Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for Sonoyta Mud Turtle
| Published date | 23 June 2020 |
| Citation | 85 FR 37576 |
| Record Number | 2020-11741 |
| Section | Rules and Regulations |
| Court | Fish And Wildlife Service |
Federal Register, Volume 85 Issue 121 (Tuesday, June 23, 2020)
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 121 (Tuesday, June 23, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 37576-37590]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-11741]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2017-0014; FF09E21000 FXES11110900000 201]
RIN 1018-BD53
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of
Critical Habitat for Sonoyta Mud Turtle
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), designate
critical habitat for the Sonoyta mud turtle (Kinosternon sonoriense
longifemorale) under the Endangered Species Act (Act). In total, 12.28
acres (4.97 hectares) in Pima County, Arizona, located entirely within
the Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, fall within the boundaries of
the critical habitat designation. This rule extends the Act's
protections to this subspecies' designated critical habitat.
DATES: This rule is effective on July 23, 2020.
ADDRESSES: This final rule is available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov and https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/.
Comments and materials we received, as well as some supporting
documentation we used in preparing this final rule, are available for
public inspection at http://www.regulations.gov. All of the comments,
materials, and documentation that we considered in this rulemaking are
available by appointment, during normal business hours, at: U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Arizona Ecological Services Field Office, 9828
North 31st Ave. #C3, Phoenix, AZ 85051-2517; 602-242-2513.
The coordinates or plot points or both from which the map is
generated are included in the administrative record for this critical
habitat designation and are available at http://www.regulations.gov at
Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2017-0014, and at the Arizona Ecological Services
Field Office (https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/) (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). Any additional tools or supporting
information that we developed for this critical habitat designation
will also be available at the Fish and Wildlife Service website and
Field Office set out above, and may also be included in the preamble
and at http://www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Humphrey, Field Supervisor, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona Ecological Services Field Office,
9828 North 31st Ave. #C3, Phoenix, AZ 85051-2517; 602-242-0210. If you
use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal
Relay Service at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Endangered Species Act
(Act), if we determine that a species is an endangered or threatened
species, we must designate critical habitat to the maximum extent
prudent and determinable. We published a final rule to list the Sonoyta
mud turtle as endangered on September 20, 2017 (82 FR 43897). In that
rule, we found that critical habitat for the Sonoyta mud turtle was not
determinable at that time. The Act then allows the Service an
additional year to publish a critical habitat designation (16 U.S.C.
1533(b)(6)(C)(ii)). On December 6, 2018, we published a proposed
critical habitat designation for the Sonoyta mud turtle (83 FR 62778).
Designations and revisions of critical habitat can only be completed by
issuing a rule.
Basis for this rule. Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the
Secretary shall designate 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 critical
habitat areas we are designating in this rule constitute our current
best assessment of the areas that meet the definition of critical
habitat for the Sonoyta mud turtle.
This rule designates 12.28 acres (4.97 hectares) in one unit as
critical habitat for the Sonoyta mud turtle, and makes available the
final economic analysis for that designation.
Previous Federal Actions
We published a final rule to list the Sonoyta mud turtle as
endangered on September 20, 2017 (82 FR 43897). In that rule, we found
that critical habitat for the Sonoyta mud turtle was not determinable
at that time. The Act then allows the Service an additional year to
publish a critical habitat designation (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(6)(C)(ii)).
On December 6, 2018, we published a proposed critical habitat
designation for the Sonoyta mud turtle (83 FR 62778). All other
previous Federal actions are described in the proposed rule to list
Sonoyta mud turtle as an endangered species under the Act, published in
the Federal Register on September 21, 2016 (81 FR 64829).
Summary of Comments and Recommendations
On December 6, 2018, we published a proposed critical habitat
designation for the Sonoyta mud turtle (83 FR 62778). The public
comment period for the proposed rule lasted 60 days, from December 6,
2018, to February 4, 2019. During the comment period, we received 20
comment letters directly addressing the proposed critical habitat
designation; we did not receive any requests for a public hearing. All
substantive information provided during comment periods has either been
incorporated directly into this final determination or is addressed
below. Comments we received were grouped into general issues
specifically relating to the proposed critical habitat designation for
the Sonoyta mud turtle, and are addressed in the following summary and
incorporated into the final rule as appropriate.
Peer Review
In accordance with our peer review policy published on July 1, 1994
(59 FR 34270), we solicited expert opinions from eight knowledgeable
individuals with scientific expertise with the Sonoyta mud turtle and
its habitat, biological needs, and threats, or the nominate subspecies
Sonora mud turtle (Kinosternon sonoriense sonoriense); the geographic
region in which the subspecies occurs; and conservation biology
principles. Specifically, the peer reviewers reviewed the Sonoyta mud
[[Page 37577]]
turtle species status assessment (SSA). Our proposed designation of
critical habitat was based upon this SSA. We received responses from
six of the peer reviewers. We reviewed all comments we received from
the peer reviewers for substantive issues and new information regarding
the designation of critical habitat for the Sonoyta mud turtle. Peer
reviewer comments were addressed in the SSA report and the final rule
listing the Sonoyta mud turtle as an endangered species (82 FR 43897;
September 20, 2017). The peer reviewers generally concurred with our
methods and conclusion, and provided additional and pertinent
information, clarifications, and suggestions to improve the SSA report
and, therefore, this final designation of critical habitat. We also
considered all comments and information we received from the public
during the comment period for the proposed designation of critical
habitat.
Comments From States
Section 4(i) of the Act states, ``the Secretary shall submit to the
State agency a written justification for his failure to adopt
regulations consistent with the agency's comments or petition.'' We did
not receive comments from the State regarding our proposal to designate
critical habitat for the Sonoyta mud turtle.
Comments From Tribes
We received comments from two Tribes declaring their support for
the designation of critical habitat for the Sonoyta mud turtle.
Comments From Federal Agencies
We did not receive comments from any Federal agencies regarding the
proposal to designate critical habitat for the Sonoyta mud turtle. We
did, however, receive comments from the National Park Service on the
SSA report and the proposed listing rule (81 FR 64829; September 21,
2016). Those comments were addressed, during our listing process, in
the SSA report. This final rule to designate critical habitat for the
Sonoyta mud turtle is based on the SSA report.
Comments From Public
(1) Comment: Three commenters stated that additional critical
habitat should be designated to serve as refugia to account for future
climate change impacts to the Sonoyta mud turtle, prevent adverse
modification from groundwater pumping, and ensure the Sonoyta mud
turtle's survival. One commenter stated that regulations be put on any
actions that could hinder critical habitat (e.g., groundwater pumping).
Our Response: As we state in the proposed critical habitat rule (83
FR 62778; December 6, 2018), 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 or result in the destruction or adverse modification
of designated critical habitat of such species, and (3) section 9 of
the Act's prohibitions on taking any individual of the species,
including taking caused by actions that affect habitat.
There are four additional populations of Sonoyta mud turtles in
Mexico. Although additional populations of Sonoyta mud turtles in the
United States may be needed to ensure the viability of the subspecies,
permanent water bodies and sources in southern Arizona with the
specific life-history needs of the Sonoyta mud turtle are limited and
could not be identified, so no other areas in the United States meet
the definition of critical habitat at this time. Areas outside the
geographical area occupied by the subspecies lack the aquatic habitat
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the
subspecies and that may require special management considerations or
protection, as described below (see Physical or Biological Features
Essential to the Conservation of the Sonoyta Mud Turtle); therefore, no
areas outside the geographical area occupied by the subspecies provide
a reasonable certainty of contributing to the Sonoyta mud turtle's
conservation.
(2) Comment: One commenter stated that the critical habitat should
be designated strictly as Sonoyta mud turtle habitat (i.e., with
restricted use/access) and protection under the Act should be extended
to all lands that the Sonoyta mud turtle inhabits. Four commenters
stated human interaction and traffic in critical habitat should be
limited or restricted.
