[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 82 (Monday, April 29, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 25033-25041]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-09974]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket Nos. FWS-R4-ES-2012-0068; FWS-R4-ES-2013-0010; 4500030114]
RIN 1018-AY19; 1018-AZ42


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Status 
for the Spring Pygmy Sunfish and Designation of Critical Habitat

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of comment period.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the 
reopening of the public comment period on our October 2, 2012, proposed 
listing and designation of critical habitat for the spring pygmy 
sunfish (Elassoma alabamae) under the Endangered

[[Page 25034]]

Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). In this document, we propose a 
slight reduction to the size of the proposed designation based on 
public input. We also announce the availability of a draft economic 
analysis (DEA) of the proposed designation of critical habitat for 
spring pygmy sunfish and an amended required determinations section of 
the proposal. We are reopening the comment period to allow all 
interested parties an opportunity to comment simultaneously on the 
revised proposed rule, the associated DEA, and the amended required 
determinations section. Comments previously submitted need not be 
resubmitted, as they will be fully considered in preparation of the 
final rule.

DATES: Written comments: We will consider comments received or 
postmarked on or before May 29, 2013. Comments submitted electronically 
using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES section, below) 
must be received by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing date.

ADDRESSES: Document availability: You may obtain copies of the revised 
proposed rule and the draft economic analysis on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket Number FWS-R4-ES-2012-0068, or by mail 
from the Mississippi Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT).
    Written comments: You may submit written comments by one of the 
following methods:
    (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. For comments on the proposed listing of this 
species, search for Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2012-0068, which is the docket 
number for the listing portion of the proposed rulemaking. For comments 
on the proposed critical habitat designation for this species, search 
for Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2013-0010, which is the docket number for the 
critical habitat portion of the proposed rulemaking.
    (2) By hard copy: For comments on the proposed listing of this 
species, submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public Comments 
Processing, Attn: FWS-R4-ES-2012-0068; Division of Policy and 
Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax 
Drive, MS 2042-PDM; Arlington, VA 22203. For comments on the proposed 
critical habitat designation for this species (including the economic 
analysis), submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public Comments 
Processing, Attn: FWS-R4-ES-2013-0010; Division of Policy and 
Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax 
Drive, MS 2042-PDM; Arlington, VA 22203.
    We request that you send comments only by the methods described 
above. We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This 
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide 
us (see the Public Comments section below for more details).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen Ricks, Field Supervisor, 
Mississippi Ecological Services Field Office, 6578 Dogwood View 
Parkway, Jackson, MS 39213; by telephone (601-321-1122); or by 
facsimile (601-965-4340). If you use a telecommunications device for 
the deaf (TDD), please call the Federal Information Relay Service 
(FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Public Comments

    We will accept written comments and information during this 
reopened comment period on our proposed listing and designation of 
critical habitat for the spring pygmy sunfish that was published in the 
Federal Register on October 2, 2012 (77 FR 60180), the revision to the 
proposed critical habitat boundaries of Unit 1 described in this 
document, our DEA of the proposed designation, and the amended required 
determinations provided in this document. We will consider information 
and recommendations from all interested parties.
    We are also notifying the public that we will publish two separate 
rules for the final listing determination and the final critical 
habitat determination for the Spring pygmy sunfish. The final listing 
rule will publish under the existing docket number, FWS-R4-ES-2012-
0068, and the final critical habitat designation will publish under new 
docket number FWS-R4-ES-2013-0010.
    We will consider information and recommendations from all 
interested parties on both determinations. As to the proposed listing 
determination, we are particularly interested in comments concerning:
    (1) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning 
any threats (or lack thereof) to this species and regulations that may 
be addressing those threats.
    (2) Additional information concerning the historical and current 
status, range, distribution, and population size of this species, 
including the locations of any additional populations of this species.
    (3) Any information on the biological or ecological requirements of 
this species, and ongoing conservation measures for these species and 
its habitat.
    (4) Current or planned activities in the areas occupied by this 
species and possible impacts of these activities on this species.
    As to the proposed critical habitat determination, we are 
particularly interested in comments concerning:
    (5) The reasons why we should or should not designate habitat as 
``critical habitat'' under section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 
seq.), including whether there are threats to the species from human 
activity, the degree of which can be expected to increase due to the 
designation, and whether that increase in threat outweighs the benefit 
of designation such that the designation of critical habitat is not 
prudent.
    (6) Specific information on:
    (a) The distribution of the spring pygmy sunfish;
    (b) The amount and distribution of spring pygmy sunfish habitat;
    (c) What areas occupied by the species at the time of listing that 
contain features essential for the conservation of the species we 
should include in the designation and why; and
    (d) What areas not occupied at the time of listing are essential to 
the conservation of the species and why.
    (7) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the 
subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat.
    (8) Any foreseeable economic, national security, or other relevant 
impacts that may result from designating any area that may be included 
in the final designation. We are particularly interested in any impacts 
on small entities, and the benefits of including or excluding areas 
from the proposed designation that are subject to these impacts.
    (9) Information on the extent to which the description of economic 
impacts in the DEA is complete and accurate.
    (10) The likelihood of adverse social reactions to the designation 
of critical habitat, as discussed in the DEA, and how the consequences 
of such reactions, if likely to occur, would relate to the conservation 
and regulatory benefits of the proposed critical habitat designation.
    (11) Whether our approach to designating critical habitat could be 
improved or modified in any way to provide for greater public 
participation and understanding, or to assist us in accommodating 
public concerns and comments.
    If you submitted comments or information on the proposed rule (77 
FR 60180) during the initial comment period from October 2, 2012, to

