Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a Petition To Delist the Idaho Springsnail; 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Jackson Lake Springsnail, Harney Lake Springsnail, and Columbia Springsnail; and Initiation of a 5-Year Review for the Idaho Springsnail, 20512-20514 [05-7640]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
20512
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 20, 2005 / Proposed Rules
business hours in the FCC Reference
Information Center, Room CY–A257,
445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington,
DC 20554 and through the
Commission’s Electronic Filing System
(ECFS) accessible on the Commission’s
World Wide Web site, https://
www.fcc.gov.
Comments and reply comments must
include a short and concise summary of
the substantive arguments raised in the
pleading. Comments and reply
comments must also comply with § 1.49
and all other applicable sections of the
Commission’s rules. All parties are
encouraged to utilize a table of contents,
and to include the name of the filing
party and the date of the filing on each
page of their submission. We also
strongly encourage that parties track the
organization set forth in this NPRM in
order to facilitate our internal review
process.
Commenters who file information that
they believe is proprietary may request
confidential treatment pursuant to
§ 0.459 of the Commission’s rules.
Commenters should file both their
original comments for which they
request confidentiality and redacted
comments, along with their request for
confidential treatment. Commenters
should not file proprietary information
electronically. See Examination of
Current Policy Concerning the
Treatment of Confidential Information
Submitted to the Commission, Report
and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 24816 (1998),
Order on Reconsideration, 14 FCC Rcd
20128 (1999). Even if the Commission
grants confidential treatment,
information that does not fall within a
specific exemption pursuant to the
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
must be publicly disclosed pursuant to
an appropriate request. See 47 CFR
0.461; 5 U.S.C. 552. We note that the
Commission may grant requests for
confidential treatment either
conditionally or unconditionally. As
such, we note that the Commission has
the discretion to release information on
public interest grounds that does fall
within the scope of a FOIA exemption.
Further Information
For further information regarding this
proceeding, contact Arthur Lechtman,
Attorney, Satellite Division,
International Bureau at (202) 418–0719.
Information regarding this proceeding
and others may also be found on the
Commission’s Web site at https://
www.fcc.gov.
Ordering Clauses
Accordingly, It is ordered that,
pursuant to the authority contained in
sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 7(a), 301, 303(c),
VerDate jul<14>2003
14:52 Apr 19, 2005
Jkt 205001
303(f), 303(g), 303(r), 303(y), and 308 of
the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j),
157(a), 301, 303(c), 303(f), 303(g), 303(r),
303(y), 308, this Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking is adopted.
It is further ordered that the
Commission’s Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference
Information Center shall send a copy of
this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,
including the initial regulatory
flexibility analysis, to the Chief Counsel
for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration, in accordance with
section 603(a) of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq.
(1981).
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 25
Satellites.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 05–7791 Filed 4–19–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a
Petition To Delist the Idaho
Springsnail; 90-Day Finding on a
Petition To List the Jackson Lake
Springsnail, Harney Lake Springsnail,
and Columbia Springsnail; and
Initiation of a 5-Year Review for the
Idaho Springsnail
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of two 90-day petition
findings and initiation of status review
for two 12-month findings and one 5year review.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), announce a
90-day finding on a petition to remove
(first petition) the Idaho springsnail
(Pyrgulopsis idahoensis) from the
Federal List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife and Plants (List)
pursuant to the Endangered Species Act
(Act), as well as a 90-day finding on a
petition to add (second petition) the
Jackson Lake springsnail (P. robusta),
Harney Lake springsnail (P.
hendersoni), and Columbia springsnail
(P. spp. A) to the List as endangered or
threatened. We find the first petition
presents substantial scientific
information that delisting the Idaho
springsnail may be warranted. We also
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
find that the second petition presents
substantial scientific information that
listing the Jackson Lake springsnail,
Harney Lake springsnail, and Columbia
springsnail may be warranted.