Our Response: The Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument allows
multiple public uses stipulated through regulations (see National Park
Service regulations in chapter I of title 36 of the Code of Federal
Regulations). Consequently, they must manage human use and
environmental conservation. The National Park Service is required to
consult with the Service on any action they fund, authorize, or carry
out that may affect a listed species or critical habitat. Based on this
consultation requirement and the National Park Service's past actions
to conserve the Sonoyta mud turtle (for further discussion, see the
final listing rule (September 20, 2017, 82 FR 43897)), we anticipate
that public use of the critical habitat unit will be managed in a
manner consistent with the conservation of the Sonoyta mud turtle.
We are designating 12.28 acres (4.97 hectares) in one unit as
critical habitat for the Sonoyta mud turtle because this is the only
known population in the United States. The Act's policies and
regulations do not require that all known habitat for a species should
necessarily be designated as critical habitat. However, this critical
habitat includes all lands that are known to be used by the Sonoyta mud
turtle in the United States.
(3) Comment: One commenter stated that management practices should
be researched to increase the population. Four commenters stated that
recovery actions should be implemented, such as monitoring and
evaluation of critical habitat and of the population of the Sonoyta mud
turtle; these commenters also stated that alternative water supplies,
backup sources of water, and stock tanks should be provided. One
commenter stated that a recovery plan should be developed in
conjunction with the critical habitat designation.
Our Response: As we state in the proposed critical habitat rule (83
FR 62778; December 6, 2018), 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 recovery planning process
involves the identification of actions that are necessary to halt or
reverse the species' decline by addressing the threats to its survival
and recovery. The goal of this process is to restore listed species to
a point where they are secure, self-sustaining, and functioning
components of their ecosystems. The specific management actions needed
to recover the Sonoyta mud turtle will be addressed in a recovery plan.
Critical habitat designations are made on the basis of the best
available
[[Page 37578]]
information at the time of designation and do not control the direction
and substance of future recovery plans, habitat conservation plans
(HCPs), or other species conservation planning efforts if new
information available at the time of these planning efforts calls for a
different outcome.
(4) Comment: Two commenters stated that additional border security
actions or enhancements are planned for this area, including electronic
upgrades, new or upgraded fencing, and other border control activities
(not specified). One of these commenters stated that the U.S. Supreme
Court recently overruled the Service on a case regarding border fencing
and critical habitat, and the Service is obligated to consider national
security issues over critical habitat.
Our Response: 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. This rule
takes into account any relevant national security impacts of the
designation of critical habitat for the Sonoyta mud turtle. We
consulted with the Department of Defense and Department of Homeland
Security on the proposed designation. Neither agency requested an
exclusion from critical habitat based on potential national security
impacts. We note that Congress has provided to the Secretary of
Homeland Security a number of authorities necessary to carry out the
Department's border security mission. One of those authorities is found
at section 102 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act of 1996, as amended (``IIRIRA''). In section 102(a)
of IIRIRA, Congress provided that the Secretary of Homeland Security
shall take such actions as may be necessary to install additional
physical barriers and roads (including the removal of obstacles to
detection of illegal entrants) in the vicinity of the United States
border to deter illegal crossings in areas of high illegal entry into
the United States. In section 102(b) of IIRIRA, Congress mandated the
installation of additional fencing, barriers, roads, lighting, cameras,
and sensors on the southwest border. Finally, in section 102(c) of
IIRIRA, Congress granted to the Secretary of Homeland Security the
authority to waive all legal requirements that he determines are
necessary to ensure the expeditious construction of barriers and roads
authorized by section 102 of IIRIRA. On May 15, 2019, the Secretary of
Homeland Security issued waivers for legal requirements covering border
barrier activities directly in the vicinity of the Sonoyta mud turtle's
known range and proposed critical habitat (84 FR 21798).
(5) Comment: One commenter stated that a more substantial economic
impact evaluation be conducted to include the costs of designating and
protecting the Sonoyta mud turtle and the possibility of necessity of
captive reproduction.
Our Response: As part of the rulemaking process, the Service must
consider the economic impacts, including costs and benefits, of the
proposed rule in the context of three separate requirements: Regulatory
Planning and Review (Executive Orders 12866 and 13563), which define a
``significant'' regulatory action, require ``significant'' regulatory
actions to be reviewed by the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs (OIRA) of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and
encourage Federal agencies to consider regulatory approaches that
reduce the burden of regulation while maintaining flexibility and
freedom of choice for the public; section 4(b)(2) of the Act, which
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 other
relevant impacts of specifying any particular area as critical habitat;
and the Regulatory Flexibility Act, which requires Federal agencies
either to prepare and make available for public comment an initial
regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect of a proposed
rule on small entities or to certify, with a statement of the factual
basis, that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. We have developed this rule in a
manner consistent with these requirements.
Captive reproduction is a recovery action, not an action associated
with the designation of critical habitat.
Summary of Changes From Proposed Rule
We are making final, without change, the critical habitat
designation we proposed on December 6, 2018 (83 FR 62778). We did not
receive comments or information that resulted in redefining our
designation of critical habitat for the Sonoyta mud turtle.
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
(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). On August 27, 2019, we
published a final rule in the Federal Register (84 FR 45020) revising
portions of our regulations that implement section 4 of the Act. The
revisions to the regulations clarify, interpret, and implement portions
of the Act concerning the procedures and criteria used for adding
species to or removing species from the Lists of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife and Plants and for designating critical habitat.
These final regulations became effective on September 26, 2019. These
revised regulations apply to classification and critical habitat rules
for which a proposed rule was published after September 26, 2019.
Consequently, these new regulations do not apply to this final rule.
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
[[Page 37579]]
requirement that Federal agencies ensure, in consultation with the
Service, that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not
likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical
habitat. The designation of critical habitat does not affect land
ownership or establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or
other conservation area. Designation also does not allow the government
or public to access private lands, nor does designation require
implementation of restoration, recovery, or enhancement measures by
non-Federal landowners. Where a landowner requests Federal agency
funding or authorization for an action that may affect a listed species
or critical habitat, the Federal agency would be required to consult
with the Service under section 7(a)(2) of the Act. However, even if the
Service were to conclude that the proposed activity would 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 and commercial data available, those physical or biological
features that are essential to the conservation of the species (such as
space, food, cover, and protected habitat). In identifying those
physical or biological features that occur in specific occupied areas,
we focus on the specific features that are essential to support the
life-history needs of the species, including, but not limited to, water
characteristics, soil type, geological features, prey, vegetation,
symbiotic species, or other features. A feature may be a single habitat
characteristic, or a more-complex combination of habitat
characteristics. Features may include habitat characteristics that
support ephemeral or dynamic habitat conditions. Features may also be
expressed in terms relating to principles of conservation biology, such
as patch size, distribution distances, and connectivity.
Under the second prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat,
we can designate critical habitat in areas outside the geographical
area occupied by the species at the time it is listed, upon a
determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the
species. When designating critical habitat, the Secretary will first
evaluate areas occupied by the species. The Secretary will only
consider unoccupied areas to be essential where a critical habitat
designation limited to geographical areas occupied by the species would
be inadequate to ensure the conservation of the species. In addition,
for an unoccupied area to be considered essential, the Secretary must
determine that there is a reasonable certainty both that the area will
contribute to the conservation of the species and that the area
contains one or more of those physical or biological features essential
to 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) section 9 of the Act's prohibitions on taking any
individual of the species, including taking caused by actions that
affect habitat. Federally funded or permitted projects affecting listed
species outside their designated critical habitat areas may still
result in jeopardy findings in some cases. These protections and
conservation tools will continue to contribute to recovery of this
species. Similarly, critical habitat designations made on the basis of
the best available information at the time of designation will not
control the direction and substance of future recovery plans, habitat
conservation plans (HCPs), or other species conservation planning
efforts if new information available at the time of these planning
efforts calls for a different outcome.
