 435 F.
Supp. 3d 69 (D.D.C. 2020), which vacated the provision of the Final
Policy on Interpretation of the Phrase ``Significant Portion of Its
Range'' in the Endangered Species Act's Definitions of ``Endangered
Species'' and ``Threatened Species'' (79 FR 37578; July 1, 2014)
providing that if the Service determines that a species is threatened
throughout all of its range, the Service will not analyze whether the
species is endangered in a significant portion of its range.
Determination of Status
Our review of the best available scientific and commercial
information indicates that the Quitobaquito tryonia meets the Act's
definition of an endangered species. Therefore, we propose to list the
Quitobaquito tryonia as an endangered species in accordance with
sections 3(6) and 4(a)(1) of the Act.
Available Conservation Measures
Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or
threatened species under the Act include recognition as a listed
species, planning and implementation of recovery actions, requirements
for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain practices.
Recognition through listing results in public awareness, and
conservation by Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies, private
organizations, and individuals. The Act encourages cooperation with the
States and other countries and calls for recovery actions to be carried
out for listed species. The protection required by Federal agencies,
including the Service, and the prohibitions against certain activities
are discussed, in part, below.
The primary purpose of the Act is the conservation of endangered
and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The
ultimate goal of such conservation efforts is the recovery of these
listed species, so that they no longer need the protective measures of
the Act. Section 4(f) of the Act calls for the Service to develop and
implement recovery plans for the conservation of endangered and
threatened species. The goal of this process is to restore listed
species to a point where they are secure, self-sustaining, and
functioning components of their ecosystems.
The recovery planning process begins with development of a recovery
outline made available to the public soon after a final listing
determination. The recovery outline guides the immediate implementation
of urgent recovery actions while a recovery plan is being developed.
Recovery teams (composed of species experts, Federal and State
agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and stakeholders) may be
established to develop and implement recovery plans. The recovery
planning process involves the identification of actions that are
necessary to halt and reverse the species' decline by addressing the
threats to its survival and recovery. The recovery plan identifies
recovery criteria for review of when a species may be ready for
reclassification from endangered to threatened (``downlisting'') or
removal from protected status (``delisting''), and methods for
monitoring recovery progress. Recovery plans also establish a framework
for agencies to coordinate their recovery efforts and provide estimates
of the cost of implementing recovery tasks. Revisions of the plan may
be done to address continuing or new threats to the species, as new
substantive information becomes available. The recovery outline, draft
recovery plan, final recovery plan, and any revisions will be available
on our website as they are completed (<a href="https://www.fws.gov/program/endangered-species">https://www.fws.gov/program/endangered-species</a>), or from our Arizona Ecological Services Field
Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Implementation of recovery actions generally requires the
participation of a broad range of partners, including other Federal
agencies, States, Tribes, nongovernmental organizations, businesses,
and private landowners. Examples of recovery actions include habitat
restoration (e.g., restoration of native vegetation), research, captive
propagation and reintroduction, and outreach and education. The
recovery of many listed species cannot be accomplished solely on
Federal lands because their range may occur primarily or solely on non-
Federal lands. To achieve recovery of these species requires
cooperative conservation efforts on private, State, and Tribal lands.
If this species is listed, funding for recovery actions will be
available from a variety of sources, including Federal budgets, State
programs, and cost-share grants for non-Federal landowners, the
academic community, and nongovernmental organizations. In addition,
pursuant to section 6 of the Act, the State of Arizona would be
eligible for Federal funds to implement management actions that promote
the protection or recovery of the Quitobaquito tryonia. Information on
our grant programs that are available to aid species recovery can be
found at: <a href="https://www.fws.gov/service/financial-assistance">https://www.fws.gov/service/financial-assistance</a>.
Although the Quitobaquito tryonia is only proposed for listing
under the Act at this time, please let us know if you are interested in
participating in recovery efforts for this species. Additionally, we
invite you to submit any new information on this species whenever it
becomes available and any information you may have for recovery
planning purposes (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Section 7 of the Act is titled ``Interagency Cooperation'' and
mandates all Federal action agencies to use their existing authorities
to further the conservation purposes of the Act and to ensure that
their actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of
listed species or adversely modify critical habitat. Regulations
implementing section 7 are codified at 50 CFR part 402.
Section 7(a)(2) states that each Federal action agency shall, in
consultation with the Secretary, ensure that any action they authorize,
fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence
of a listed species or result in the destruction or adverse
modification of designated critical habitat. Each Federal agency shall
review its action at the earliest possible time to determine whether it
may affect listed species or critical habitat. If a determination is
made that the action may affect listed species or critical habitat,
formal
[[Page 62735]]
consultation is required (50 CFR 402.14(a)), unless the Service concurs
in writing that the action is not likely to adversely affect listed
species or critical habitat. At the end of a formal consultation, the
Service issues a biological opinion, containing its determination of
whether the Federal action is likely to result in jeopardy or adverse
modification.
In contrast, section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies
to confer with the Service on any action that is likely to jeopardize
the continued existence of any species proposed to be listed under the
Act or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical
habitat proposed to be designated for such species. Although the
conference procedures are required only when an action is likely to
result in jeopardy or adverse modification, action agencies may
voluntarily confer with the Service on actions that may affect species
proposed for listing or critical habitat proposed to be designated. In
the event that the subject species is listed or the relevant critical
habitat is designated, a conference opinion may be adopted as a
biological opinion and serve as compliance with section 7(a)(2) of the
Act.
Examples of discretionary actions for the Quitobaquito tryonia that
may be subject to conference and consultation procedures under section
7 of the Act are land management or other landscape-altering activities
on Federal lands administered by the National Park Service as well as
actions on State, Tribal, local, or private lands that require a
Federal permit (such as a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
under section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or a
permit from the Service under section 10 of the Act) or that involve
some other Federal action (such as funding from the Federal Highway
Administration, Federal Aviation Administration, or the Federal
Emergency Management Agency). Federal actions not affecting listed
species or critical habitat--and actions on State, Tribal, local, or
private lands that are not federally funded, authorized, or carried out
by a Federal agency--do not require section 7 consultation. Federal
agencies should coordinate with the local Service Field Office (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) with any specific questions on section 7
consultation and conference requirements.
The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of
general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to endangered wildlife.
The prohibitions of section 9(a)(1) of the Act, codified at 50 CFR
17.21, make it illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of
the United States to commit, to attempt to commit, to solicit another
to commit, or to cause to be committed any of the following: (1) Import
endangered wildlife into, or export from, the United States; (2) take
(which includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap,
capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct)
endangered wildlife within the United States or on the high seas; (3)
possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship, by any means
whatsoever, any such wildlife that has been taken illegally; (4)
deliver, receive, carry, transport, or ship in interstate or foreign
commerce in the course of commercial activity; or (5) sell or offer for
sale in interstate or foreign commerce. Certain exceptions to these
prohibitions apply to employees or agents of the Service, the National
Marine Fisheries Service, other Federal land management agencies, and
State conservation agencies.
We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities
involving endangered wildlife under certain circumstances. Regulations
governing permits for endangered wildlife are codified at 50 CFR 17.22.
With regard to endangered wildlife, a permit may be issued for
scientific purposes, for enhancing the propagation or survival of the
species, or for take incidental to otherwise lawful activities. The
statute also contains certain exemptions from the prohibitions, which
are found in sections 9 and 10 of the Act.
It is the policy of the Services, as published in the Federal
Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34272), to identify, to the extent
known at the time a species is listed, specific activities that would
not be considered likely to result in violation of section 9 of the
Act. To the extent possible, activities that would be considered likely
to result in violation would also be identified in as specific a manner
as possible. The intent of this policy is to increase public awareness
of the effect of a proposed listing on proposed and ongoing activities
within the range of the species proposed for listing.
At this time, we are unable to identify specific activities that
would not be considered likely to result in a violation of section 9 of
the Act beyond what is already clear from the descriptions of
prohibitions or already excepted through our regulations at 50 CFR
17.21 (e.g., 50 CFR 17.21(c)(2), which provides that any person may
take endangered wildlife in defense of his own life or the lives of
others). Also, as discussed above, certain activities that are
prohibited under section 9 may be permitted under section 10 of the
Act.