We are requesting submission of any
new information on the Idaho
springsnail since its original listing as
an endangered species in 1992, and
information on the Jackson Lake
springsnail, Harney Lake springsnail,
and Columbia springsnail. Following
this 12-month status review, we will
issue 12-month findings on the petition
to delist the Idaho springsnail and the
petition to list the Jackson Lake
springsnail, Harney Lake springsnail,
and Columbia springsnail. Section
4(c)(2)(A) of the Act also requires a
status review of listed species at least
once every 5 years. We are therefore
electing to conduct these reviews
simultaneously. At the conclusion of
these reviews, we will issue the 12month findings on the petitions, as
provided in section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act,
and make the requisite recommendation
under section 4(c)(2)(B) of the Act based
on the results of the 5-year review for
the Idaho springsnail.
DATES: The finding announced in this
document was made on April 20, 2005.
To be considered in the 12-month
findings for these delisting or listing
petitions, or the 5-year review,
comments and information should be
submitted to us by June 20, 2005.
ADDRESSES: Data, information,
comments, or questions concerning
these petitions and our finding should
be submitted to the Field Supervisor,
Attention: Idaho Springsnail comments,
Snake River Fish and Wildlife Office,
1387 S. Vinnell Way, Suite 368, Boise,
ID 83709. Comments may also be faxed
to 208/378–5262, or e-mailed to
fw1srbocomment@fws.gov. Please
include ‘‘Idaho Springsnail Comments’’
in the subject line for faxes and e-mails.
Please submit electronic comments in
ASCII file format, and avoid the use of
special characters and encryption. The
petitions, supporting data, and
comments will be available for public
inspection, by appointment, during
normal business hours at the above
address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Steve Lysne, Fish and Wildlife
Biologist, at the above address
(telephone 208/378–5243 or e-mail
steve_lysne@fws.gov).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) (Act) requires that
E:\FR\FM\20APP1.SGM
20APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 20, 2005 / Proposed Rules
we make a finding on whether a petition
to list, delist, or reclassify a species
presents substantial scientific or
commercial data indicating that the
petitioned action may be warranted. To
the maximum extent practicable, we
must make the finding within 90 days
of our receipt of the petition, and must
promptly publish the finding in the
Federal Register. If we find substantial
information exists to support the
petitioned action, we are required to
promptly commence a status review of
the species (50 CFR 424.14).
‘‘Substantial information’’ is defined in
50 CFR 424.14(b) as ‘‘that amount of
information that would lead a
reasonable person to believe that the
measure proposed in the petition may
be warranted.’’ Petitioners need not
prove that the petitioned action is
warranted to support a ‘‘substantial’’
finding; instead, the key consideration
in evaluating a petition for
substantiality involves demonstration of
the reliability and adequacy of the
information supporting the action
advocated by the petition.
The factors for listing, delisting, or
reclassifying species are described at 50
CFR 424.11. We may delist a species
only if the best scientific and
commercial data available substantiate
that it is neither endangered nor
threatened. Delisting may be warranted
as a result of: (1) Extinction, (2)
recovery, and/or (3) a determination that
the original data used for classification
of the species as endangered or
threatened were in error.
In making these findings for the Idaho
springsnail (Pyrgulopsis idahoensis),
Jackson Lake springsnail (P. robusta),
Harney Lake springsnail (P.
hendersoni), and Columbia springsnail
(P. spp. A), we rely on information
provided by the petitioners and evaluate
that information in accordance with 50
CFR 424.14(b). The content of these
findings summarize that information
included in the petition and that which
was available to us at the time of the
petition review. Our review for the
purposes of a 90-day finding under
section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act and
§ 424.14(b) of our regulations is limited
to a determination of whether the
information in the petition meets the
‘‘substantial scientific information’’
threshold. We do not conduct additional
research at this point, nor do we subject
the petition to rigorous critical review.
Rather, as the Act and regulations
contemplate, at the 90-day finding, the
key consideration in evaluating a
petition involves demonstration of the
reliability and adequacy of the
information supporting the action
advanced by the petition.