[[Page 25035]]

December 3, 2012, please do not resubmit them. We will incorporate them 
into the public record as part of this comment period, and we will 
fully consider them in the preparation of our final determination.
    You may submit your comments and materials concerning the proposed 
rule or DEA by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. We 
request that you send comments only by the methods described in the 
ADDRESSES section.
    If you submit a comment via http://www.regulations.gov, your entire 
comment--including any personal identifying information--will be posted 
on the Web site. We will post all hardcopy comments on http://www.regulations.gov as well. If you submit a hardcopy comment that 
includes personal identifying information, you may request at the top 
of your document that we withhold this information from public review. 
However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
    Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting 
documentation we used in preparing the proposed rule and DEA, will be 
available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov at Docket 
No. FWS-R4-ES-2012-0068 for the proposed listing, and at Docket No FWS-
R4-ES-2013-0010 for the proposed critical habitat, or by appointment, 
during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
Mississippi Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT).

Background

    It is our intent to discuss only those topics directly relevant to 
the designation of critical habitat for the spring pygmy sunfish in 
this document. For more information on previous Federal actions 
concerning the spring pygmy sunfish, or information regarding its 
biology, status, distribution, and habitat, refer to the proposed 
designation of critical habitat published in the Federal Register on 
October 2, 2012 (77 FR 60180), which is available online at http://www.regulations.gov (at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2012-0068) or from the 
Mississippi Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT).

Previous Federal Actions

    On October 2, 2012, we published a 12-month finding and a proposed 
rule to list the spring pygmy sunfish as threatened with critical 
habitat (77 FR 60180). We proposed to designate approximately 8 stream 
miles (mi) (12.9 kilometers (km)) and 1,617 acres (ac) (654.4 hectares 
(ha)) of spring pool and spring-influenced wetland in Limestone County, 
Alabama, for designation as critical habitat. We will submit for 
publication in the Federal Register a final listing decision and 
critical habitat designation for the sunfish on or before October 2, 
2013. In 2012, Belle Mina Farms, the owner of Beaverdam Spring, Moss 
Spring, and the upper reach of Beaverdam Creek, in Limestone County, 
Alabama, and the Service entered into a candidate conservation 
agreement with assurances (CCAA) for a population of spring pygmy 
sunfish. We are currently negotiating additional CCAAs with other 
landowners in the Beaverdam Spring system.

Critical Habitat

    Section 3 of the Act defines critical habitat as the specific areas 
within the geographical area occupied by a species, at the time it is 
listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found those physical or 
biological features essential to the conservation of the species and 
that may require special management considerations or protection, and 
specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by a species at 
the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas are 
essential for the conservation of the species. If the proposed rule is 
made final, section 7 of the Act will prohibit destruction or adverse 
modification of critical habitat by any activity funded, authorized, or 
carried out by any Federal agency. Federal agencies proposing actions 
affecting critical habitat must consult with us on the effects of their 
proposed actions, under section 7(a)(2) of the Act.