To the extent currently known, the following is a list of examples
of activities that would be considered likely to result in violation of
section 9 of the Act in addition to what is already clear from the
descriptions of the prohibitions found at 50 CFR 17.21:
(1) Unauthorized handling or collecting of the Quitobaquito
tryonia.
(2) Destruction/alteration of Quitobaquito tryonia habitat by
discharge of fill material, draining, ditching, tiling, pond
construction, stream channelization or diversion, or removal or
destruction of emergent aquatic vegetation; or diversion or alteration
of surface or ground water flow into or out of the Quitobaquito Springs
complex (i.e., due to roads, impoundments, discharge pipes, storm water
detention basins, etc.) or in any body of water in which the
Quitobaquito tryonia is known to occur.
(3) Direct or indirect destruction of riparian habitat where the
Quitobaquito tryonia occurs.
(4) Introduction of nonnative species that compete with or prey
upon the Quitobaquito tryonia, such as the introduction of nonnative
fish and crayfish species into any waters in which the Quitobaquito
tryonia is known to occur.
(5) Release of biological control agents that attack any life stage
of this species in or near Quitobaquito tryonia habitat.
(6) Discharge of chemicals or fill material into any waters in
which the Quitobaquito tryonia is known to occur.
The list above is intended to be illustrative and not exhaustive;
additional activities that would be considered likely to result in
violation of section 9 of the Act may be identified during coordination
with the local field office, and in some instances (e.g., with new or
site-specific information), the Service may conclude that one or more
activities identified here would not be considered likely to result in
violation of section 9. Questions regarding whether specific activities
would constitute violation of section 9 of the Act should be directed
to the Arizona Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
II. Critical Habitat
Background
Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as:
(1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the
species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which
are found those physical or biological features
[[Page 62736]]
(a) Essential to the conservation of the species, and
(b) Which may require special management considerations or
protection; and
(2) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the
species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas
are essential for the conservation of the species.
Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 define the geographical area
occupied by the species as an area that may generally be delineated
around species' occurrences, as determined by the Secretary (i.e.,
range). Such areas may include those areas used throughout all or part
of the species' life cycle, even if not used on a regular basis (e.g.,
migratory corridors, seasonal habitats, and habitats used periodically,
but not solely by vagrant individuals).
Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means to use
and the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring
an endangered or threatened species to the point at which the measures
provided pursuant to the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods and
procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated
with scientific resources management such as research, census, law
enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live
trapping, and transplantation, and, in the extraordinary case where
population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise
relieved, may include regulated taking.
Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act
through the requirement that each Federal action agency ensure, in
consultation with the Service, that any action they authorize, fund, or
carry out is not likely to result in the destruction or adverse
modification of designated critical habitat. The designation of
critical habitat does not affect land ownership or establish a refuge,
wilderness, reserve, preserve, or other conservation area. Such
designation also does not allow the government or public to access
private lands. Such designation does not require implementation of
restoration, recovery, or enhancement measures by non-Federal
landowners. Rather, designation requires that, where a landowner
requests Federal agency funding or authorization for an action that may
affect an area designated as critical habitat, the Federal agency
consult with the Service under section 7(a)(2) of the Act. If the
action may affect the listed species itself (such as for occupied
critical habitat), the Federal agency would have already been required
to consult with the Service even absent the designation because of the
requirement to ensure that the action is not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of the species. Even if the Service were to
conclude after consultation that the proposed activity is likely to
result in destruction or adverse modification of the critical habitat,
the Federal action agency and the landowner are not required to abandon
the proposed activity, or to restore or recover the species; instead,
they must implement ``reasonable and prudent alternatives'' to avoid
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
Under the first prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat,
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time
it was listed are included in a critical habitat designation if they
contain physical or biological features (1) which are essential to the
conservation of the species and (2) which may require special
management considerations or protection. For these areas, critical
habitat designations identify, to the extent known using the best
scientific data available, those physical or biological features that
are essential to the conservation of the species (such as space, food,
cover, and protected habitat).
Under the second prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat,
we can designate critical habitat in areas outside the geographical
area occupied by the species at the time it is listed, upon a
determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the
species.
Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on
the basis of the best scientific data available. Further, our Policy on
Information Standards Under the Endangered Species Act (published in
the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271)), the Information
Quality Act (section 515 of the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106-554; H.R. 5658)),
and our associated Information Quality Guidelines provide criteria,
establish procedures, and provide guidance to ensure that our decisions
are based on the best scientific data available. They require our
biologists, to the extent consistent with the Act and with the use of
the best scientific data available, to use primary and original sources
of information as the basis for recommendations to designate critical
habitat.
When we are determining which areas should be designated as
critical habitat, our primary source of information is generally the
information from the SSA report and information developed during the
listing process for the species. Additional information sources may
include any generalized conservation strategy, criteria, or outline
that may have been developed for the species; the recovery plan for the
species; articles in peer-reviewed journals; conservation plans
developed by States and counties; scientific status surveys and
studies; biological assessments; other unpublished materials; or
experts' opinions or personal knowledge.
Habitat is dynamic, and species may move from one area to another
over time. We recognize that critical habitat designated at a
particular point in time may not include all of the habitat areas that
we may later determine are necessary for the recovery of the species.
For these reasons, a critical habitat designation does not signal that
habitat outside the designated area is unimportant or may not be needed
for recovery of the species. Areas that are important to the
conservation of the species, both inside and outside the critical
habitat designation, will continue to be subject to: (1) Conservation
actions implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act; (2) regulatory
protections afforded by the requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act
for Federal agencies to ensure their actions are not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened
species; and (3) the prohibitions found in section 9 of the Act.
Federally funded or permitted projects affecting listed species outside
their designated critical habitat areas may still result in jeopardy
findings in some cases. These protections and conservation tools will
continue to contribute to recovery of the species. Similarly, critical
habitat designations made on the basis of the best available
information at the time of designation will not control the direction
and substance of future recovery plans, habitat conservation plans
(HCPs), or other species conservation planning efforts if new
information available at the time of those planning efforts calls for a
different outcome.
Physical or Biological Features Essential to the Conservation of the
Species
In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and regulations at
50 CFR 424.12(b), in determining which areas we will designate as
critical habitat from within the geographical area occupied by the
species at the time of listing, we consider the physical or biological
[[Page 62737]]
features that are essential to the conservation of the species and
which may require special management considerations or protection. The
regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 define ``physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the species'' as the features that
occur in specific areas and that are essential to support the life-
history needs of the species, including, but not limited to, water
characteristics, soil type, geological features, sites, prey,
vegetation, symbiotic species, or other features. A feature may be a
single habitat characteristic or a more complex combination of habitat
characteristics. Features may include habitat characteristics that
support ephemeral or dynamic habitat conditions. Features may also be
expressed in terms relating to principles of conservation biology, such
as patch size, distribution distances, and connectivity. For example,
physical features essential to the conservation of the species might
include gravel of a particular size required for spawning, alkaline
soil for seed germination, protective cover for migration, or
susceptibility to flooding or fire that maintains necessary early-
successional habitat characteristics. Biological features might include
prey species, forage grasses, specific kinds or ages of trees for
roosting or nesting, symbiotic fungi, or absence of a particular level
of nonnative species consistent with conservation needs of the listed
species. The features may also be combinations of habitat
characteristics and may encompass the relationship between
characteristics or the necessary amount of a characteristic essential
to support the life history of the species.
In considering whether features are essential to the conservation
of the species, we may consider an appropriate quality, quantity, and
spatial and temporal arrangement of habitat characteristics in the
context of the life-history needs, condition, and status of the
species. These characteristics include, but are not limited to, space
for individual and population growth and for normal behavior; food,
water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or physiological
requirements; cover or shelter; sites for breeding, reproduction, or
rearing (or development) of offspring; and habitats that are protected
from disturbance.
Brooded young, juvenile, and adult Quitobaquito tryonia all need
adequate spring flow and water quality to meet their resource
functions, which include feeding, growth, survival, and breeding
(Hershler 1984, p. 68; Hershler and Sada 2002, p. 256; Martinez and
Thome 2006, p. 14). Specifically, spring flow must be perennial to
prevent desiccation and maintain stable water quality parameters.
Quitobaquito tryonia need adequate periphyton growth for food.