VerDate jul<14>2003
14:52 Apr 19, 2005
Jkt 205001
Our findings are that the petitions
state a reasonable case for delisting (first
petition) and listing (second petition) on
their face based on the taxonomic
information that is presented in the
petitions. Thus, in these findings, we
express no view as to the ultimate issue
of whether the Idaho springsnail should
be delisted, or whether the Jackson Lake
springsnail, Harney Lake springsnail,
and Columbia springsnail should be
listed. We can come to a conclusion on
those issues only after a more thorough
review of the species’ status. In that
review, which will take approximately 9
more months, we will perform a
rigorous critical analysis of the best
available scientific information, not just
the information in the petition. We will
ensure that the data used to make our
determination as to the status of the
species is consistent with the Act and
the Information Quality Act.
We listed the Idaho springsnail as
endangered on December 14, 1992 (57
FR 59244). We determined that the freeflowing, cool water environments
required by the Idaho springsnail were
altered by deteriorating water quality
due to reservoir development, river
diversions, and habitat modification (57
FR 59244). The Idaho springsnail was
described as existing in the main-stem
Snake River from the C.J. Strike
Reservoir (river mile 518) to Bancroft
Springs (river mile 553), a nearly 80
percent reduction from the species’
historic distribution in the Snake River
based on the existing literature (Frest
1991). We published the Snake River
Aquatic Species Recovery Plan, which
included the Idaho springsnail, in 1995.
Critical habitat has not been designated
for the Idaho springsnail.
Review of Petitions
On June 28, 2004, we received a
petition from the State of Idaho, Office
of Species Conservation, and the Idaho
Power Company requesting that the
Idaho springsnail be removed from the
List based on a taxonomic reappraisal
that indicated it is no longer a separate
species. The delisting petition cites a
recent peer-reviewed article, published
in The Veliger, titled ‘‘Taxonomic
Reappraisal of Species Assigned to the
North American Freshwater Gastropod
Subgenus Natricola (Rissooidea:
Hydrobiidae)’’ (Hershler and Liu 2004).
Hershler and Liu (2004) evaluated the
taxonomic status of the Idaho
springsnail, Jackson Lake springsnail,
Harney Lake springsnail, and Columbia
springsnail and recommended placing
all four species into P. robusta
(Hydrobiidae: Walker 1908). The
distribution of P. robusta is ‘‘broadly
ranging in the northwestern United
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
20513
States, including parts of the SnakeColumbia River basin and several closed
basins in southeastern Oregon. Habitats
include springs and spring-fed streams
as well as large rivers’’ Hershler and Liu
(2004).
On August 5, 2004, we received a
petition from Dr. Peter Bowler, the
Biodiversity Conservation Alliance,
Center for Biological Diversity, Center
for Native Ecosystems, Western
Watersheds Project, and The Xerces
Society, requesting that the Jackson
Lake springsnail, Harney Lake
springsnail, and Columbia springsnail
be added to the List. This listing
petition cites habitat loss and
degradation from spring development,
domestic livestock grazing, groundwater
withdrawal, water pollution, dams,
predation, the introduction and spread
of nonnative species, and inadequate
Federal and State regulatory
mechanisms as threats to the continued
existence of these other three
northwestern springsnail species. The
listing petition also cites Hershler and
Liu (2004) and their suggested
taxonomic revision, and acknowledges
that the Idaho springsnail, Jackson Lake
springsnail, Harney Lake springsnail,
Columbia springsnail may be one
species (Pyrgulopsis robusta). However,
the listing petition contends that
Hershler and Liu (2004) overlooked key
differences between the four species,
and states that whether assessed
individually or as one species, all four
springsnails need the protection of the
Act.
Hershler and Liu (2004) suggested
three lines of evidence to support
changing the taxonomic classification of
the Idaho springsnail. Morphology,
mitochondrial DNA sequences, and
nuclear DNA sequences were used to
evaluate the relationship between
previously recognized species in the
subgenus. Results from the morphology
analysis found a significant difference
between the ratio of shell height to
height of body whorl between the Idaho
springsnail and all other species tested.