New Information and Changes From the Previously Proposed Critical 
Habitat

    The owner of property adjacent to the southwestern boundary of the 
proposed critical habitat contacted the Service by phone, and later 
through public comment, in regard to a boundary error in the proposed 
rule. In the proposed rule, we mistakenly included about 67.6 acres 
(27.3 ha) of his land as critical habitat, believing this land was part 
of Federal Government land within the Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge 
(Refuge). After being contacted by the landowner, we rechecked our 
records and verified land ownership with the Refuge. We have no records 
that this land was occupied historically by the species, and upon 
examination, we determined that it does not presently contain any of 
the primary constituent elements identified in the proposed rule. We 
therefore find that this land is not essential to the conservation of 
the spring pygmy sunfish. After this 67.6-acre reduction, the total 
proposed critical habitat acreage is reduced from 1,617 ac to 1,549.4 
ac (627.02 ha). The revised map of proposed critical habitat for Unit 1 
is provided below in the Proposed Regulation Promulgation section of 
this document.
    We are also providing an updated index map of the critical habitat 
to reflect the changes to Unit 1 described above, and an updated map of 
Unit 2 that uses a revised map legend. We are not proposing any changes 
to the proposed boundaries of Unit 2 in this document. The revised 
index map and map of Unit 2 are also provided below in the Proposed 
Regulation Promulgation section of this document.

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

    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that we designate or revise 
critical habitat based upon the best scientific data available, after 
taking into consideration the economic impact, impact on national 
security, or any other relevant impact of specifying any particular 
area as critical habitat. We may exclude an area from critical habitat 
if we determine that the benefits of excluding the area outweigh the 
benefits of including the area as critical habitat, provided such 
exclusion will not result in the extinction of the species.
    When considering the benefits of inclusion for an area, we consider 
the additional regulatory benefits that area would receive from the 
protection from adverse modification or destruction as a result of 
actions with a Federal nexus (activities conducted, funded, permitted, 
or authorized by Federal agencies), the educational benefits of mapping 
areas containing essential features that aid in the recovery of the 
listed species, and any benefits that may result from designation due 
to State or Federal laws that may apply to critical habitat.
    When considering the benefits of exclusion, we consider, among 
other things, whether exclusion of a specific area is likely to result 
in conservation; the continuation, strengthening, or encouragement of 
partnerships; or implementation of a management plan. In the case of 
the spring pygmy sunfish, the benefits of critical habitat include 
public awareness of the presence of the species and the importance of 
habitat protection, and, where a Federal nexus exists, increased 
habitat protection for this species due to protection from adverse 
modification or destruction of critical habitat. In practice, 
situations with a Federal nexus exist primarily on

[[Page 25036]]

Federal lands or for projects undertaken by Federal agencies.
    We have not proposed to exclude any areas from critical habitat. 
However, the final decision on whether to exclude any areas will be 
based on the best scientific data available at the time of the final 
designation, including information obtained during the comment period 
and information about the economic impact of designation. Accordingly, 
we have prepared a draft economic analysis concerning the proposed 
critical habitat designation (DEA), which is available for review and 
comment (see ADDRESSES).