Tryonia species are likely herbivores or detritivores that primarily
graze on periphyton and macrophytes by scraping surfaces with their
file-like radula (Pyron and Brown 2015, pp. 386, 401). Periphyton is a
mixture of algae, bacteria, detritus, fungi, diatoms, and protozoa
contained within a polysaccharide matrix known as a biofilm that grows
on exposed surfaces, such as macrophytes or substrate (Lysne et al.
2007, p. 649). Production of periphyton and algae in a natural spring
system is likely tied to water quality, nutrient availability, and
exposure to sunlight (Brown et al. 2008, p. 488; Martinez and Thome
2006, p. 14). Additionally, larger substrates (such as gravel or
cobble) develop a richer periphyton coating than finer substrates
(Brown and Lydeard 2010, p. 285). Therefore, periphyton is essential to
the Quitobaquito tryonia because it is its primary food source.
Suitable substrate is important for shelter and periphyton growth.
Substrate characteristics influence the abundance and productivity of
springsnails. Tryonia spp. appear to use a broad array of substrate
types, including cobble, gravel, sand, and silt (Hershler et al. 2011,
entire), although Quitobaquito tryonia appear to be most abundant on
hard substrates within the spring channel at Quitobaquito Springs
(Bogan 2018, entire). We assume that if a substrate type has a higher
density of Quitobaquito tryonia, then that substrate is preferred by
the species when compared to other suitable substrates. Presumed
preferred substrates include hard and/or coarse substrates, such as
cobble and gravel, which increase springsnail productivity by promoting
robust periphyton growth. Other suitable substrate includes fine-
grained sediment, such as sand and silt. Suitable substrates still
provide adequate food resources but are not as productive as presumed
preferred substrates because of limited periphyton growth. Therefore,
habitat with presumed preferred substrates or a combination of presumed
preferred and suitable substrates is essential to the species.
Aquatic vegetation is also important for shelter and periphyton
growth. Vegetation density influences the abundance and productivity of
springsnails. We assume that vegetation that occurs at lower densities
is preferable to the Quitobaquito tryonia when compared to higher
densities of vegetation. Important vegetation includes native
macrophytes, such as sedges (Schoenoplectus spp.) and rushes (Juncus
spp.), occurring at low densities that do not impede spring flow. Other
native macrophytes may also be considered suitable for shelter and
periphyton growth when they occur at higher densities. Therefore,
habitat including aquatic vegetation present at levels that do not
impede spring flow is essential to the species.
The introduction of nonnative or invasive predators has the
potential to negatively affect springsnails (Hershler 1998, p. 14; Sada
2017, p. 11). The nonnative New Zealand mudsnail (Potamopyrgus
antipodarum) is an invasive freshwater snail of the family Hydrobiidae
that is known to compete with and slow the growth of native freshwater
snails, including springsnails (Lysne and Koetsier 2008, pp. 103, 105;
Lysne et al. 2007, pp. 647-653). New Zealand mudsnails may outcompete
hydrobiid snails for food and shelter resources. Nonnative crayfish
(notably Faxonius virilis and Procambarus clarkii) are known predators
to springsnails and have been found in springs and streams at and near
springsnail sites in Arizona. Crayfish have been found to consume
snails that occupy similar habitats as springsnails and their eggs
(Fernandez and Rosen 1996, pp. 24-25). Therefore, the absence of
nonnative species, or a level of nonnative species low enough that it
does not impede resource availability for or result in mortality of
Quitobaquito tryonia individuals, is essential to the Quitobaquito
tryonia.
Tryonia and other springsnails show a pattern of decreasing
abundance with distance from the spring source (Hershler and Sada 2002,
p. 256; Martinez and Thome 2006, p. 14; Rogowski 2012, pp. 34, 37),
indicating that water chemistry such as stable dissolved oxygen, pH,
conductivity, and temperature, as well as absence of or low enough
levels of contaminants, may influence the distribution and abundance of
springsnails (O'Brien and Blinn 1999, pp. 231-232; Mladenka and
Minshall 2001, pp. 209-211; Malcom et al. 2005, p. 75; Martinez and
Thome 2006, pp. 12-15; Lysne et al. 2007, p. 650). However, the full
suite of water quality conditions that the Quitobaquito tryonia prefers
has not been determined. Nevertheless, we assume that overall
sufficient water quality that provides appropriate conditions for the
Quitobaquito tryonia is essential to the species.
[[Page 62738]]
Summary of Essential Physical or Biological Features
We derive the specific physical or biological features essential to
the conservation of the Quitobaquito tryonia from studies of the
species' habitat, ecology, and life history as described below.
Additional information can be found in the SSA report (Service 2022,
entire; available on <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> under Docket No. FWS-
R2-ES-2023-0073). We have determined that the following physical or
biological features are essential to the conservation of the
Quitobaquito tryonia:
(1) Perennially free-flowing spring water with sufficient flow
rate.
(2) Sufficient amount of periphyton to support all life stages of
the Quitobaquito tryonia.
(3) Presence of hard or coarse substrates (including cobble and
gravel) or a combination of coarse and fine substrates (including sand
and/or silt).
(4) Aquatic emergent and submergent vegetation, including native
macrophytes such as sedges (Schoenoplectus spp.) and rushes (Juncus
spp.), occurring at densities that do not impede spring flow.
(5) Water quality parameters that support all life stages of the
Quitobaquito tryonia, including:
(a) Adequate levels of temperature, pH, and conductivity; and
(b) Absence of contaminants, or a level of contaminants low enough
that it does not negatively impact necessary water quality conditions
for Quitobaquito tryonia individuals.
(6) Absence of nonnative species, or a level of nonnative species
low enough that it does not impede resource availability for or result
in mortality of Quitobaquito tryonia individuals.
Special Management Considerations or Protection
When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the specific
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time
of listing contain features which are essential to the conservation of
the species and which may require special management considerations or
protection. The features essential to the conservation of the
Quitobaquito tryonia may require special management considerations or
protection to reduce the following threats: (1) reduction of spring
discharge, (2) effects of climate change, and (3) spring modification.
Management activities that could ameliorate these threats and
protect the quantity and quality of the habitat include, but are not
limited to: (1) decreasing groundwater pumping to maintain spring flow
that supports spring habitat; (2) removing dense aquatic vegetation
from the spring channel to maintain stream flow and provide a mosaic of
habitat types throughout the spring channel; and (3) controlling and
removing introduced nonnative predators and competitors, such as
crayfish.
Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat
As required by section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we use the best
scientific data available to designate critical habitat. In accordance
with the Act and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(b), we
review available information pertaining to the habitat requirements of
the species and identify specific areas within the geographical area
occupied by the species at the time of listing and any specific areas
outside the geographical area occupied by the species to be considered
for designation as critical habitat. We are not currently proposing to
designate any areas outside the geographical area occupied by the
species because we have not identified any unoccupied areas that meet
the definition of critical habitat. No unoccupied areas have at least
one essential physical or biological feature and a reasonable certainty
of contributing to conservation of the species.
In order to analyze possible habitat locations, in November 2018,
several seeps to the northwest of Quitobaquito Springs were surveyed,
but none had perennial spring flow (Williams and Sorensen 2019, p. 9),
which is essential for the Quitobaquito tryonia. In October 2020, two
seeps east of Quitobaquito Pond were surveyed; Quitobaquito tryonia
were detected at only Hillside Seep #2, one of the two surveyed
locations. In November 2021, several additional seeps east of
Quitobaquito Pond were surveyed and Hillside Seep #1 and #2 were
revisited. Five seeps had low flow and possible springsnail habitat,
but no Quitobaquito tryonia were found (Sorensen 2021, p. 10). There
are other unnamed seeps that occur within the broader Quitobaquito
Springs area that have yet to be fully surveyed for the Quitobaquito
tryonia, but none of them occur in the historical range of the species.
It is unknown how many seeps in the area have the perennial flow
necessary for brooded young, juvenile, and adult Quitobaquito tryonia
to meet their resource functions, which include feeding, growth,
survival, and breeding (Service 2022, p. 13). Specifically, spring flow
must be perennial to prevent desiccation and maintain stable water
quality parameters (Hershler 1984, p. 68; Hershler and Sada 2002, p.
256; Johnson et al. 2013, p. 248; Martinez and Thome 2006, p. 14).