However, several other morphological
metrics, including the position of the
callus (hardened tissue) on the
operculum (serves as a cover for the
opening in the shell), the shape of the
central cusp of the central teeth, the
number of cusps on central teeth,
notching of inner marginal teeth,
number of cusps on outer marginal
teeth, the male penial features, and
female genitalia did not differ
substantially. The genetic data found
very little variation in the partial
cytochrome c oxidase (COI) gene
(mitochondrial DNA). Differences
ranged from 0.0–0.8 percent (0–5 base
E:\FR\FM\20APP1.SGM
20APP1
20514
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 20, 2005 / Proposed Rules
pairs) within the Natricola subgenus to
2.6–6.9 percent (16–43 base pairs) with
outgroups in the genus Pyrgulopsis.
This suggests that genetic variation
within Natricola differed little
compared to genetic variation between
Natricola and other species of
Pyrgulopsis. In addition, differences in
the internal transcribed spacer (ITS–1)
sequences (nuclear DNA) within the
Natricola subgenus were substantially
smaller (0.0–0.6 percent) compared to
differences among other congeners (5.9–
20.4 percent). These two lines of
evidence suggest that differences among
the four species are very small
compared to differences between other
recognized taxa within the larger genus.
The authors then contend that ‘‘three
independent data sets (morphology,
mitochondrial, and nuclear DNA
sequences) congruently suggest that
these four Natricola snails do not merit
recognition as distinct species according
to various currently applied concepts of
this taxonomic rank.’’
In addition to the taxonomic revision,
Hershler and Liu (2004) noted that the
Jackson Lake springsnail was a former
Service candidate for threatened or
endangered species status. They state
that it may be currently threatened by
the presence of the exotic New Zealand
mudsnail (Potamopyrgus antipodarum)
in the Pacific Northwest. Also, Hershler
and Liu (2004) noted that the Harney
Lake springsnail is designated as a
critically imperiled species by the
Oregon Natural Heritage Program, and
the middle Snake River population of
the Idaho springsnail is genetically
isolated from other populations.
Finding
We have reviewed the delisting and
listing petitions and their supporting
documents, as well as other information
in our files. We find that the delisting
petition and other information in our
files present substantial information that
delisting the Idaho springsnail may be
warranted. We also find that the listing
petition and other information in our
files present substantial information that
listing the Jackson Lake springsnail,
Harney Lake springsnail, and Columbia
springsnail may be warranted. We are
initiating a status review of all four
species. We will issue 12-month
findings in accordance with section
4(b)(3)(B) of the Act as to whether or not
delisting is warranted (first petition)
and/or whether or not listing is
warranted (second petition).
VerDate jul<14>2003
14:52 Apr 19, 2005
Jkt 205001
Five Year Review
Section 4(c)(2)(A) of the Act requires
that we conduct a review of listed
species at least once every 5 years. We
are then, under section 4(c)(2)(B), to
determine, on the basis of such a
review, whether or not any species
should be removed from the List
(delisted), or reclassified from
endangered to threatened, or threatened
to endangered. Our regulations at 50
CFR 424.21 require that we publish a
notice in the Federal Register
announcing those species currently
under active review. This notice
announces our active review of the
Idaho springsnail.
Public Information Solicited
We are requesting information on the
Idaho springsnail for both the 12-month
finding and the 5-year review, as we are
conducting these reviews
simultaneously. We are also requesting
information on the Jackson Lake
springsnail, Harney Lake springsnail,
and Columbia springsnail.
When we make a finding that
substantial information exists to
indicate that listing or delisting a
species may be warranted, we are
required to promptly commence a
review of the status of the species. To
ensure that the status review is
complete and based on the best
available scientific and commercial
information, we are soliciting any
additional information, comments, or
suggestions on the Idaho springsnail,
Jackson Lake springsnail, Harney Lake
springsnail, and Columbia springsnail
from the public, State and Federal
agencies, tribes, the scientific
community, industry or environmental
entities, or any other interested parties.
Information sought includes any data
regarding interactions with other
populations, historical and current
distribution, biology and ecology,
ongoing conservation measures for the
species or its habitat, and threats to the
species or its habitat. We also request
information regarding the adequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms.