On August 27, 2019, we published a final rule in the Federal
Register (84 FR 45020) to amend our regulations concerning the
procedures and criteria we use to designate and revise critical
habitat. That rule became effective on September 26, 2019, but, as
stated in that rule, the amendments it sets forth apply to ``rules for
which a proposed rule was published after September 26, 2019.'' We
published our proposed critical habitat designation for the Sonoyta mud
turtle on December 6, 2018 (83 FR 62778); therefore, the amendments set
forth in the August 27, 2019, final rule at 84 FR 45020 do not apply to
this final designation of critical habitat for the Sonoyta mud turtle.
Physical or Biological Features Essential to the Conservation of the
Sonoyta Mud Turtle
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
[[Page 37580]]
consider the physical or biological features that are essential to the
conservation of the species and that 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 might include gravel of a particular
size required for spawning, alkali soil for seed germination,
protective cover for migration, or susceptibility to flooding or fire
that maintains necessary early-successional habitat characteristics.
Biological features might include prey species, forage grasses,
specific kinds or ages of trees for roosting or nesting, symbiotic
fungi, or a particular level of nonnative species consistent with
conservation needs of the listed species. The features may also be
combinations of habitat characteristics and may encompass the
relationship between characteristics or the necessary amount of a
characteristic needed to support the life history of the species. In
considering whether features are essential to the conservation of the
species, the Service may consider an appropriate quality, quantity, and
spatial and temporal arrangement of habitat characteristics in the
context of the life-history needs, condition, and status of the
species. These characteristics include, but are not limited to, space
for individual and population growth and for normal behavior; food,
water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or physiological
requirements; cover or shelter; sites for breeding, reproduction, or
rearing (or development) of offspring; and habitats that are protected
from disturbance.
We conducted a SSA for the Sonoyta mud turtle, which is an
evaluation of the best available scientific and commercial data on the
status of the subspecies. The species status assessment report (SSA
report; Service 2017, which is available at https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/Sonoyta.html and at http://www.regulations.gov
under Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2017-0014) is based on a thorough review of
the natural history, habitats, ecology, populations, and range of the
Sonoyta mud turtle, and risks to the subspecies. The SSA report
provides the scientific information upon which this final critical
habitat designation is based.
The Sonoyta mud turtle is a freshwater turtle encountered in or
near water in an otherwise arid environment that commonly experiences
drought and extreme heat (ambient temperatures can exceed 45 degrees
Celsius ([deg]C) (113 degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F)). Sonoyta mud turtles
depend on aquatic habitat with adjacent terrestrial habitat for life-
history functions. Aquatic habitat consists of streams and natural and
manmade ponds with perennial or near-perennial (water present more than
11 months of the year for multiple years) sources of water. Terrestrial
habitat consists of riparian areas along water sources that maintain
moist soil and a cooler environment than adjacent uplands. Much of the
information on resource needs of the Sonoyta mud turtle subspecies is
inferred from work on the nominate subspecies, Sonora mud turtle
(Kinosternon sonoriense sonoriense), and noted accordingly in the text
that follows.
Aquatic habitat in ponds and streams is usually shallow water to 2
meters (m) (7 feet (ft)) deep, with a rocky, muddy, or sandy substrate,
and emergent or submergent vegetation, or both (National Park Service
2015, p. 2; Paredes-Aguilar and Rosen 2003, pp. 5-7; Rosen 2003, p. 5;
Rosen et al. 207, p. 14). Sonoyta mud turtles need perennial or near-
perennial surface water for feeding, for protection from predators, to
prevent desiccation, and for mating. Hatchling, juvenile, and sub-adult
turtles prefer aquatic habitat with shallow water and dense emergent
vegetation that provides foraging opportunities as well as protection
from predators (Rosen 1986, pp. 14, 36; Rosen and Lowe 1996, p. 11).
Emergent aquatic vegetation includes plants such as cattail (Typha
domingensis), spikerush (Eleocharis geniculata), and travelling
spikerush (Eleocharis rostellata) (Felger et al. 1992, pp. 33, 36).
Adults will also use shallow water habitat, but prefer aquatic habitat
with deeper (up to 2 m (7 ft)) open water (with no or little vegetation
growing in the water column), and submerged vegetation for feeding on
benthic and plant-crawling invertebrates along the substrate (Rosen
1986, pp. 14, 16; Rosen and Lowe 1996, p. 11). American bulrush
(Schoenoplectus americanus), an introduced nonnative plant species, and
the native cattails can encroach into open water used by Sonoyta mud
turtles. Historically, Sonoyta mud turtles occurred in rivers or
cienegas within a natural ecosystem that maintained aquatic vegetation
suitable to the Sonoyta mud turtle's needs. However, habitat at some
Sonoyta mud turtle locations has been altered from this natural
ecosystem to ponded water maintained by water control structures.
American bulrush and cattails encroach these ponded sites such that
open water is eliminated. Consequently, mechanical removal of American
bulrush and cattails may be needed periodically to maintain patches of
open water. The submerged aquatic vegetation required for prey includes
plants such as holly-leaved water nymph (Najas marina), slender
pondweed (Potamogeton pectinatus), ditch-grass (Ruppia maritima), and
horned pondweed (Zannichellia palustris) (Felger et al. 1992, p. 36).
Reduced water levels would reduce overall habitat amount (water and
vegetation) and quality, causing crowding and increased competition for
remaining, limited resources such as cover and prey (Stanila 2009, p.
45). A reduction in water and emergent vegetation would likely reduce
the amount of space and invertebrate prey for Sonoyta mud turtles.
Large adult Sonora mud turtles have exhibited site fidelity to specific
pools in a stream channel (Hall and Steidl 2007, p. 410), and although
not studied, this could also be true for the Sonoyta mud turtle. As a
result, lower water levels could reduce carrying capacity and increase
overlap of adult Sonoyta mud turtle territory. Adequate prey allows
juvenile turtles to grow rapidly and allows adults to have sufficient
lipid content to support reproduction. Poor body condition (i.e., low
lipids) may be associated with lower clutch size (total number of eggs
produced) and, therefore, lower population growth (Rosen and Lowe 1996,
pp. 40-43). Sonoyta mud turtles in dry or low surface water reaches
would burrow in channels to escape desiccation for a short period of
time. Over time, however, burrows themselves may become too dry;
turtles will lose fat reserves due to lack of foraging opportunity. If
adult Sonoyta mud turtles mate during or after losing fat reserves,
females may not have viable eggs due to lack of nutrition and fat
reserves, and eventually turtles will die from either starvation or
desiccation. Potential population-level impacts include lower
reproductive rates,
[[Page 37581]]
reduced recruitment, reduced population growth rate, and changes in
distribution.
Sonoyta mud turtles are opportunistic carnivores, feeding primarily
on aquatic invertebrates that live on emergent and submergent
vegetation or the substrate of ponds and streams (Rosen 1986, pp. 14,
31; Rosen and Lowe 1996, pp. 32-35). Sonoyta mud turtle hatchlings and
juveniles feed on littoral invertebrate fauna, while subadults and
adults prefer benthic and plant-crawling invertebrates (Hulse 1974, pp.
197-198; Lovich et al. 207, pp. 135-136; Rosen 1986, pp. 14, 31; Rosen
and Lowe 1996, pp. 32-35; Stanila et al. 2008, p. 42). In habitats with
poor aquatic invertebrate faunas, Sonoyta mud turtles will shift to
omnivorous feeding, including plants and vertebrates such as fish
(Rosen and Lowe 1996, pp. 32-35). However, where fish are abundant,
Sonoyta mud turtles catch few of them (Rosen and Lowe 1996, p. 32).
Sonora mud turtles are also known to consume other vertebrates
including toads, and even reptiles and birds when available for capture
(Ligon and Stone 2003, entire; Stone et al. 2005, entire). Analysis of
stomach contents of the Sonora mud turtle revealed animal material
represented 69.0-93.6 percent total volume, with plant material making
up the remaining volume (Hulse 1974, p. 197). Aquatic invertebrates
found in the stomach contents of Sonora mud turtles included members of
11 invertebrate orders such as dragonflies (Anisoptera), caddisflies
(Trichoptera), flies (Diptera), beetles (Coleoptera), and aquatic snail
species (Basommatophora). Aquatic invertebrates require submergent or
emergent vegetation and a variety of prey, such as algae, diatoms, and
other microorganisms.