Therefore, for a seep to be suitable habitat and have reasonable
certainty that it would contribute to the conservation of the
Quitobaquito tryonia, it must contain the essential physical or
biological feature of perennially free-flowing spring water with
sufficient flow rate. In the current condition and in all plausible
future scenarios, it is unlikely that any of the seeps in the area
would contain or be able to be managed to achieve the spring flow
necessary for the Quitobaquito tryonia, especially when conditions are
exacerbated by climate change. Accordingly, for those springs that
occur outside of the historical range, we cannot identify the exact
habitat parameters that will ensure the success of the species there.
Therefore, there are no areas other than those included in this
proposed critical habitat designation that we are reasonably certain
would contribute to the conservation of the Quitobaquito tryonia.
We are proposing to designate critical habitat units that we have
determined based on the best scientific data available are known to be
currently occupied and contain the physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the Quitobaquito tryonia. Additional
areas outside the aquatic habitat within each subunit are included in
the proposed designation to assist in maintaining the hydrology of the
aquatic features. Sources of occupancy data on the Quitobaquito tryonia
are from all available reports since monitoring of the species began in
2002 (Martinez and Sorensen 2016, entire; Bogan 2018, entire; Williams
and Sorensen 2019, entire; AZGFD 2021, entire; Sorensen 2022, entire).
We determined localities to be occupied at the time of listing if they
are identified as extant in the SSA report (Service 2022, pp. 16-20).
Extirpated populations are not included because the spring sources that
supported them no longer have the essential physical or biological
features to support the species now or in the future. Specifically,
these areas no longer have water, and it is unlikely that groundwater
would support spring flow in these areas.
We obtained information on ecology and habitat requirements of the
Quitobaquito tryonia from multiple sources, as identified in the SSA
report as explained above (Service 2022, pp. 7-13). For mapping of
proposed critical habitat, we used Organ Pipe Cactus
[[Page 62739]]
National Monument geo-referenced data of aquatic habitats that have
perennial spring flow, adequate water quality, and substrates and
aquatic vegetation that support extant populations of the Quitobaquito
tryonia. There are two areas that contain the physical or biological
features needed by the Quitobaquito tryonia: a human-made concrete
spring run and a natural seep. We delineated the extent of critical
habitat along the spring run by the physical boundary of the concrete
channel and southwest spring trench with an average width of 2 m (6.4
ft) along this length to capture areas where water pools along the
channel. Water provided by the springs does not flow outside of this
human-made channel and corresponding pools. For Hillside Seep #2, we
delineated the extent of critical habitat along the seep from the point
of origin of the seep downhill a distance of 15.2 m (50 ft), which is
the longest known length of flow from the seep (Service 2022, p. 20).
We included all area within 5 m (16.4 ft) of this length to capture any
future hydrological changes of flow patterns that may occur over time
in this area, both upslope and downslope of the seep. This also
captures the habitat associated with the upslope and downslope of the
watershed. In other words, this area incorporates most of the habitat
that has the potential to impact the seep and any Quitobaquito tryonia
individuals depending on that seep (Martin 2023b, pers. comm.). We used
two different methods because the water in the channel is confined
within a human-made concrete structure, and the seep is naturally
occurring, so there is more variability in width of sheet flow
(overland storm runoff).
In summary, for areas within the geographical area occupied by the
species at the time of listing, we delineated critical habitat unit
boundaries using the following criteria:
(1) We compiled all available data from observations of the
Quitobaquito tryonia;
(2) We identified, based on the best scientific data available,
populations that are extant at the time of listing (current) versus
those that are extirpated;
(3) We identified areas containing the components comprising the
essential physical or biological features that may require special
management considerations or protection; and
(4) We circumscribed boundaries of potential critical habitat based
on the above information that reflect current habitat conditions.
While the human-made concrete spring run that provides habitat for
the Quitobaquito tryonia is included in the proposed critical habitat
designation for the species, when determining proposed critical habitat
boundaries, we made every effort to avoid including other developed
areas such as lands covered by buildings, pavement, and other
structures because such lands lack physical or biological features
necessary for the Quitobaquito tryonia. The scale of the maps we
prepared under the parameters for publication within the Code of
Federal Regulations may not reflect the exclusion of such other
developed lands. Any such lands inadvertently left inside critical
habitat boundaries shown on the maps of this proposed rule have been
excluded by text in the proposed rule and are not proposed for
designation as critical habitat. Therefore, if the critical habitat is
finalized as proposed, a Federal action involving these lands would not
trigger section 7 consultation with respect to critical habitat and the
requirement of no adverse modification unless the specific action would
affect the physical or biological features in the adjacent critical
habitat. We propose to designate as critical habitat areas that we have
determined are occupied at the time of listing (i.e., currently
occupied) and that contain one or more of the physical or biological
features that are essential to support the life-history processes of
the species.
One unit, composed of two subunits, is proposed for designation
based on one or more of the physical or biological features being
present to support the Quitobaquito tryonia's life-history processes.
Both subunits contain all of the identified physical or biological
features and support multiple life-history processes.
The proposed critical habitat designation is defined by the map, as
modified by any accompanying regulatory text, presented at the end of
this document under Proposed Regulation Promulgation. We include more
detailed information on the boundaries of the critical habitat
designation in the preamble of this document. We will make the
coordinates or plot points or both on which the map is based available
to the public on <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> at Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-
2023-0073 and on our internet site at <a href="https://www.fws.gov/office/arizona-ecological-services">https://www.fws.gov/office/arizona-ecological-services</a>.
Proposed Critical Habitat Designation
We are proposing one unit, composed of two subunits, as critical
habitat for the Quitobaquito tryonia. The critical habitat area we
describe below constitutes our current best assessment of areas that
meet the definition of critical habitat for the Quitobaquito tryonia.
Table 2 shows the proposed critical habitat unit and the approximate
area of each subunit. Both subunits of the Quitobaquito Unit are
occupied.
Table 2--Proposed Critical Habitat Unit for the Quitobaquito Tryonia
[Area estimates reflect all area within critical habitat boundaries]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Size of Unit in
Critical Habitat Unit Critical Habitat Land Ownership by Feet\2\ Occupied?
Subunit Type (Meters\2\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quitobaquito Unit............... A. Spring Channel. Federal (NPS)..... 4,455 (414)....... Yes.
B. Hillside Seep Federal (NPS)..... 1,640 (152)....... Yes.
#2.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................... .................. .................. 6,095 (566)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding.
We present brief descriptions of both subunits, and reasons why
they meet the definition of critical habitat for the Quitobaquito
tryonia, below.
Subunit A: Spring Channel
Subunit A in the Quitobaquito Unit consists of 4,455 square feet
(ft\2\) (414 square meters (m\2\)) of the spring channel. This subunit
is occupied and contains all of the physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the species. This subunit is entirely
on Federal (NPS) land within Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument.
Threats that are occurring in this area include decline in spring flow
from groundwater withdrawal and drought, effects of
[[Page 62740]]
climate change, and spring modification. This subunit may require
special management considerations, such as vegetation removal, and to
the extent possible, protection from future groundwater withdrawals in
close proximity. NPS is already actively managing this unit by
periodically removing a portion of emergent and submerged vegetation to
improve water flow from the spring source, and NPS has worked with U.S.
Customs and Border Protection on placement of wells for border
construction activities.
Subunit B: Hillside Seep #2
Subunit B in the Quitobaquito Unit consists of 1,640 ft\2\ (152
m\2\) of a seep located approximately 338 ft (103 m) from the spring
channel. This subunit is occupied and contains all of the physical or
biological features essential to the conservation of the species. This
subunit is entirely on Federal (NPS) land within Organ Pipe Cactus
National Monument. Threats that are occurring in this area include
decline in spring flow from groundwater withdrawal and drought, effects
of climate change, and spring modification. This subunit may require
the same special management considerations and protection as Subunit A.
The NPS may manage this unit similar to the management discussed for
Subunit A by periodically removing a portion of emergent and submerged
vegetation.
Effects of Critical Habitat Designation
Section 7 Consultation
Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the
Service, to ensure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out
is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered
species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse
modification of designated critical habitat of such species. In
addition, section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to
confer with the Service on any agency action which is likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of any species proposed to be listed
under the Act or result in the destruction or adverse modification of
proposed critical habitat.