The 5-year review considers all new
information available at the time of the
review. This review will consider the
best scientific and commercial data
regarding the Idaho springsnail that has
become available since the current
listing determination or most recent
status review, such as:
(1) Species biology, including but not
limited to population trends,
distribution, abundance, demographics,
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
genetics, and taxonomy, specifically
regarding any key differences between
the four subspecies;
(2) Habitat conditions, including but
not limited to amount, distribution, and
suitability;
(3) Conservation measures that have
been implemented that benefit the
species;
(4) Threat status and trends; and
(5) Other new information, data, or
corrections, including but not limited to
taxonomic or nomenclatural changes,
identification of erroneous information
contained in the List, and improved
analytical methods.
If you wish to comment on either of
the 12-month findings or 5-year review,
you may submit your comments and
materials to the Field Supervisor, Snake
River Fish and Wildlife Office (see
ADDRESSES section). Our practice is to
make comments, including names and
home addresses of respondents,
available for public review during
regular business hours. Respondents
may request that we withhold a
respondent’s identity, as allowable by
law. If you wish to withhold your name
or address, you must state this request
prominently at the beginning of your
comment. However, we will not
consider anonymous comments. To the
extent consistent with applicable law,
we will make all submissions from
organizations or businesses, and from
individuals identifying themselves as
representatives or officials of
organizations or businesses, available
for public inspection in their entirety.
Comments and materials received will
be available for public inspection, by
appointment, during normal business
hours at the above address.
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited
in this finding is available, upon
request, from the Snake River Fish and
Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section).
Author
The primary author of this document
is Steve Lysne (see ADDRESSES section).
Authority
The authority for this action is section
4 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973
(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: April 7, 2005.
Marshall P. Jones, Jr.,
Deputy Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 05–7640 Filed 4–19–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
E:\FR\FM\20APP1.SGM
20APP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 75 (Wednesday, April 20, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 20512-20514]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-7640]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on
a Petition To Delist the Idaho Springsnail; 90-Day Finding on a
Petition To List the Jackson Lake Springsnail, Harney Lake Springsnail,
and Columbia Springsnail; and Initiation of a 5-Year Review for the
Idaho Springsnail
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of two 90-day petition findings and initiation of status
review for two 12-month findings and one 5-year review.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a
90-day finding on a petition to remove (first petition) the Idaho
springsnail (Pyrgulopsis idahoensis) from the Federal List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (List) pursuant to the
Endangered Species Act (Act), as well as a 90-day finding on a petition
to add (second petition) the Jackson Lake springsnail (P. robusta),
Harney Lake springsnail (P. hendersoni), and Columbia springsnail (P.
spp. A) to the List as endangered or threatened. We find the first
petition presents substantial scientific information that delisting the
Idaho springsnail may be warranted. We also find that the second
petition presents substantial scientific information that listing the
Jackson Lake springsnail, Harney Lake springsnail, and Columbia
springsnail may be warranted.
We are requesting submission of any new information on the Idaho
springsnail since its original listing as an endangered species in
1992, and information on the Jackson Lake springsnail, Harney Lake
springsnail, and Columbia springsnail. Following this 12-month status
review, we will issue 12-month findings on the petition to delist the
Idaho springsnail and the petition to list the Jackson Lake
springsnail, Harney Lake springsnail, and Columbia springsnail. Section
4(c)(2)(A) of the Act also requires a status review of listed species
at least once every 5 years. We are therefore electing to conduct these
reviews simultaneously. At the conclusion of these reviews, we will
issue the 12-month findings on the petitions, as provided in section
4(b)(3)(B) of the Act, and make the requisite recommendation under
section 4(c)(2)(B) of the Act based on the results of the 5-year review
for the Idaho springsnail.
DATES: The finding announced in this document was made on April 20,
2005. To be considered in the 12-month findings for these delisting or
listing petitions, or the 5-year review, comments and information
should be submitted to us by June 20, 2005.