Sonoyta mud turtles need aquatic habitat free of nonnative
predators and competitors. Aquatic habitat with nonnative predators,
including crayfish (Orconectes spp. and Cherax spp.), American
bullfrogs (Lithobates catesbeianus), and sunfish (centrarchids), could
decrease population stability or potentially decimate populations of
the Sonoyta mud turtle (Drost et al. 207, pp. 33-34; Hensley et al.
207, pp. 186-187; Fernandez and Rosen 1996, pp. 39-41). These species,
along with black bullheads (Ameiurus melas), African cichlid fishes
(tilapia), western mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis), and exotic turtles,
compete with mud turtles for food or disrupt the food chain, which
could alter the invertebrate community (Taylor et al. 1984, pp. 330-
331; Fernandez and Rosen 1996, pp. 39-40; Duncan 2013, p. 1). Such
competition, in turn, could decrease type and amount of aquatic
invertebrate prey available to Sonoyta mud turtles (Fernandez and Rosen
1996, pp. 39-40).
Because high average annual juvenile survivorship is required for
populations of long-lived organisms to maintain population stability
(Congdon et al. 1993, pp. 831-832; Congdon et al. 1994, pp. 405-406),
nonnative predators that reduce recruitment into Sonoyta mud turtle
populations could cause population declines. Bullfrogs and crayfish are
known predators of hatchling and juvenile turtles of the Sonora mud
turtle (Fernandez and Rosen 1996, pp. 33-43; Akins and Jones 207, p.
343; Hensley et al. 207, pp. 186-187; Schwendiman 2001, p. 39), and
would likely eat hatchling Sonoyta mud turtles if introduced.
Populations of the Sonora mud turtle have coexisted with moderate and
high densities of bullfrogs (Rosen and Schwalbe 2002, p. 230). However,
a high density of bullfrogs may reduce population density of mud
turtles (van Lobel Sells 1997, p. 343). Crayfish are detrimental to
populations of the Sonora mud turtle and not only prey on small mud
turtles, but likely compete with them for native aquatic invertebrate
food sources (Fernandez and Rosen 1996, pp. 39-40). One study
documented cessation of Sonora mud turtle recruitment 2 years after
crayfish introduction to an area that had supported a population of
approximately 1,000 Sonora mud turtles (Fernandez and Rosen 1996, pp.
40-41). Large sunfish, such as largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides),
also have the potential to reduce recruitment in populations of Sonoyta
mud turtles because their large gape (external mouth width) makes it
possible for them to prey on hatchling and juvenile Sonoyta mud turtles
(Stanila 2009, p. 50). Largemouth bass are known to eat other aquatic
turtle species, and Rosen (1987, p. 6) reported the lowest population
densities of Sonora mud turtles in habitats with largemouth bass.
Adult and juvenile Sonoyta mud turtles use aquatic habitat with
complex structure that provides protection from predators such as root
masses, rock features, and undercut banks (Rosen 1986, pp. 14, 16;
Rosen and Lowe 1996, p. 11). Shallow water areas with dense emergent
vegetation also provide protection from predators for hatchlings,
juveniles, and adults. Overhanging riparian vegetation along the stream
channel or pond margin and soil burrows under overhanging banks provide
some protection from predators for turtles in the water near the
shoreline. Riparian vegetation may also provide some level of
protection from terrestrial predators while turtles are out of the
water.
Terrestrial habitat that maintains soil moisture for Sonoyta mud
turtles occurs in riparian areas along the banks of ponds and streams,
and in intermittently dry sections of stream channels. Riparian habitat
provides shadier, cooler, and moister conditions than the adjacent
upland areas. Sonoyta mud turtles require moist soil for nesting to
prevent desiccation of eggs and for estivation (a state of dormancy)
sites to prevent desiccation of hatchlings, juveniles, and adults.
Riparian vegetation includes plants such as Fremont cottonwood (Populus
fremontii), Goodding willow (Salix gooddingii), honey mesquite
(Prosopis glandulosa), screwbean mesquite (P. pubescens), seepwillow
(Baccharis salicifolia), greythorn (Ziziphus obtusifolia), wolfberry
(Lycium spp.), salt grass (Distichlis spicata), and arrowweed (Pluchea
sericea) (Felger et al. 1992, p. 4).
Sonoyta mud turtles need accessible shoreline without
insurmountable rock or artificial vertical barriers to allow for
movement between wetted sites, between aquatic habitat and terrestrial
nest sites, and between water and estivation (dormancy during drought)
sites. Sonora mud turtles in dry or low surface water conditions may
either travel along dry intermittent sections of a stream to find water
or they will estivate (Hall and Steidl 2007, p. 406; Hensley et al.
207, pp. 181-182; Ligon and Stone 2003, pp. 752-753; Stone 2001, pp.
46-49). Sonora mud turtles that live in permanent bodies of water have
shown highly aquatic behavior with little terrestrial behavior or
movement between water sources, while Sonora mud turtles in more
ephemeral habits have been documented moving through or out of dry
stream beds to reach wetted pools, for winter hibernation, or for
estivation during drought as a drought-survival strategy (Hall and
Steidl 2007, pp. 406-408; Hensley et al. 207, pp. 181-182; Ligon and
Stone 2003, pp. 752-753; Stone 2001, pp. 46-51).
Sonora mud turtles can endure lack of surface water for a short
time and have been documented estivating in the wild for 11 to 34 days
(Ligon and Stone 2003, p. 752), and once for up to 68 days (Ligon and
Stone 2002, entire; Ligon and Stone 2003, p. 753). However, prolonged
and recurrent estivation is expected to reduce fitness and increase
mortality (Peterson and Stone 2000, pp. 692-698). Terrestrial
estivation sites consisted of depressions under vegetation, soil, or
organic matter; in rock crevices; or in soil burrows under
[[Page 37582]]
overhanging banks of streams or ponds. One study found Sonora mud
turtles estivating up to 79 m (259 ft) from a streambed during summer
even when water was available, with mud turtles using clumps of
vegetation or spaces under large rocks in the terrestrial environment
(Ligon and Stone 2003, pp. 752-753).
Estivation has not been verified in the Sonoyta mud turtle, and
physiological tolerances for estivation are unknown. However, Sonoyta
mud turtles have been found in burrows up to 1 m (3.3 ft) deep in
stream banks, presumably using these burrows to escape from predators
(Paredes-Aguilar and Rosen 2003, p. 8) or for drought refuge. Further,
based on the physiological requirements of the Sonora mud turtle and
the arid environment in which the Sonoyta mud turtle lives, we believe
that they estivate during times of little or no surface water.
Long-distance movements of Sonora mud turtles exceeding 7
kilometers (5 miles) in straight-line distance occurred between aquatic
habitats. Such movements may reduce reproductive isolation and lower
the probability of extirpation of populations (Hall and Steilde 2007,
p. 408; Hensley et al. 207, pp. 181-182; Stone et al. 2015, p. 736).
Although not well-studied, no movement of Sonoyta mud turtles of these
magnitudes has been documented, and restrictions associated with their
extreme arid environment may reduce such movements (P. Rosen 2016,
pers. comm.). Dispersal habitat along drainages is likely needed to
maintain connectivity between populations of the Sonoyta mud turtle on
a rangewide scale.
The Sonora mud turtle is known to mate from April to October, and
female Sonora and Sonoyta mud turtles lay eggs from mid to late July
through September in vegetation litter, soil burrows, and rock crevices
up to 52 m (171 ft) away from water (Rosen and Lowe 1996, pp. 21, 23;
Stone et al. 2015, p. 735; D. Hall 2016, pers. comm.; Rosen 1986, p. 7;
A. Owens 2007, pers. comm.; P. Holm 2016, pers. comm.). Eggs may
undergo embryonic diapause in the nest for 11 months after being laid,
with hatchlings emerging the following year (van Loben Sels et al.