We published a final rule revising the definition of destruction or
adverse modification on August 27, 2019 (84 FR 44976). Destruction or
adverse modification means a direct or indirect alteration that
appreciably diminishes the value of critical habitat as a whole for the
conservation of a listed species.
Compliance with the requirements of section 7(a)(2) is documented
through our issuance of:
(1) A concurrence letter for Federal actions that may affect, but
are not likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat;
or
(2) A biological opinion for Federal actions that may affect, and
are likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat.
When we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species and/or
destroy or adversely modify critical habitat, we provide reasonable and
prudent alternatives to the project, if any are identifiable, that
would avoid the likelihood of jeopardy and/or destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat. We define ``reasonable and prudent
alternatives'' (at 50 CFR 402.02) as alternative actions identified
during consultation that:
(1) Can be implemented in a manner consistent with the intended
purpose of the action,
(2) Can be implemented consistent with the scope of the Federal
agency's legal authority and jurisdiction,
(3) Are economically and technologically feasible, and
(4) Would, in the Service Director's opinion, avoid the likelihood
of jeopardizing the continued existence of the listed species and/or
avoid the likelihood of destroying or adversely modifying critical
habitat.
Reasonable and prudent alternatives can vary from slight project
modifications to extensive redesign or relocation of the project. Costs
associated with implementing a reasonable and prudent alternative are
similarly variable.
Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 set forth requirements for Federal
agencies to reinitiate consultation if any of the following four
conditions occur: (1) the amount or extent of taking specified in the
incidental take statement is exceeded; (2) new information reveals
effects of the action that may affect listed species or critical
habitat in a manner or to an extent not previously considered; (3) the
identified action is subsequently modified in a manner that causes an
effect to the listed species or critical habitat that was not
considered in the biological opinion or written concurrence; or (4) a
new species is listed or critical habitat designated that may be
affected by the identified action. The reinitiation requirement applies
only to actions that remain subject to some discretionary Federal
involvement or control. As provided in 50 CFR 402.16, the requirement
to reinitiate consultations for new species listings or critical
habitat designation does not apply to certain agency actions (e.g.,
land management plans issued by the Bureau of Land Management in
certain circumstances).
Application of the ``Destruction or Adverse Modification'' Standard
The key factor related to the destruction or adverse modification
determination is whether implementation of the proposed Federal action
directly or indirectly alters the designated critical habitat in a way
that appreciably diminishes the value of the critical habitat for the
conservation of the listed species. As discussed above, the role of
critical habitat is to support physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of a listed species and provide for the
conservation of the species.
Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to briefly evaluate and
describe, in any proposed or final regulation that designates critical
habitat, activities involving a Federal action that may violate section
7(a)(2) of the Act by destroying or adversely modifying such habitat,
or that may be affected by such designation.
Activities that we may, during a consultation under section 7(a)(2)
of the Act, consider likely to destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat include, but are not limited to:
(1) Actions that would decrease the amount of water available in
the spring channel or seep used by the Quitobaquito tryonia. Such
activities could include, but are not limited to, groundwater pumping,
impoundment, and water diversion. These activities could decrease the
amount of springflow so that the spring channel or seep becomes
smaller, intermittent, or dry, and thereby could reduce the amount of
space, prey, and cover available for Quitobaquito tryonia.
(2) Actions that would alter habitat used by the Quitobaquito
tryonia. Such actions could include the maintenance of springheads,
stream or channel courses, and ponds. Maintaining springheads and
human-made or natural spring channels will maximize the amount of
springflow available to Quitobaquito tryonia. The spring channel that
supports Quitobaquito tryonia was channelized and requires constant
management to stop encroaching vegetation from completely filling in
the channel.
(3) Actions that would impact water quality of the spring system
used by the Quitobaquito tryonia. Such activities could include, but
are not limited to, presence of contaminants, livestock grazing, and
spring modification.
[[Page 62741]]
Exemptions
Application of Section 4(a)(3) of the Act
Section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i))
provides that the Secretary shall not designate as critical habitat any
lands or other geographical areas owned or controlled by the Department
of Defense (DoD), or designated for its use, that are subject to an
integrated natural resources management plan (INRMP) prepared under
section 101 of the Sikes Act Improvement Act of 1997 (16 U.S.C. 670a),
if the Secretary determines in writing that such plan provides a
benefit to the species for which critical habitat is proposed for
designation. No DoD lands with a completed INRMP are within the
proposed critical habitat designation.
Consideration of Impacts Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary shall
designate and make revisions to critical habitat on the basis of the
best available scientific data after taking into consideration the
economic impact, national security impact, and any other relevant
impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. The
Secretary may exclude an area from designated critical habitat based on
economic impacts, impacts on national security, or any other relevant
impacts. Exclusion decisions are governed by the regulations at 50 CFR
424.19 and the Policy Regarding Implementation of Section 4(b)(2) of
the Endangered Species Act (hereafter, the ``2016 Policy''; 81 FR 7226,
February 11, 2016), both of which were developed jointly with the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). We also refer to a 2008
Department of the Interior Solicitor's opinion entitled, ``The
Secretary's Authority to Exclude Areas from a Critical Habitat
Designation under Section 4(b)(2) of the Endangered Species Act'' (M-
37016).
In considering whether to exclude a particular area from the
designation, we identify the benefits of including the area in the
designation, identify the benefits of excluding the area from the
designation, and evaluate whether the benefits of exclusion outweigh
the benefits of inclusion. If the analysis indicates that the benefits
of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion, the Secretary may
exercise discretion to exclude the area only if such exclusion would
not result in the extinction of the species. In making the
determination to exclude a particular area, the statute on its face, as
well as the legislative history, are clear that the Secretary has broad
discretion regarding which factor(s) to use and how much weight to give
to any factor. In our final rules, we explain any decision to exclude
areas, as well as decisions not to exclude, to make clear the rational
basis for our decision. We describe below the process that we use for
taking into consideration each category of impacts and any initial
analyses of the relevant impacts.
Consideration of Economic Impacts
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act and its implementing regulations require
that we consider the economic impact that may result from a designation
of critical habitat. To assess the probable economic impacts of a
designation, we must first evaluate specific land uses or activities
and projects that may occur in the area of the critical habitat. We
then must evaluate the impacts that a specific critical habitat
designation may have on restricting or modifying specific land uses or
activities for the benefit of the species and its habitat within the
areas proposed. We then identify which conservation efforts may be the
result of the species being listed under the Act versus those
attributed solely to the designation of critical habitat for this
particular species. The probable economic impact of a proposed critical
habitat designation is analyzed by comparing scenarios both ``with
critical habitat'' and ``without critical habitat.''
The ``without critical habitat'' scenario represents the baseline
for the analysis, which includes the existing regulatory and socio-
economic burden imposed on landowners, managers, or other resource
users potentially affected by the designation of critical habitat
(e.g., under the Federal listing as well as other Federal, State, and
local regulations). Therefore, the baseline represents the costs of all
efforts attributable to the listing of the species under the Act (i.e.,
conservation of the species and its habitat incurred regardless of
whether critical habitat is designated). The ``with critical habitat''
scenario describes the incremental impacts associated specifically with
the designation of critical habitat for the species. The incremental
conservation efforts and associated impacts would not be expected
without the designation of critical habitat for the species. In other
words, the incremental costs are those attributable solely to the
designation of critical habitat, above and beyond the baseline costs.
These are the costs we use when evaluating the benefits of inclusion
and exclusion of particular areas from the final designation of
critical habitat should we choose to conduct a discretionary section
4(b)(2) exclusion analysis.
Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct Federal agencies to
assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives in
quantitative (to the extent feasible) and qualitative terms. Executive
Order 14094 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 and E.O. 13563 and
states that regulatory analysis should facilitate agency efforts to
develop regulations that serve the public interest, advance statutory
objectives, and are consistent with E.O. 12866, E.O. 13563, and the
Presidential Memorandum of January 20, 2021 (Modernizing Regulatory
Review). Consistent with the E.O. regulatory analysis requirements, our
effects analysis under the Act may take into consideration impacts to
both directly and indirectly affected entities, where practicable and
reasonable. If sufficient data are available, we assess to the extent
practicable the probable impacts to both directly and indirectly
affected entities. Section 3(f) of E.O. 12866, as amended by E.O.