Draft Economic Analysis

    The purpose of the DEA is to identify and analyze the potential 
economic impacts associated with the proposed critical habitat 
designation for the spring pygmy sunfish. The DEA separates 
conservation measures into two distinct categories according to 
``without critical habitat'' and ``with critical habitat'' scenarios. 
The ``without critical habitat'' scenario represents the baseline for 
the analysis, considering protections that would be otherwise afforded 
to the spring pygmy sunfish (e.g., if we list the species as threatened 
and under other Federal, State, and local regulations). The ``with 
critical habitat'' scenario describes the incremental impacts 
specifically due to designation of critical habitat for the species. In 
other words, these incremental conservation measures and associated 
economic impacts would not occur but for the designation. Conservation 
measures implemented under the baseline (without critical habitat) 
scenario are described qualitatively within the DEA, but economic 
impacts associated with these measures are not quantified. Economic 
impacts are only quantified for conservation measures implemented 
specifically due to the designation of critical habitat (i.e., 
incremental impacts). For a further description of the methods 
employed, see Section 1.4, ``Framework for the Analysis'' of the DEA.
    The DEA provides estimated costs of the foreseeable potential 
economic impacts of the proposed critical habitat designation for the 
spring pygmy sunfish over the next 20 years, which was determined to be 
the appropriate period for analysis because limited planning 
information is available for most activities to forecast activity 
levels for projects beyond a 20-year timeframe. It identifies potential 
incremental costs as a result of the proposed critical habitat 
designation; these are those costs attributed to critical habitat over 
and above those baseline costs attributed to listing.
    The DEA quantifies economic impacts of spring pygmy sunfish 
conservation efforts associated with the following categories of 
activity: (1) Residential, commercial and industrial development; (2) 
transportation and utilities; (3) groundwater and surface water 
extraction; (4) silviculture, agriculture, and grazing; and (5) 
dredging, channelization, and impoundment. Employing a 7 percent 
discount rate, the DEA estimates that the total incremental cost of the 
designation will be $150,000 over the next 20 years, or approximately 
$13,000 annually. The DEA states that in both units, the incremental 
impacts of the critical habitat designation would be limited to 
additional administrative costs to the Service, Federal agencies, and 
private third parties. Most of these impacts ($82,000) are associated 
with Unit 1 (Beaverdam Spring/Creek), with the remainder associated 
with Unit 2 (Pryor Spring/Branch). As Unit 1 is occupied by the 
sunfish, any conservation efforts the Service would recommend to avoid 
adverse modification of critical habitat would most likely be 
recommended to avoid jeopardy. Since Unit 2 is not occupied by the 
sunfish, impacts of any conservation efforts implemented for the 
benefit of the sunfish would be due solely to the designation of 
critical habitat. Transportation and utility activities are likely to 
be subject to the greatest incremental administrative impacts (forecast 
to be $85,000); followed by development ($49,000) and silviculture, 
agriculture, and grazing ($18,000) (all estimates expressed as present 
values over 20 years, assuming a 7 percent discount rate). No 
incremental impacts are anticipated for dredging, impoundment, and 
channelization, as these activities have not occurred within the study 
area for the past 10 years, and are not forecast to occur in the 
future. Please refer to the DEA for a more detailed discussion of study 
results.
    As we stated earlier, we are soliciting data and comments from the 
public on the DEA, as well as all aspects of the proposed rule and our 
amended required determinations.

Required Determinations--Amended

    In our October 2, 2012, proposed rule (77 FR 60180), we indicated 
that we would defer our determination of compliance with several 
statutes and executive orders until the information concerning 
potential economic impacts of the designation and potential effects on 
landowners and stakeholders became available in the DEA. We have now 
made use of the DEA data to make these determinations. In this 
document, we affirm the information in our proposed rule concerning 
Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 (Regulatory Planning and 
Review), E.O. 12630 (Takings), E.O. 13132 (Federalism), E.O. 12988 
(Civil Justice Reform), E.O. 13211 (Energy, Supply, Distribution, and 
Use), the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.), the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the National 
Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), and the President's 
memorandum of April 29, 1994, ``Government-to-Government Relations with 
Native American Tribal Governments'' (59 FR 22951). However, based on 
the DEA data, we are amending our required determination concerning the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).

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. Based on our DEA of the proposed designation, 
we provide our analysis for determining whether the proposed rule would 
result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities. Based on comments we receive, we may revise this 
determination as part of our final rulemaking.
    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

[[Page 25037]]