ADDRESSES: Data, information, comments, or questions concerning these
petitions and our finding should be submitted to the Field Supervisor,
Attention: Idaho Springsnail comments, Snake River Fish and Wildlife
Office, 1387 S. Vinnell Way, Suite 368, Boise, ID 83709. Comments may
also be faxed to 208/378-5262, or e-mailed to fw1srbocomment@fws.gov.
Please include ``Idaho Springsnail Comments'' in the subject line for
faxes and e-mails. Please submit electronic comments in ASCII file
format, and avoid the use of special characters and encryption. The
petitions, supporting data, and comments will be available for public
inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the above
address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Lysne, Fish and Wildlife
Biologist, at the above address (telephone 208/378-5243 or e-mail
steve_lysne@fws.gov).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) (Act) requires that
[[Page 20513]]
we make a finding on whether a petition to list, delist, or reclassify
a species presents substantial scientific or commercial data indicating
that the petitioned action may be warranted. To the maximum extent
practicable, we must make the finding within 90 days of our receipt of
the petition, and must promptly publish the finding in the Federal
Register. If we find substantial information exists to support the
petitioned action, we are required to promptly commence a status review
of the species (50 CFR 424.14). ``Substantial information'' is defined
in 50 CFR 424.14(b) as ``that amount of information that would lead a
reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in the petition
may be warranted.'' Petitioners need not prove that the petitioned
action is warranted to support a ``substantial'' finding; instead, the
key consideration in evaluating a petition for substantiality involves
demonstration of the reliability and adequacy of the information
supporting the action advocated by the petition.
The factors for listing, delisting, or reclassifying species are
described at 50 CFR 424.11. We may delist a species only if the best
scientific and commercial data available substantiate that it is
neither endangered nor threatened. Delisting may be warranted as a
result of: (1) Extinction, (2) recovery, and/or (3) a determination
that the original data used for classification of the species as
endangered or threatened were in error.
In making these findings for the Idaho springsnail (Pyrgulopsis
idahoensis), Jackson Lake springsnail (P. robusta), Harney Lake
springsnail (P. hendersoni), and Columbia springsnail (P. spp. A), we
rely on information provided by the petitioners and evaluate that
information in accordance with 50 CFR 424.14(b). The content of these
findings summarize that information included in the petition and that
which was available to us at the time of the petition review. Our
review for the purposes of a 90-day finding under section 4(b)(3)(A) of
the Act and Sec. 424.14(b) of our regulations is limited to a
determination of whether the information in the petition meets the
``substantial scientific information'' threshold. We do not conduct
additional research at this point, nor do we subject the petition to
rigorous critical review. Rather, as the Act and regulations
contemplate, at the 90-day finding, the key consideration in evaluating
a petition involves demonstration of the reliability and adequacy of
the information supporting the action advanced by the petition.
Our findings are that the petitions state a reasonable case for
delisting (first petition) and listing (second petition) on their face
based on the taxonomic information that is presented in the petitions.
Thus, in these findings, we express no view as to the ultimate issue of
whether the Idaho springsnail should be delisted, or whether the
Jackson Lake springsnail, Harney Lake springsnail, and Columbia
springsnail should be listed. We can come to a conclusion on those
issues only after a more thorough review of the species' status. In
that review, which will take approximately 9 more months, we will
perform a rigorous critical analysis of the best available scientific
information, not just the information in the petition. We will ensure
that the data used to make our determination as to the status of the
species is consistent with the Act and the Information Quality Act.
We listed the Idaho springsnail as endangered on December 14, 1992
(57 FR 59244). We determined that the free-flowing, cool water
environments required by the Idaho springsnail were altered by
deteriorating water quality due to reservoir development, river
diversions, and habitat modification (57 FR 59244). The Idaho
springsnail was described as existing in the main-stem Snake River from
the C.J. Strike Reservoir (river mile 518) to Bancroft Springs (river
mile 553), a nearly 80 percent reduction from the species' historic
distribution in the Snake River based on the existing literature (Frest
1991). We published the Snake River Aquatic Species Recovery Plan,
which included the Idaho springsnail, in 1995. Critical habitat has not
been designated for the Idaho springsnail.