1997, p. 343; Ernst and Lovich 2009, p. 497; Stone et al. 2015, p.
735). In mid to late July through September, females leave the water
briefly to lay eggs in terrestrial nests that maintain some level of
moisture. Three presumed nest sites have been observed for the Sonoyta
mud turtle that indicate this subspecies uses nest sites similar to the
Sonora mud turtle. The only potential nesting behavior of the Sonoyta
mud turtle observed was a gravid female, ``apparently preparing to lay
eggs,'' digging 15 centimeters (cm) (6 inches (in)) into the soil in a
mesquite bosque (cluster of trees along a stream) 9 m (30 ft) from the
edge of the pond at Quitobaquito Springs (Rosen and Lowe 1996, p. 23).
A second turtle nest site was found in a small cavity (5 by 5 cm (2 by
2 in)) within a 3 m (10 ft) high soil bank that runs next to the
spring-fed channel leading to the pond at Quitobaquito Springs (A.
Owens 2007, pers. comm.). The third nest site was found in a small
depression in soil beneath a piece of tree bark on top of an undercut
bank at the edge the pond at Quitobaquito Springs (P. Holm 2016, pers.
comm.).
Summary of Essential Physical or Biological Features
We derive the specific physical or biological features essential to
the conservation of the Sonoyta mud turtle from studies of its habitat,
ecology, and life history as described above. Additional information
can be found in the final listing rule published in the Federal
Register on September 20, 2017 (82 FR 43897) and the SSA report
published on http://www.regulations.gov. We have determined that the
following physical or biological features are essential to the
conservation of the Sonoyta mud turtle:
(1) Aquatic habitat, such as streams and natural or manmade ponds,
with perennial or near-perennial sources of water, containing or
including:
(a) Surface water to 2 m (7 ft) deep, with a rocky, muddy, or sandy
substrate, and emergent or submergent vegetation, or both;
(b) Surface water free of nonnative predators and competitors,
including crayfish, American bullfrogs, and large sunfish;
(c) Shallow water areas with dense emergent vegetation (e.g.,
cattail, spikerush, and travelling spikerush);
(d) Access to deeper open water in ponds, and submerged vegetation
(e.g., holly-leaved water nymph, slender pondweed, ditch-grass, and
horned pondweed); and
(e) Areas with complex structure, including protective shelter
sites such as root masses, rock features, and undercut banks.
(2) Aquatic invertebrate prey base (e.g., Anisoptera, Trichoptera,
Diptera, Coleoptera, aquatic snail species) and their corresponding
habitat, including submergent or emergent vegetation and a variety of
forage, and prey such as algae, diatoms, other microorganisms.
(3) Terrestrial, riparian habitat, adjacent to suitable aquatic
habitat, containing or including:
(a) Accessible shoreline for Sonoyta mud turtles without
insurmountable rock or artificial vertical barriers to allow movement
between wetted sites, between aquatic habitat and terrestrial nest
sites, and between aquatic habitat and estivation sites;
(b) Riparian areas that maintain soil moisture to prevent
desiccation of eggs and provide estivation sites, located along the
banks of ponds and streams with riparian vegetation (e.g., cottonwood,
willow, seepwillow, mesquite, greythorn, wolfberry, salt grass,
arrowweed); and
(c) Estivation and nesting sites, including depressions under
vegetation, soil, or organic matter; rock crevices; and soil burrows
under overhanging banks of streams or ponds, that are available year-
round.
Special Management Considerations or Protection
When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the specific
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time
of listing contain features that are essential to the conservation of
the species and which may require special management considerations or
protection. The features essential to the conservation of the Sonoyta
mud turtle may require special management considerations or protection
to reduce the following threats: (1) Water loss; (2) loss of riparian
habitat; (3) reduction of invertebrate prey; (4) presence of nonnative
species; and (5) land management activities incompatible with
maintaining needed habitat (such as dredging).
Management activities that could ameliorate these threats and
protect the quantity and quality of the aquatic and riparian habitat
include, but are not limited to: (1) Maximizing surface water and
aquatic habitat available through structure maintenance, such as berms,
lining ponds and spring runs, and removing sediment; (2) decreasing
groundwater pumping to maintain surface water that supports aquatic and
riparian habitat, as well as the invertebrate prey base; (3)
controlling and removing introduced nonnative plant species, such as
American bulrush, to maintain aquatic habitat; and (4) controlling and
removing introduced nonnative predators and competitors, such as
crayfish, American bullfrogs, and large sunfish.
[[Page 37583]]
Areas Occupied at the Time of Listing
We are designating as critical habitat lands that we have
determined are occupied at the time of listing (in this case, the date
we published the final listing rule: September 20, 2017) and contain
one or more of the physical or biological features to support life-
history processes essential to the conservation of the Sonoyta mud
turtle. For purposes of this final rule, we define ``occupied habitat''
for the Sonoyta mud turtle as areas with positive survey records since
2000. The Sonoyta mud turtle has been recorded from this unit every
year since 2000.
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 designating any areas
outside the geographical area occupied by the subspecies because we
have not identified any relevant areas that have a reasonable certainty
of contributing to the conservation of the subspecies. If we receive
additional information, either through our recovery planning efforts or
other conservation efforts, that demonstrates areas not currently
occupied by the subspecies could be essential for the conservation of
the Sonoyta mud turtle, we will consider amending this determination at
that time.
Sources of occupancy data on the Sonoyta mud turtle are monitoring
data from Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument (National Park Service
2002-2016, p. 1). We obtained information on ecology and habitat
requirements of the Sonoyta mud turtle from multiple sources, as
identified in the SSA report (Service 2017, entire). For mapping of
this final critical habitat, we used Organ Pipe Cactus National
Monument geo-referenced data of the water features used by Sonoyta mud
turtles at Quitobaquito. In addition, we used satellite imagery
available in ArcGIS to delineate riparian areas surrounding the surface
water habitat.
When determining final critical habitat boundaries, we made every
effort to avoid including developed areas such as lands covered by
buildings, pavement, and other structures because such lands typically
lack physical or biological features necessary for the Sonoyta mud
turtle. However, manmade water conveyance structures within the
designated critical habitat are part of the designation and are needed
to manage the existing habitat. The current occupied unit includes a
manmade spring enclosure and spring channel that convey water to a
manmade pond surrounded by a manmade berm. The spring channel not only
conveys water to the pond but also serves as habitat for the
subspecies. Therefore, all of these manmade features are considered
critical habitat.
We are designating as critical habitat lands that we have
determined are occupied at the time of listing and contain physical or
biological features to support life-history processes essential to the
conservation of the Sonoyta mud turtle. This critical habitat
designation includes the only known extant population of Sonoyta mud
turtles in the United States, within the Organ Pipe Cactus National
Monument. We are designating one critical habitat unit based on one or
more of the physical or biological features being present to support
the life-history processes of the Sonoyta mud turtle.
The critical habitat designation is defined by the map, as modified
by any accompanying regulatory text, presented below under Regulation
Promulgation. We include more detailed information on the boundaries of
the critical habitat designation under Final Critical Habitat
Designation, below. We will make the coordinates or plot points or both
on which the map is based available to the public on http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2017-0014, on our internet
site at http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona, and at the field
office responsible for the designation (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT, above).
Final Critical Habitat Designation
We are designating 12.28 acres (4.97 hectares) in one unit as
critical habitat for Sonoyta mud turtle. The critical habitat area we
describe below constitutes our current best assessment of the area that
meets the definition of critical habitat for the Sonoyta mud turtle.
Table of Occupancy, Land Ownership, and Size of Sonoyta Mud Turtle Final Critical Habitat
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Occupied at
Unit name time of Currently Land ownership Size of unit Size of unit
listing? occupied? in acres in hectares
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quitobaquito................. Yes............ Yes............ National Park 12.28 4.97
Service.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We present a brief description of the unit, and reasons why it
meets the definition of critical habitat for Sonoyta mud turtle, below.