14094, identifies four criteria when a regulation is considered a
``significant regulatory action'' and requires additional analysis,
review, and approval if met. The criterion relevant here is whether the
designation of critical habitat may have an economic effect of $200
million or more in any given year (section 3(f)(1)). Therefore, our
consideration of economic impacts uses a screening analysis to assess
whether a designation of critical habitat for the Quitobaquito tryonia
is likely to exceed the economically significant threshold.
For this particular designation, we developed an incremental
effects memorandum (IEM) considering the probable incremental economic
impacts that may result from this proposed designation of critical
habitat. The information contained in our IEM was then used to develop
a screening analysis of the probable effects of the designation of
critical habitat for the Quitobaquito tryonia (IEc 2023, entire). We
began by conducting a screening analysis of the proposed designation of
critical habitat in order to focus our analysis on the key factors that
are likely to result in incremental economic impacts. The purpose of
the screening analysis is to filter out particular geographical areas
of critical habitat that are already subject to such protections and
are, therefore, unlikely to incur incremental economic impacts. In
particular, the screening analysis considers baseline costs (i.e.,
absent critical habitat designation) and includes any probable
incremental economic impacts where land and water use may already be
subject to
[[Page 62742]]
conservation plans, land management plans, best management practices,
or regulations that protect the habitat area as a result of the Federal
listing status of the species. Ultimately, the screening analysis
allows us to focus our analysis on evaluating the specific areas or
sectors that may incur probable incremental economic impacts as a
result of the designation.
The presence of the listed species in occupied areas of critical
habitat means that any destruction or adverse modification of those
areas is also likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the
species. Therefore, designating occupied areas as critical habitat
typically causes little if any incremental impacts above and beyond the
impacts of listing the species. As a result, we generally focus the
screening analysis on areas of unoccupied critical habitat (unoccupied
units or unoccupied areas within occupied units). Overall, the
screening analysis assesses whether designation of critical habitat is
likely to result in any additional management or conservation efforts
that may incur incremental economic impacts. This screening analysis
combined with the information contained in our IEM constitute what we
consider to be our draft economic analysis (DEA) of the proposed
critical habitat designation for the Quitobaquito tryonia; our DEA is
summarized in the narrative below.
As part of our screening analysis, we considered the types of
economic activities that are likely to occur within the areas likely
affected by the critical habitat designation. In our evaluation of the
probable incremental economic impacts that may result from the proposed
designation of critical habitat for the Quitobaquito tryonia, first we
identified, in the IEM dated March 8, 2023, probable incremental
economic impacts associated with the following categories of
activities: (1) Federal lands management (NPS, Organ Pipe Cactus
National Monument); (2) groundwater pumping; and (3) border security
operations (U.S. Customs and Border Protection). We considered each
industry or category individually. Additionally, we considered whether
their activities have any Federal involvement. Critical habitat
designation generally will not affect activities that do not have any
Federal involvement; under the Act, designation of critical habitat
only affects activities conducted, funded, permitted, or authorized by
Federal agencies. If we list the species, in areas where the
Quitobaquito tryonia is present, Federal agencies would be required to
consult with the Service under section 7 of the Act on activities they
authorize, fund, or carry out that may affect the species. If, when we
list the species, we also finalize this proposed critical habitat
designation, Federal agencies would be required to consider the effects
of their actions on the designated habitat, and if the Federal action
may affect critical habitat, our consultations would include an
evaluation of measures to avoid the destruction or adverse modification
of critical habitat.
In our IEM, we attempted to clarify the distinction between the
effects that would result from the species being listed and those
attributable to the critical habitat designation (i.e., difference
between the jeopardy and adverse modification standards) for the
Quitobaquito tryonia's critical habitat. Because the designation of
critical habitat for the Quitobaquito tryonia is being proposed
concurrently with the listing, it has been our experience that it is
more difficult to discern which conservation efforts are attributable
to the species being listed and those which would result solely from
the designation of critical habitat. However, the following specific
circumstances in this case help to inform our evaluation: (1) The
essential physical or biological features identified for critical
habitat are the same features essential for the life requisites of the
species, and (2) any actions that would likely adversely affect the
essential physical or biological features of occupied critical habitat
are also likely to adversely affect the species itself. The IEM
outlines our rationale concerning this limited distinction between
baseline conservation efforts and incremental impacts of the
designation of critical habitat for this species. This evaluation of
the incremental effects has been used as the basis to evaluate the
probable incremental economic impacts of this proposed designation of
critical habitat.
The proposed critical habitat designation for the Quitobaquito
tryonia consists of a single unit with two subunits currently occupied
by the species. We are not proposing to designate any units of
unoccupied habitat. The proposed Quitobaquito Unit totals 6,095 square
feet (566 square meters) and is entirely within federally owned land at
Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument. In this area, any actions that may
affect the species or its habitat would also affect designated critical
habitat, and it is unlikely that there would be any additional
recommendations or project modifications to avoid adversely modifying
critical habitat above those we would recommend for avoiding jeopardy.
Therefore, only administrative costs of conducting any section 7
consultation are expected in all of the proposed critical habitat
designation. While this additional analysis will require time and
resources by both the Federal action agency and the Service, it is
believed that, in most circumstances, these costs would predominantly
be administrative in nature and would not be significant.
We estimate that approximately one informal consultation may occur
annually in proposed critical habitat areas. Annual incremental costs
to the Service, Federal action agencies, and third parties associated
with this consultation are anticipated to be approximately $2,600. The
designation of critical habitat for the Quitobaquito tryonia, which is
located on Federal lands, is not expected to trigger additional
requirements under State or local regulations, nor is the designation
expected to have perceptional effects on markets. Additional section 7
efforts to conserve the Quitobaquito tryonia are not predicted to
result from the designation of critical habitat. As this economic
screening analysis finds that the designation is not likely to result
in additional or different project modifications, ancillary economic
benefits are not anticipated. The above-mentioned administrative costs
are highly unlikely to exceed $200 million in a given year.
We are soliciting data and comments from the public on the DEA
discussed above. During the development of a final designation, we will
consider the information presented in the DEA and any additional
information on economic impacts we receive during the public comment
period to determine whether any specific areas should be excluded from
the final critical habitat designation under authority of section
4(b)(2) of the Act, our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.19, and
the 2016 Policy. We may exclude an area from critical habitat if we
determine that the benefits of excluding the area outweigh the benefits
of including the area, provided the exclusion will not result in the
extinction of this species.
Consideration of National Security Impacts
Section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act may not cover all DoD lands or
areas that pose potential national-security concerns (e.g., a DoD
installation that is in the process of revising its INRMP for a newly
listed species or a species previously not covered). If a particular
area is not covered under section 4(a)(3)(B)(i), then national-security
or homeland-security concerns are not a factor in the process of
determining what areas meet the definition of
[[Page 62743]]
``critical habitat.'' However, the Service must still consider impacts
on national security, including homeland security, on those lands or
areas not covered by section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) because section 4(b)(2)
requires the Service to consider those impacts whenever it designates
critical habitat. Accordingly, if DoD, Department of Homeland Security
(DHS), or another Federal agency has requested exclusion based on an
assertion of national-security or homeland-security concerns, or we
have otherwise identified national-security or homeland-security
impacts from designating particular areas as critical habitat, we
generally have reason to consider excluding those areas.
However, we cannot automatically exclude requested areas. When DoD,
DHS, or another Federal agency requests exclusion from critical habitat
on the basis of national-security or homeland-security impacts, we must
conduct an exclusion analysis if the Federal requester provides
information, including a reasonably specific justification of an
incremental impact on national security that would result from the
designation of that specific area as critical habitat. That
justification could include demonstration of probable impacts, such as
impacts to ongoing border-security patrols and surveillance activities,
or a delay in training or facility construction, as a result of
compliance with section 7(a)(2) of the Act. If the agency requesting
the exclusion does not provide us with a reasonably specific
justification, we will contact the agency to recommend that it provide
a specific justification or clarification of its concerns relative to
the probable incremental impact that could result from the designation.