Review of Petitions
On June 28, 2004, we received a petition from the State of Idaho,
Office of Species Conservation, and the Idaho Power Company requesting
that the Idaho springsnail be removed from the List based on a
taxonomic reappraisal that indicated it is no longer a separate
species. The delisting petition cites a recent peer-reviewed article,
published in The Veliger, titled ``Taxonomic Reappraisal of Species
Assigned to the North American Freshwater Gastropod Subgenus Natricola
(Rissooidea: Hydrobiidae)'' (Hershler and Liu 2004). Hershler and Liu
(2004) evaluated the taxonomic status of the Idaho springsnail, Jackson
Lake springsnail, Harney Lake springsnail, and Columbia springsnail and
recommended placing all four species into P. robusta (Hydrobiidae:
Walker 1908). The distribution of P. robusta is ``broadly ranging in
the northwestern United States, including parts of the Snake-Columbia
River basin and several closed basins in southeastern Oregon. Habitats
include springs and spring-fed streams as well as large rivers''
Hershler and Liu (2004).
On August 5, 2004, we received a petition from Dr. Peter Bowler,
the Biodiversity Conservation Alliance, Center for Biological
Diversity, Center for Native Ecosystems, Western Watersheds Project,
and The Xerces Society, requesting that the Jackson Lake springsnail,
Harney Lake springsnail, and Columbia springsnail be added to the List.
This listing petition cites habitat loss and degradation from spring
development, domestic livestock grazing, groundwater withdrawal, water
pollution, dams, predation, the introduction and spread of nonnative
species, and inadequate Federal and State regulatory mechanisms as
threats to the continued existence of these other three northwestern
springsnail species. The listing petition also cites Hershler and Liu
(2004) and their suggested taxonomic revision, and acknowledges that
the Idaho springsnail, Jackson Lake springsnail, Harney Lake
springsnail, Columbia springsnail may be one species (Pyrgulopsis
robusta). However, the listing petition contends that Hershler and Liu
(2004) overlooked key differences between the four species, and states
that whether assessed individually or as one species, all four
springsnails need the protection of the Act.
Hershler and Liu (2004) suggested three lines of evidence to
support changing the taxonomic classification of the Idaho springsnail.
Morphology, mitochondrial DNA sequences, and nuclear DNA sequences were
used to evaluate the relationship between previously recognized species
in the subgenus. Results from the morphology analysis found a
significant difference between the ratio of shell height to height of
body whorl between the Idaho springsnail and all other species tested.
However, several other morphological metrics, including the position of
the callus (hardened tissue) on the operculum (serves as a cover for
the opening in the shell), the shape of the central cusp of the central
teeth, the number of cusps on central teeth, notching of inner marginal
teeth, number of cusps on outer marginal teeth, the male penial
features, and female genitalia did not differ substantially. The
genetic data found very little variation in the partial cytochrome c
oxidase (COI) gene (mitochondrial DNA). Differences ranged from 0.0-0.8
percent (0-5 base
[[Page 20514]]
pairs) within the Natricola subgenus to 2.6-6.9 percent (16-43 base
pairs) with outgroups in the genus Pyrgulopsis. This suggests that
genetic variation within Natricola differed little compared to genetic
variation between Natricola and other species of Pyrgulopsis. In
addition, differences in the internal transcribed spacer (ITS-1)
sequences (nuclear DNA) within the Natricola subgenus were
substantially smaller (0.0-0.6 percent) compared to differences among
other congeners (5.9-20.4 percent). These two lines of evidence suggest
that differences among the four species are very small compared to
differences between other recognized taxa within the larger genus.
The authors then contend that ``three independent data sets
(morphology, mitochondrial, and nuclear DNA sequences) congruently
suggest that these four Natricola snails do not merit recognition as
distinct species according to various currently applied concepts of
this taxonomic rank.''