Quitobaquito Unit
This unit consists of 12.28 acres (4.97 hectares) in the Rio
Sonoyta watershed of Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument. This unit is
within the geographic area occupied by the subspecies at the time of
listing and contains at least one of the physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of the Sonoyta mud turtle.
Aquatic habitat within this unit consists of the two Quitobaquito
springs, the piped water that connects the two springs, a manmade
spring channel that connects the springs to Quitobaquito pond, and a
manmade pond with a perennial source of water. The spring channel and
pond both have shallow water habitat, an aquatic invertebrate prey
base, and no nonnative predators. The pond includes surface water up to
107 cm (42 in) deep with a muddy substrate; dense emergent and
submergent vegetation; access to deeper open water in a pond for
feeding along the substrate; and areas with complex structure and
protective shelter sites, including root masses and undercut banks.
Terrestrial habitat within this unit consists of adjacent, accessible
shoreline along the stream channel and around Quitobaquito pond without
insurmountable rock or artificial vertical barriers to movement of the
Sonoyta mud turtle, as well as riparian areas, located along the banks
of the pond, stream channel, and berm around the pond. These
terrestrial habitat components maintain soil moisture to prevent
desiccation of eggs and estivating turtles, and include estivation and
nesting sites, including depressions under vegetation, soil, organic
matter,
[[Page 37584]]
and soil burrows under overhanging banks of the pond, that are
available year-round. The physical or biological features in this unit
may require special management considerations or protection to address
threats from loss of surface water due to groundwater pumping, berm
leaking, aquatic vegetation control, and sedimentation removal in the
pond. This unit is entirely within the Organ Pipe Cactus National
Monument, and the National Park Service manages the habitat to support
the Sonoyta mud turtle population.
Effects of Critical Habitat Designation
Section 7 Consultation
Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the
Service, to ensure that any action they fund, authorize, or carry out
is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered
species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse
modification of designated critical habitat of such species. In
addition, section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to
confer with the Service on any agency action which is likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of any species proposed to be listed
under the Act or result in the destruction or adverse modification of
proposed critical habitat.
We published a final regulation with a revised 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.
If a Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical
habitat, the responsible Federal agency (action agency) must enter into
consultation with us. Examples of actions that are subject to the
section 7 consultation process are actions on State, tribal, local, or
private lands that require a Federal permit (such as a permit from the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or a permit from the Service under section 10
of the Act) or that involve some other Federal action (such as funding
from the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Aviation
Administration, or 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.
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 formal consultation on previously reviewed
actions. These requirements apply when the Federal agency has retained
discretionary involvement or control over the action (or the agency's
discretionary involvement or control is authorized by law) and,
subsequent to the previous consultation, we have listed a new species
or designated critical habitat that may be affected by the Federal
action, or the action has been modified in a manner that affects the
species or critical habitat in a way not considered in the previous
consultation. In such situations, Federal agencies sometimes may need
to request reinitiation of consultation with us, but the regulations
also specify some exceptions to the requirement to reinitiate
consultation on specific land management plans after subsequently
listing a new species or designating new critical habitat. See the
regulations for a description of those exceptions.
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 as a
whole 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 the Services may, during a consultation under
section 7(a)(2) of the Act, find are likely to destroy or adversely
modify critical habitat include, but are not limited to:
(1) Actions that would decrease the amount of water available to
ponds and streams used by Sonoyta mud turtles. Such actions could
include, but are not limited to, groundwater pumping. Groundwater
pumping could decrease the amount of groundwater that infiltrates
streamflow so that streams become smaller, intermittent, or dry, and
thereby could reduce the amount of space, prey, nest sites, and cover
available for Sonoyta mud turtles.
Exemptions
Application of Section 4(a)(3) of the Act
Section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i))
provides that the Secretary shall not designate as critical habitat any
lands or other geographical areas owned or controlled by the Department
of Defense, or designated for its use, that are subject to an
integrated natural resources management plan (INRMP) prepared under
section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a), if the Secretary
determines in writing that such plan provides a benefit to the species
for which critical habitat is proposed for designation. There are no
Department of Defense
[[Page 37585]]
lands with a completed INRMP within the critical habitat designation.
Exclusions
Consideration and Application 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 critical habitat if he determines
that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying
such area as part of the critical habitat, unless he determines, based
on the best scientific data available, that the failure to designate
such area as critical habitat will result in the extinction of the
species. In making 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.
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. In order to consider economic impacts, we
developed an incremental effects memorandum (IEM, Service 2017)
considering the probable incremental economic impacts that may result
from this designation of critical habitat. The information contained in
our IEM was then used to develop a draft screening analysis of the
probable effects of the designation of critical habitat for the Sonoyta
mud turtle (Industrial Economics, Inc. (IEc) 2017). This draft
screening analysis, combined with the information contained in our IEM,
are what we considered our draft economic analysis of the proposed
critical habitat designation for the Sonoyta mud turtle (see 83 FR
62778; December 6, 2018). The draft screening analysis, dated February
7, 2017, was made available for public review and comment from December
6, 2018, through February 4, 2019 (83 FR 62778; December 6, 2018). A
summary of the IEM and draft screening analysis can be found in the
proposed rule to designate critical habitat for the Sonoyta mud turtle
(83 FR 62778; December 6, 2018) and is available at http://www.regulations.gov. Following the close of the proposed rule's comment
period, we reviewed and evaluated all information submitted to us
during the comment period that may pertain to our consideration of the
probable incremental economic impacts of this critical habitat
designation and used it to develop a final screening analysis of the
probable effects of the designation of critical habitat for the Sonoyta
mud turtle (Industrial Economics, Inc. (IEc) 2019). Information
relevant to the probable incremental economic impacts of the critical
habitat designation for the Sonoyta mud turtle is summarized below and
available in the final economic analysis (FEA, or screening analysis)
for the Sonoyta mud turtle (IEc 2019), available at http://www.regulations.gov.
The intent of the FEA is to quantify the economic impacts generated
by the critical habitat designation for the Sonoyta mud turtle. The
economic impact of the final critical habitat designation is analyzed
by comparing scenarios both ``with critical habitat'' and ``without
critical habitat.'' The ``without critical habitat'' scenario
represents the baseline for the analysis, considering protections
already in place for the species (e.g., under the Federal listing and
other Federal, State, and local regulations). The baseline, therefore,
represents the costs incurred regardless of whether critical habitat is
designated. The ``with critical habitat'' scenario describes the
incremental impacts associated specifically with the designation of
critical habitat for the species. The incremental conservation efforts
and associated impacts are those not expected to occur absent the
designation of critical habitat for the species. In other words, the
incremental costs are those attributable solely to the designation of
critical habitat above and beyond the baseline costs; these are the
costs we consider in the final designation of critical habitat.
The FEA also addresses how potential economic impacts are likely to
be distributed, including an assessment of any local or regional
impacts of habitat conservation and the potential effects of
conservation activities on government agencies, private businesses, and
individuals. The FEA measures lost economic efficiency associated with
residential and commercial development and public projects and
activities, such as economic impacts on water management and
transportation projects, Federal lands, small entities, and the energy
industry. Decision-makers can use this information to assess whether
the effects of the designation might unduly burden a particular group
or economic sector.
The FEA considers those costs likely to occur in the 20 years
following the designation of critical habitat, which was determined to
be the appropriate period for analysis because limited planning
information was available for most activities to forecast activity
levels for projects beyond a 20-year timeframe. The FEA identifies that
the probable incremental economic impacts that may result from the
designation of critical habitat for the Sonoyta mud turtle are
associated with the following categories of activities: (1) Federal
lands management (National Park Service, Organ Pipe Cactus National
Monument); (2) groundwater pumping; and (3) Customs and Border
Protection. We considered each industry or category individually. The
FEA estimates the present value of the total incremental cost of
critical habitat designation is $28,000 over the next 20 years
(assuming a 3 percent discount rate), or $1,900 on an annualized basis.
The incremental impacts of critical habitat designation in the one unit
of critical habitat will be limited to additional administrative costs
to the Service, Federal agencies, and private third parties.