If we conduct an exclusion analysis because the agency provides a
reasonably specific justification or because we decide to exercise the
discretion to conduct an exclusion analysis, we will defer to the
expert judgment of DoD, DHS, or another Federal agency as to: (1)
Whether activities on its lands or waters, or its activities on other
lands or waters, have national-security or homeland-security
implications; (2) the importance of those implications; and (3) the
degree to which the cited implications would be adversely affected in
the absence of an exclusion. In that circumstance, in conducting a
discretionary section 4(b)(2) exclusion analysis, we will give great
weight to national-security and homeland-security concerns in analyzing
the benefits of exclusion.
In preparing this proposal, we have determined that the lands
within the proposed designation of critical habitat for Quitobaquito
tryonia are not owned or managed by the DoD or DHS, and, therefore, we
anticipate no impact on national security or homeland security.
Consideration of Other Relevant Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider any other relevant
impacts, in addition to economic impacts and impacts on national
security discussed above. To identify other relevant impacts that may
affect the exclusion analysis, we consider a number of factors,
including whether there are permitted conservation plans covering the
species in the area--such as HCPs, safe harbor agreements, or candidate
conservation agreements with assurances--or whether there are non-
permitted conservation agreements and partnerships that may be impaired
by designation of, or exclusion from, critical habitat. In addition, we
look at whether Tribal conservation plans or partnerships, Tribal
resources, or government-to-government relationships of the United
States with Tribal entities may be affected by the designation. We also
consider any State, local, social, or other impacts that might occur
because of the designation.
Summary of Exclusions Considered Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
In preparing this proposal, we have determined that no HCPs or
other management plans for the Quitobaquito tryonia currently exist,
and the proposed designation does not include any Tribal lands or trust
resources or any lands for which designation would have any economic or
national security impacts. Therefore, we anticipate no impact on Tribal
lands, partnerships, or HCPs from this proposed critical habitat
designation; thus, as described above, we are not considering excluding
any particular areas from the designation on the basis of the presence
of conservation agreements or impacts to trust resources.
However, if through the public comment period we receive
information that we determine indicates that there are potential
economic, national security, or other relevant impacts from designating
particular areas as critical habitat, then as part of developing the
final designation of critical habitat, we will evaluate that
information and may conduct a discretionary exclusion analysis to
determine whether to exclude those areas under the authority of section
4(b)(2) of the Act and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.19.
If we receive a request for exclusion of a particular area and after
evaluation of supporting information we do not exclude, we will fully
describe our decision in the final rule for this action.
Required Determinations
Clarity of the Rule
We are required by E.O.s 12866 and 12988 and by the Presidential
Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain language. This
means that each rule we publish must:
(1) Be logically organized;
(2) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(3) Use clear language rather than jargon;
(4) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
(5) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us
comments by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To better help us
revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as possible. For
example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections or paragraphs
that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences are too long,
the sections where you feel lists or tables would be useful, etc.
Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and
14094)
Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, as reaffirmed by E.O. 13563 and E.O.
14094, provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
(OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) will review all
significant rules. OIRA has determined that this rule is not
significant.
Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while
calling for improvements in the Nation's regulatory system to promote
predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most
innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends.
The Executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches
that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for
the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and
consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further
that regulations must be based on the best available science and that
the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open
exchange of ideas.
Executive Order 14094 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 and
E.O. 13563 and states that regulatory analysis should facilitate agency
efforts to develop regulations that serve the
[[Page 62744]]
public interest, advance statutory objectives, and are consistent with
E.O. 12866, E.O. 13563, and the Presidential Memorandum of January 20,
2021 (Modernizing Regulatory Review). Regulatory analysis, as
practicable and appropriate, shall recognize distributive impacts and
equity, to the extent permitted by law.
We have developed this proposed rule in a manner consistent with
these requirements.
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.),
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996 (SBREFA; 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), whenever an agency is required to
publish a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must
prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility
analysis that describes the effects of the rule on small entities
(i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small government
jurisdictions). However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required
if the head of the agency certifies the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The SBREFA amended the RFA to require Federal agencies to provide a
certification statement of the factual basis for certifying that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
According to the Small Business Administration, small entities
include small organizations such as independent nonprofit
organizations; small governmental jurisdictions, including school
boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000
residents; and small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses
include manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than 500
employees, wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees,
retail and service businesses with less than $5 million in annual
sales, general and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5
million in annual business, special trade contractors doing less than
$11.5 million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with
annual sales less than $750,000. To determine whether potential
economic impacts to these small entities are significant, we considered
the types of activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under
this designation as well as types of project modifications that may
result. In general, the term ``significant economic impact'' is meant
to apply to a typical small business firm's business operations.
Under the RFA, as amended, and as understood in light of recent
court decisions, Federal agencies are required to evaluate the
potential incremental impacts of rulemaking on those entities directly
regulated by the rulemaking itself; in other words, the RFA does not
require agencies to evaluate the potential impacts to indirectly
regulated entities. The regulatory mechanism through which critical
habitat protections are realized is section 7 of the Act, which
requires Federal agencies, in consultation with the Service, to ensure
that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by the agency is not
likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. Therefore,
under section 7, only Federal action agencies are directly subject to
the specific regulatory requirement (avoiding destruction and adverse
modification) imposed by critical habitat designation. Consequently, it
is our position that only Federal action agencies would be directly
regulated if we adopt the proposed critical habitat designation. The
RFA does not require evaluation of the potential impacts to entities
not directly regulated. Moreover, Federal agencies are not small
entities. Therefore, because no small entities would be directly
regulated by this rulemaking, the Service certifies that, if made final
as proposed, the proposed critical habitat designation will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
In summary, we have considered whether the proposed designation
would result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number
of small entities. For the above reasons and based on currently
available information, we certify that, if made final, the proposed
critical habitat designation would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small business entities. Therefore,
an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use--Executive Order 13211
Executive Order 13211 (Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use) requires
agencies to prepare statements of energy effects when undertaking
certain actions. In our economic analysis, we did not find that this
proposed critical habitat designation would significantly affect energy
supplies, distribution, or use. Therefore, this action is not a
significant energy action, and no statement of energy effects is
required.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)
In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501
et seq.), we make the following finding:
(1) This proposed rule would not produce a Federal mandate. In
general, a Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or
regulation that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or
Tribal governments, or the private sector, and includes both ``Federal
intergovernmental mandates'' and ``Federal private sector mandates.''
These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). ``Federal
intergovernmental mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose
an enforceable duty upon State, local, or Tribal governments'' with two
exceptions. It excludes ``a condition of Federal assistance.'' It also
excludes ``a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal
program,'' unless the regulation ``relates to a then-existing Federal
program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State,
local, and Tribal governments under entitlement authority,'' if the
provision would ``increase the stringency of conditions of assistance''
or ``place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's
responsibility to provide funding,'' and the State, local, or Tribal
governments ``lack authority'' to adjust accordingly. At the time of
enactment, these entitlement programs were: Medicaid; Aid to Families
with Dependent Children work programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps;
Social Services Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants;
Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, and Independent Living; Family
Support Welfare Services; and Child Support Enforcement. ``Federal
private sector mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose an
enforceable duty upon the private sector, except (i) a condition of
Federal assistance or (ii) a duty arising from participation in a
voluntary Federal program.''
The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally
binding duty on non-Federal Government entities or private parties.
Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must
ensure that their actions are not likely to destroy or adversely modify
critical habitat under section 7. While non-Federal entities that
receive Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that otherwise
require approval or authorization from a Federal agency for an action,
may be indirectly impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the
[[Page 62745]]
legally binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to
the extent that non-Federal entities are indirectly impacted because
they receive Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal
aid program, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply, nor
would critical habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement
programs listed above onto State governments.
(2) We do not believe that this rule would significantly or
uniquely affect small governments because it will not produce a Federal
mandate of $200 million or greater in any year, that is, it is not a
``significant regulatory action'' under the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act. The designation of critical habitat imposes no obligations on
State or local governments. Therefore, a small government agency plan
is not required.