In addition to the taxonomic revision, Hershler and Liu (2004)
noted that the Jackson Lake springsnail was a former Service candidate
for threatened or endangered species status. They state that it may be
currently threatened by the presence of the exotic New Zealand mudsnail
(Potamopyrgus antipodarum) in the Pacific Northwest. Also, Hershler and
Liu (2004) noted that the Harney Lake springsnail is designated as a
critically imperiled species by the Oregon Natural Heritage Program,
and the middle Snake River population of the Idaho springsnail is
genetically isolated from other populations.
Finding
We have reviewed the delisting and listing petitions and their
supporting documents, as well as other information in our files. We
find that the delisting petition and other information in our files
present substantial information that delisting the Idaho springsnail
may be warranted. We also find that the listing petition and other
information in our files present substantial information that listing
the Jackson Lake springsnail, Harney Lake springsnail, and Columbia
springsnail may be warranted. We are initiating a status review of all
four species. We will issue 12-month findings in accordance with
section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act as to whether or not delisting is
warranted (first petition) and/or whether or not listing is warranted
(second petition).
Five Year Review
Section 4(c)(2)(A) of the Act requires that we conduct a review of
listed species at least once every 5 years. We are then, under section
4(c)(2)(B), to determine, on the basis of such a review, whether or not
any species should be removed from the List (delisted), or reclassified
from endangered to threatened, or threatened to endangered. Our
regulations at 50 CFR 424.21 require that we publish a notice in the
Federal Register announcing those species currently under active
review. This notice announces our active review of the Idaho
springsnail.
Public Information Solicited
We are requesting information on the Idaho springsnail for both the
12-month finding and the 5-year review, as we are conducting these
reviews simultaneously. We are also requesting information on the
Jackson Lake springsnail, Harney Lake springsnail, and Columbia
springsnail.
When we make a finding that substantial information exists to
indicate that listing or delisting a species may be warranted, we are
required to promptly commence a review of the status of the species. To
ensure that the status review is complete and based on the best
available scientific and commercial information, we are soliciting any
additional information, comments, or suggestions on the Idaho
springsnail, Jackson Lake springsnail, Harney Lake springsnail, and
Columbia springsnail from the public, State and Federal agencies,
tribes, the scientific community, industry or environmental entities,
or any other interested parties. Information sought includes any data
regarding interactions with other populations, historical and current
distribution, biology and ecology, ongoing conservation measures for
the species or its habitat, and threats to the species or its habitat.
We also request information regarding the adequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms.
The 5-year review considers all new information available at the
time of the review. This review will consider the best scientific and
commercial data regarding the Idaho springsnail that has become
available since the current listing determination or most recent status
review, such as:
(1) Species biology, including but not limited to population
trends, distribution, abundance, demographics, genetics, and taxonomy,
specifically regarding any key differences between the four subspecies;
(2) Habitat conditions, including but not limited to amount,
distribution, and suitability;
(3) Conservation measures that have been implemented that benefit
the species;
(4) Threat status and trends; and
(5) Other new information, data, or corrections, including but not
limited to taxonomic or nomenclatural changes, identification of
erroneous information contained in the List, and improved analytical
methods.
If you wish to comment on either of the 12-month findings or 5-year
review, you may submit your comments and materials to the Field
Supervisor, Snake River Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES
section). Our practice is to make comments, including names and home
addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular
business hours. Respondents may request that we withhold a respondent's
identity, as allowable by law. If you wish to withhold your name or
address, you must state this request prominently at the beginning of
your comment. However, we will not consider anonymous comments. To the
extent consistent with applicable law, we will make all submissions
from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying
themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or
businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety. Comments
and materials received will be available for public inspection, by
appointment, during normal business hours at the above address.
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited in this finding is
available, upon request, from the Snake River Fish and Wildlife Office
(see ADDRESSES section).
Author
The primary author of this document is Steve Lysne (see ADDRESSES
section).
Authority
The authority for this action is section 4 of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: April 7, 2005.
Marshall P. Jones, Jr.,
Deputy Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 05-7640 Filed 4-19-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