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.
    To determine if the proposed designation of critical habitat for 
the spring pygmy sunfish would affect a substantial number of small 
entities, we considered the number of small entities affected within 
particular types of economic activities, such as agricultural 
producers. In order to determine whether it is appropriate for our 
agency to certify that this proposed rule would not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, we 
considered each industry or category individually. In estimating the 
numbers of small entities potentially affected, we also considered 
whether their activities have any Federal involvement. Critical habitat 
designation will not affect activities that do not have any Federal 
involvement; designation of critical habitat only affects activities 
conducted, funded, permitted, or authorized by Federal agencies. If we 
finalize the proposed listing for this species, in areas where the 
spring pygmy sunfish is present, Federal agencies would be required to 
consult with us under section 7 of the Act on activities they fund, 
permit, or implement that may affect the species. If we finalize this 
proposed critical habitat designation, consultations to avoid the 
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat would be 
incorporated into the existing consultation process.
    In the DEA, we evaluated the potential economic effects on small 
entities resulting from implementation of conservation actions related 
to the proposed designation of critical habitat for the spring pygmy 
sunfish. The only costs expected to be borne by third parties as a 
result of the proposed rule are portions of the total cost of each 
section 7 consultation action forecast for development activities. The 
DEA concludes that the proportion of small entities that may be 
affected is approximately 0.6 percent (one entity per year), and that 
the average cost incurred by each entity being affected is 
approximately 0.01 percent of estimated annual revenues. Please refer 
to the DEA of the proposed critical habitat designation for a more 
detailed discussion of potential economic impacts.
    The Service's current understanding of recent case law is that 
Federal agencies are only required to evaluate the potential impacts of 
rulemaking on those entities directly regulated by the rulemaking; 
therefore, they are not required to evaluate the potential impacts to 
those entities not directly regulated. The designation of critical 
habitat for an endangered or threatened species only has a regulatory 
effect where a Federal action agency is involved in a particular action 
that may affect the designated critical habitat. Under these 
circumstances, only the Federal action agency is directly regulated by 
the designation, and, therefore, consistent with the Service's current 
interpretation of RFA and recent case law, the Service may limit its 
evaluation of the potential impacts to those identified for Federal 
action agencies. Under this interpretation, there is no requirement 
under the RFA to evaluate the potential impacts to entities not 
directly regulated, such as small businesses. However, Executive Orders 
12866 and 13563 direct Federal agencies to assess costs and benefits of 
available regulatory alternatives in quantitative (to the extent 
feasible) and qualitative terms. Consequently, it is the current 
practice of the Service to assess to the extent practicable these 
potential impacts, if sufficient data are available, whether or not 
this analysis is believed by the Service to be strictly required by the 
RFA. In other words, while the effects analysis required under the RFA 
is limited to entities directly regulated by the rulemaking, the 
effects analysis under the Act, consistent with the E.O. regulatory 
analysis requirements, can take into consideration impacts to both 
directly and indirectly impacted entities, where practicable and 
reasonable.
    In summary, we have considered whether the proposed designation 
would result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number 
of small entities. Information for this analysis was gathered from the 
Small Business Administration, stakeholders, and the Service. We have 
estimated that approximately one entity per year may be impacted by the 
proposed critical habitat designation, at a cost of an estimated $510 
per entity. These cost estimates are based on administrative costs 
associated with the proposed designation. For the above reasons and 
based on currently available information, we certify that, if 
promulgated, the proposed critical habitat designation would not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small business 
entities. Therefore, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not 
required.

Authors

    The primary authors of this notice are the staff members of the 
Mississippi Ecological Services Field Office, Southeast Region, U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

    Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

    Accordingly, we propose to further amend part 17, subchapter B of 
chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, which was 
proposed to be amended at 77 FR 60180, October 2, 2012, as follows:

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; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C. 
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.

0
2. In Sec.  17.95(e), in the proposed entry for ``Spring Pygmy Sunfish 
(Elassoma alabamae),'' revise paragraphs (e)(5), (e)(6), and (e)(7)(ii) 
to read as follows:


Sec.  17.95  Critical habitat--fish and wildlife.

* * * * *
    (e) Fishes.
* * * * *
Spring Pygmy Sunfish (Elassoma alabamae)
* * * * *
    (5) Index map of critical habitat for the spring pygmy sunfish 
follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 25038]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP29AP13.000

    (6) Unit 1: Beaverdam Spring/Creek, Limestone County, Alabama.
    (i) General Description: Unit 1 includes a total of 9.5 km (5.9 mi) 
of Beaverdam Spring/Creek, northeast of Greenbrier, Alabama, from the 
spring head, 5.6 km (3.5 mi) north of Interstate 565 (Lat. 34.703162, 
Long. -86.82899) to 3.9 km (2.4 mi) south of Interstate 565 (Lat. 
34.625896, Long. -86.82505). Unit 1 encompasses Moss, Horton, and 
Thorsen springs. This includes a total of 553.2 hectares (1,367 acres).
    (ii) Map of Unit 1 follows:

[[Page 25039]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP29AP13.001

    (7) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (ii) Map of Unit 2 follows:

[[Page 25040]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP29AP13.002


[[Page 25041]]


* * * * *

    Dated: April 12, 2013.
Rachel Jacobson,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 2013-09974 Filed 4-26-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C