Takings--Executive Order 12630
In accordance with E.O. 12630 (Government Actions and Interference
with Constitutionally Protected Private Property Rights), we have
analyzed the potential takings implications of designating critical
habitat for the Quitobaquito tryonia in a takings implications
assessment. The Act does not authorize the Service to regulate private
actions on private lands or confiscate private property as a result of
critical habitat designation. Designation of critical habitat does not
affect land ownership, or establish any closures, or restrictions on
use of or access to the designated areas. Furthermore, the designation
of critical habitat does not affect landowner actions that do not
require Federal funding or permits, nor does it preclude development of
habitat conservation programs or issuance of incidental take permits to
permit actions that do require Federal funding or permits to go
forward. However, Federal agencies are prohibited from carrying out,
funding, or authorizing actions that would destroy or adversely modify
critical habitat. A takings implications assessment has been completed
for the proposed designation of critical habitat for the Quitobaquito
tryonia, and it concludes that, if adopted, this designation of
critical habitat does not pose significant takings implications for
lands within or affected by the designation.
Federalism--Executive Order 13132
In accordance with E.O. 13132 (Federalism), this proposed rule does
not have significant Federalism effects. A federalism summary impact
statement is not required. In keeping with Department of the Interior
and Department of Commerce policy, we requested information from, and
coordinated development of this proposed critical habitat designation
with, appropriate State resource agencies. From a federalism
perspective, the designation of critical habitat directly affects only
the responsibilities of Federal agencies. The Act imposes no other
duties with respect to critical habitat, either for States and local
governments, or for anyone else. As a result, the proposed rule does
not have substantial direct effects either on the States, or on the
relationship between the Federal government and the States, or on the
distribution of powers and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. The proposed designation may have some benefit to these
governments because the areas that contain the features essential to
the conservation of the species are more clearly defined, and the
physical or biological features of the habitat necessary for the
conservation of the species are specifically identified. This
information does not alter where and what federally sponsored
activities may occur. However, it may assist State and local
governments in long-range planning because they no longer have to wait
for case-by-case section 7 consultations to occur.
Where State and local governments require approval or authorization
from a Federal agency for actions that may affect critical habitat,
consultation under section 7(a)(2) of the Act would be required. While
non-Federal entities that receive Federal funding, assistance, or
permits, or that otherwise require approval or authorization from a
Federal agency for an action, may be indirectly impacted by the
designation of critical habitat, the legally binding duty to avoid
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat rests squarely
on the Federal agency.
Civil Justice Reform--Executive Order 12988
In accordance with E.O. 12988 (Civil Justice Reform), the Office of
the Solicitor has determined that the rule would not unduly burden the
judicial system and that it meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and
3(b)(2) of the Order. We have proposed designating critical habitat in
accordance with the provisions of the Act. To assist the public in
understanding the habitat needs of the species, this proposed rule
identifies the physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the species. The proposed areas of critical habitat is
presented on a map, and the proposed rule provides several options for
the interested public to obtain more detailed location information, if
desired.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
This rule does not contain information collection requirements, and
a submission to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) is not
required. We may not conduct or sponsor and you are not required to
respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number.
National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
Regulations adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act are exempt
from the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.) and do not require an environmental analysis under NEPA. We
published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the
Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). This includes
listing, delisting, and reclassification rules, as well as critical
habitat designations. In a line of cases starting with Douglas County
v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995), the courts have upheld this
position.
Government-to-Government Relationship with Tribes
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994
(Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal
Governments; 59 FR 22951), E.O. 13175 (Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments), and the Department of the Interior's
manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our responsibility to
communicate meaningfully with federally recognized Tribes on a
government-to-government basis. In accordance with Secretaries' Order
3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal
Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act), we readily
acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with Tribes in
developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that Tribal
lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal public lands, to
remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make information available
to Tribes. We have determined that no Tribal lands fall within the
boundaries of the proposed critical habitat for the Quitobaquito
tryonia, so no Tribal lands would be affected by the proposed
designation.
[[Page 62746]]
References Cited
A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available
on the internet at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> and upon request from
the Arizona Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
Authors
The primary authors of this proposed rule are the staff members of
the Fish and Wildlife Service's Species Assessment Team and the Arizona
Ecological Services Field Office.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Plants,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.
Proposed Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter
I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS
0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245, unless
otherwise noted.
0
2. In Sec. 17.11, in paragraph (h), amend the List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife by adding an entry for ``Tryonia, Quitobaquito'' in
alphabetical order under SNAILS to read as follows:
Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Listing citations
Common name Scientific name Where listed Status and applicable
rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Snails
* * * * * * *
Tryonia, Quitobaquito............ Tryonia Wherever found..... E [Federal Register
quitobaquitae. citation when
published as a
final rule]; 50
CFR 17.95(f).\CH\
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
3. In Sec. 17.95, amend paragraph (f) by adding an entry for
``Quitobaquito Tryonia (Tryonia quitobaquitae)'' following the entry
for ``Diamond tryonia (Pseudotryonia adamantina) and Gonzales tryonia
(Tryonia circumstriata)'' to read as follows:
Sec. 17.95 Critical habitat--fish and wildlife.
* * * * *
(f) Clams and Snails.
* * * * *
Quitobaquito Tryonia (Tryonia quitobaquitae)
(1) The critical habitat unit and its subunits are depicted for
Pima County, Arizona, on the map in this entry.
(2) Within these areas, the physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the Quitobaquito tryonia consist of
the following components:
(i) Perennially free-flowing spring water with sufficient flow
rate;
(ii) Sufficient amount of periphyton to support all life stages of
the Quitobaquito tryonia;
(iii) Presence of hard or coarse substrates (including cobble and
gravel) or a combination of coarse and fine substrates (including sand
and/or silt);
(iv) Aquatic emergent and submergent vegetation, including native
macrophytes such as sedges (Schoenoplectus spp.) and rushes (Juncus
spp.), occurring at densities that do not impede spring flow;
(v) Water quality parameters that support all life stages of the
Quitobaquito tryonia, including:
(A) Adequate levels of temperature, pH, and conductivity; and
(B) Absence of contaminants, or a level of contaminants low enough
that it does not negatively impact necessary water quality conditions
for Quitobaquito tryonia individuals; and
(vi) Absence of nonnative species, or a level of nonnative species
low enough that it does not impede resource availability for or result
in mortality of Quitobaquito tryonia individuals.
(3) Critical habitat includes the human-made concrete spring run
that provides habitat for the Quitobaquito tryonia; critical habitat
does not include other human-made structures (such as buildings,
aqueducts, runways, roads, and other paved areas) and the land on which
they are located existing within the legal boundaries on the effective
date of the final rule.
(4) Data layers defining map units were created using ESRI ArcGIS
mapping software along with various spatial layers. We used ground-
truthed data provided by Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument staff that
depicts all aquatic habitat used by the Quitobaquito tryonia, including
southwest Quitobaquito Spring, a human-made trench that connects
Quitobaquito Springs to a human-made channel, and a human-made channel
that connects the southwest trench to the pond. ArcGIS was also used to
calculate area in square feet and square meters, and was used to
determine longitude and latitude coordinates in decimal degrees. The
coordinate system used in mapping and calculating area and locations
within the unit was Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) conformal
projection with 1983 North American Datum in Zone 12. The map in this
entry, as modified by any accompanying regulatory text, establishes the
boundaries of the critical habitat designation. The coordinates or plot
points or both on which the map is based are available to the public at
the Service's internet site at <a href="https://www.fws.gov/office/arizona-ecological-services">https://www.fws.gov/office/arizona-ecological-services</a>, at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> at Docket No. FWS-
R2-ES-2023-0073, and at the field office responsible for this
designation. You may obtain field office location information by
contacting one of the Service regional offices, the addresses of which
are listed at 50 CFR 2.2.
(5) Quitobaquito Unit, Pima County, Arizona.
(i) Quitobaquito Unit consists of two subunits:
(A) Subunit A consists of 4,455 square feet (ft\2\) (414 square
meters (m\2\)) of the spring channel. This subunit is entirely on
federally owned land in Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument.
(B) Subunit B consists of 1,640 ft\2\ (152 m\2\) of a seep located
approximately 338 ft (103 m) from the spring channel. This subunit is
entirely on federally owned land in Organ Pipe Cactus National
Monument.
(ii) Map of Quitobaquito Unit follows:
Figure 1 to Quitobaquito Tryonia (Tryonia quitobaquitae) paragraph (5)
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
[[Page 62747]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP13SE23.002
* * * * *
Stephen Guertin,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-18547 Filed 9-12-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-C
</pre></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on September 13, 2023.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.