The Service considered the economic impacts of the critical habitat
designation. The Secretary is not exercising his discretion to exclude
any areas from this designation of critical habitat for the Sonoyta mud
turtle based on economic impacts. A copy of the IEM and screening
analysis with supporting documents may be obtained by contacting the
Arizona Ecological Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES) or by
downloading from the internet at http://www.regulations.gov.
Consideration of National Security Impacts
Section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act may not cover all Department of
Defense (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), national-security or homeland-security concerns are not
a factor in the process of determining what areas meet the definition
of ``critical habitat.'' Nevertheless, when designating critical
habitat under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, the Service must consider
impacts on national security, including homeland security, on lands or
areas not covered by section 4(a)(3)(B)(i). Accordingly, we will always
consider for exclusion from the designation areas for which DoD,
Department of Homeland Security, or another Federal agency has
requested exclusion based on an assertion of
[[Page 37586]]
national-security or homeland-security concerns.
We consulted with DoD and Department of Homeland Security on this
designation. Neither agency identified any potential national-security
impact, nor requested an exclusion from critical habitat based on
potential national-security impacts. Consequently, the Secretary is not
exercising his discretion to exclude any areas from this designation
based on impacts on national 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. 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 would be encouraged by designation of, or
exclusion from, critical habitat. In addition, we look at the existence
of tribal conservation plans and partnerships and consider the
government-to-government relationship of the United States with tribal
entities. We also consider any social impacts that might occur because
of the designation.
We are not excluding any areas from critical habitat. In preparing
this final rule, we have determined that there are currently no
permitted conservation plans or other non-permitted conservation
agreements or partnerships for the Sonoyta mud turtle, and this
designation does not include any tribal lands or tribal trust
resources. We anticipate no impact on tribal lands, partnerships,
permitted or non-permitted plans or agreements from this critical
habitat designation. Accordingly, the Secretary is not exercising his
discretion to exclude any areas from this designation based on other
relevant impacts.
Required Determinations
Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Orders 12866 and 13563)
Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) will review all significant rules. The Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs has waived their review regarding
their significance determination of this rule.
Executive Order (E.O.) 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866
while calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to
promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best,
most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory
ends. The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory
approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of
choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible,
and consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes
further that regulations must be based on the best available science
and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and
an open exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner
consistent with these requirements.
Executive Order 13771
We do not believe this rule is an E.O. 13771 (``Reducing Regulation
and Controlling Regulatory Costs'') (82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017)
regulatory action because we believe this rule is not significant under
E.O. 12866; however, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
has waived their review regarding their E.O. 12866 significance
determination of this rule.
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.),
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996 (SBREFA; 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), whenever an agency is required to
publish a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must
prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility
analysis that describes the effects of the rule on small entities
(i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small government
jurisdictions). However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required
if the head of the agency certifies the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The SBREFA amended the RFA to require Federal agencies to provide a
certification statement of the factual basis for certifying that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
According to the Small Business Administration, small entities
include small organizations such as independent nonprofit
organizations; small governmental jurisdictions, including school
boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000
residents; and small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses
include manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than 500
employees, wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees,
retail and service businesses with less than $5 million in annual
sales, general and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5
million in annual business, special trade contractors doing less than
$11.5 million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with
annual sales less than $750,000. To determine if potential economic
impacts to these small entities are significant, we considered the
types of activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under this
designation as well as types of project modifications that may result.
In general, the term ``significant economic impact'' is meant to apply
to a typical small business firm's business operations.
The Service's current understanding of the requirements under the
RFA, as amended, and following recent court decisions, is that Federal
agencies are only required to evaluate the potential incremental
impacts of rulemaking on those entities directly regulated by the
rulemaking itself and, therefore, are not required to evaluate the
potential impacts to indirectly regulated entities. The regulatory
mechanism through which critical habitat protections are realized is
section 7 of the Act, which requires Federal agencies, in consultation
with the Service, to ensure that any action authorized, funded, or
carried out by the agency is not likely to destroy or adversely modify
critical habitat. Therefore, under section 7, only Federal action
agencies are directly subject to the specific regulatory requirement
(avoiding destruction and adverse modification) imposed by critical
habitat designation. Consequently, it is our position that only Federal
action agencies will be directly regulated by this designation. There
is no requirement under the RFA to evaluate the potential impacts to
entities not directly regulated. Moreover, Federal agencies are not
small entities. Therefore, because no small entities are directly
regulated by this rulemaking, the Service certifies that this final
critical habitat designation will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
During the development of this final rule, we reviewed and
evaluated all information submitted to us during the proposed rule's
comment period that may pertain to our consideration of the probable
incremental economic impacts of this critical habitat designation.
Based on this information, we affirm our certification that this final
critical habitat designation will not have a significant economic
impact on a
[[Page 37587]]
substantial number of small entities, and a regulatory flexibility
analysis is not required.
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use--Executive Order 13211
Executive Order 13211 (Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use) requires
agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking
certain actions. OMB has provided guidance for implementing this
Executive order that outlines nine outcomes that may constitute ``a
significant adverse effect'' when compared to not taking the regulatory
action under consideration.
The economic analysis finds that none of these criteria are
relevant to this analysis. Thus, based on information in the economic
analysis, energy-related impacts associated with Sonoyta mud turtle
conservation activities within critical habitat are not expected. As
such, the designation of critical habitat is not expected to
significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use. Therefore,
this action is not a significant energy action, and no Statement of
Energy Effects is required.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)
In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501
et seq.), we make the following findings:
(1) This rule will not produce a Federal mandate. In general, a
Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or regulation
that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal
governments, or the private sector, and includes both ``Federal
intergovernmental mandates'' and ``Federal private sector mandates.''
These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). ``Federal
intergovernmental mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose
an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal governments'' with two
exceptions. It excludes ``a condition of Federal assistance.'' It also
excludes ``a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal
program,'' unless the regulation ``relates to a then-existing Federal
program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State,
local, and tribal governments under entitlement authority,'' if the
provision would ``increase the stringency of conditions of assistance''
or ``place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's
responsibility to provide funding,'' and the State, local, or tribal
governments ``lack authority'' to adjust accordingly. At the time of
enactment, these entitlement programs were: Medicaid; Aid to Families
with Dependent Children work programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps;
Social Services Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants;
Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, and Independent Living; Family
Support Welfare Services; and Child Support Enforcement. ``Federal
private sector mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose an
enforceable duty upon the private sector, except (i) a condition of
Federal assistance or (ii) a duty arising from participation in a
voluntary Federal program.''
The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally
binding duty on non-Federal Government entities or private parties.
Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must
ensure that their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat under section 7. While non-Federal entities that receive
Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that otherwise require
approval or authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be
indirectly impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the legally
binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical
habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to the
extent that non-Federal entities are indirectly impacted because they
receive Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal aid
program, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply, nor would
critical habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs
listed above onto State governments.
(2) We do not believe that this rule will significantly or uniquely
affect small governments because it will not produce a Federal mandate
of $100 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. By definition, Federal agencies are not
considered small entities, although the activities they fund or permit
may be proposed or carried out by small entities. Consequently, we do
not believe that the critical habitat designation will significantly or
uniquely affect small government entities. As such, a Small Government
Agency Plan is not required.
Takings--Executive Order 12630
In accordance with E.O. 12630 (Government Actions and Interference
with Constitutionally Protected Private Property Rights), we have
analyzed the potential takings implications of designating critical
habitat for the Sonoyta mud turtle in a takings implications
assessment. The Act does not authorize the Service to regulate private
actions on private lands or confiscate private property as a result of
critical habitat designation. Designation of critical habitat does not
affect land ownership, or establish any closures, or restrictions on
use of or access to the designated areas. Furthermore, the designation
of critical habitat does not affect landowner actions that do not
require Federal funding or permits, nor does it preclude development of
habitat conservation programs or issuance of incidental take permits to
permit actions that do require Federal funding or permits to go
forward. However, Federal agencies are prohibited from carrying out,
funding, or authorizing actions that would destroy or adversely modify
critical habitat. A takings implications assessment has been completed
and concludes that this designation of critical habitat for the Sonoyta
mud turtle does not pose significant takings implications for lands
within or affected by the designation.
Federalism--Executive Order 13132
In accordance with E.O. 13132 (Federalism), this 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 critical habitat designation with,
appropriate State resource agencies in Arizona. We received no comments
from Arizona Game and Fish Department. 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 rule does not have
substantial direct effects either on the States, or on the relationship
between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution
of powers and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
The designation may have some benefit to these governments because the
areas that contain the features essential to the conservation of the
species are more clearly defined, and the physical and biological
features of the habitat necessary to the conservation of the species
are specifically identified. This information does not alter where and
what federally sponsored activities may occur. However, it may assist
these local governments in long-range planning
[[Page 37588]]
(because these local governments no longer have to wait for case-by-
case section 7 consultations to occur).
Where State and local governments require approval or authorization
from a Federal agency for actions that may affect critical habitat,
consultation under section 7(a)(2) will be required. While non-Federal
entities that receive Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that
otherwise require approval or authorization from a Federal agency for
an action, may be indirectly impacted by the designation of critical
habitat, the legally binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency.
Civil Justice Reform--Executive Order 12988
In accordance with Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform),
the Office of the Solicitor has determined that the rule does not
unduly burden the judicial system and that it meets the applicable
standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the order. We are
designating critical habitat in accordance with the provisions of the
Act. To assist the public in understanding the habitat needs of the
Sonoyta mud turtle, the rule identifies the elements of physical or
biological features essential to the conservation of the Sonoyta mud
turtle. The designated areas of critical habitat are presented on a
map, and the 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.)
It is our position that, outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to prepare
environmental analyses pursuant to the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) in connection with designating
critical habitat under the Act. We published a notice outlining our
reasons for this determination in the Federal Register on October 25,
1983 (48 FR 49244). This position was upheld by the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495
(9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied 516 U.S. 1042 (1996)).
Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994
(Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal
Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and
Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments), and the Department of the
Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with
Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights,
Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act),
we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with
tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge
that tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal
public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make
information available to tribes. We determined that there were no
tribal lands occupied by the Sonoyta mud turtle at the time of listing
(2017) that contain the physical or biological features essential to
conservation of the species, and no tribal lands unoccupied by the
Sonoyta mud turtle that are essential for the conservation of the
species. Therefore, we are not designating critical habitat for the
Sonoyta mud turtle on tribal lands.
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited is available on the
internet at http://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the
Arizona Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
Authors
The primary authors of this rulemaking are the staff members of the
Arizona Ecological Services Field Office.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50
of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS
0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245, unless
otherwise noted.
0
2. Amend Sec. 17.11(h) by revising the entry for ``Turtle, Sonoyta
mud'' under ``REPTILES'' in the List of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife to read as follows:
Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Listing citations and
Common name Scientific name Where listed Status applicable rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Reptiles
* * * * * * *
Turtle, Sonoyta mud............. Kinosternon Wherever found.... E 82 FR 43897, 9/20/2017;
sonoriense 50 CFR 17.95(c).CH
longifemorale.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
3. Amend Sec. 17.95(c) by adding an entry for ``Sonoyta Mud Turtle
(Kinosternon sonoriense longifemorale)'', immediately following the
entry for ``Plymouth Red-bellied
[[Page 37589]]
Turtle (Chrysemys rubriventris bangsi)'', to read as follows:
Sec. 17.95 Critical habitat--fish and wildlife.
* * * * *
(c) Reptiles.
* * * * *
Sonoyta Mud Turtle (Kinosternon sonoriense longifemorale)
(1) Critical habitat unit is depicted for Pima County, Arizona, on
the map below.
(2) Within this area, the physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the Sonoyta mud turtle consist of the following
components:
(i) Aquatic habitat, such as streams and natural or manmade ponds,
with perennial or near-perennial sources of water, containing or
including:
(A) Surface water to 2 meters (7 feet) deep, with a rocky, muddy,
or sandy substrate, and emergent or submergent vegetation, or both;
(B) Surface water free of nonnative predators and competitors,
including crayfish, American bullfrogs, and large sunfish;
(C) Shallow water areas with dense emergent vegetation (e.g.,
cattail, spikerush, and travelling spikerush);
(D) Access to deeper open water in ponds, and submerged vegetation
(e.g., holly-leaved water nymph, slender pondweed, ditch-grass, and
horned pondweed); and
(E) Areas with complex structure, including protective shelter
sites such as root masses, rock features, and undercut banks.
(ii) Aquatic invertebrate prey base (e.g., Anisoptera, Trichoptera,
Diptera, Coleoptera, aquatic snail species) and their corresponding
habitat, including submergent or emergent vegetation and a variety of
forage, and prey such as algae, diatoms, and other microorganisms.
(iii) Terrestrial, riparian habitat, adjacent to suitable aquatic
habitat, containing or including:
(A) Accessible shoreline for Sonoyta mud turtles without
insurmountable rock or artificial vertical barriers to allow movement
between wetted sites, between aquatic habitat and terrestrial nest
sites, and between aquatic habitat and estivation sites;
(B) Riparian areas that maintain soil moisture to prevent
desiccation of eggs and provide estivation sites, located along the
banks of ponds and streams with riparian vegetation (e.g., cottonwood,
willow, seepwillow, mesquite, greythorn, wolfberry, salt grass, and
arrowweed); and
(C) Estivation and nesting sites, including depressions under
vegetation, soil, or organic matter; rock crevices; and soil burrows
under overhanging banks of streams or ponds, that are available year-
round.
(3) Critical habitat does not include most manmade structures (such
as buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, and other paved areas) and the
land on which they are located existing within the legal boundaries on
July 23, 2020. However, the spring enclosure, the manmade pond, the
manmade channel that connects the springs to the pond, and the piped
water that connects the two springs within the designated critical
habitat are part of the designation.
(4) Critical habitat map units. Data layers defining map unit were
developed using ESRI ArcGIS mapping software along with various spatial
layers. We used ground-truthed data provided by Organ Pipe Cactus
National Monument staff that depicts all aquatic habitat used by the
Sonoyta mud turtle, including Quitobaquito Pond and moat, the two
Quitobaquito springs, the manmade channel that connects the springs to
the pond, and the piped water that connects the two springs. For
terrestrial, we used satellite imagery available in ArcGIS to delineate
the riparian areas surrounding the surface water habitat. World Imagery
used from ArcGIS provides 1 meter or better satellite and aerial
imagery in many parts of the world and lower resolution satellite
imagery worldwide. The map includes 15m TerraColor 0.3m resolution
imagery at this map scale of 1:6,000. Additionally, imagery at
different resolutions has been contributed by the GIS User Community.
ArcGIS was also used to calculate area hectares and acres, and was used
to determine longitude and latitude coordinates in decimal degrees. The
coordinate system used in mapping and calculating area and locations
within the unit was Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) conformal
projection with 1983 North American Datum in Zone 12. The map in this
entry, as modified by any accompanying regulatory text, establishes the
boundaries of the critical habitat designation. The coordinates or plot
points or both on which the map is based are available to the public at
http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/, at http://www.regulations.gov
at Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2017-0014, and at the field office responsible
for this designation. You may obtain field office location information
by contacting one of the Service regional offices, the addresses of
which are listed at 50 CFR 2.2.
(5) Quitobaquito Unit, Pima County, Arizona.
(i) General description: This unit consists of 12.28 acres (4.97
hectares) in the Rio Sonoyta watershed in Pima County, and is composed
entirely of Federal land owned by the National Park Service on Organ
Pipe Cactus National Monument. The unit includes Quitobaquito Pond, the
two Quitobaquito springs, the manmade channel that connects the springs
to the pond, and the piped water that connects the two springs and
surrounding riparian habitat.
(ii) Unit map follows:
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
[[Page 37590]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23JN20.000
* * * * *
Aurelia Skipwith,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-11741 Filed 6-22-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-C
