Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a Petition To Remove the Utah (Desert) Valvata Snail (Valvata utahensis) from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, 31264-31268 [E7-10885]
Download as PDF
31264
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 108 / Wednesday, June 6, 2007 / Proposed Rules
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition
finding and initiation of status review.
valvata snail may be warranted, and are
initiating a status review. We plan to
conduct this review concurrent with the
ongoing status review initiated on April
11, 2006 (71 FR 18345), which we are
required to make every 5 years under
section 4(c)(2)(A) of the Act. We are
requesting submission of any new
information on the Utah valvata snail
since its original listing as an
endangered species in 1992. At the
conclusion of these simultaneous
reviews, we will make the requisite
recommendation under section
4(c)(2)(B) of the Act and will issue a 12month finding on the petition, as
provided in section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act.
DATES: The finding announced in this
document was made on June 6, 2007. To
be considered in the 12-month finding
on this petition or the 5-year review,
comments and information must be
submitted to us by September 4, 2007.
ADDRESSES: You may submit new
information, materials, comments, or
questions concerning this species by
any one of the following methods:
1. You may submit comments and
information to the Field Supervisor,
Attention: Utah Valvata Snail
Comments, Snake River Fish and
Wildlife Office, 1387 S. Vinnell Way,
Suite 368, Boise, ID 83709.
2. You may hand-deliver written
comments and information to the above
address.
3. You may fax your comments to
208–378–5262.
4. You may go to the Federal
rulemaking Internet portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
5. You may e-mail your comments to
fw1srbocomment@fws.gov.
Please include ‘‘Utah Valvata Snail
Comments’’ in the subject line for faxes
and e-mails. Please submit electronic
comments in unformatted text, and
avoid the use of special characters and
encryption.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Susan Burch, Fish and Wildlife
Biologist, Snake River Fish and Wildlife
Office (see ADDRESSES); telephone: 208–
378–5243; or e-mail:
susan_burch@fws.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), announce a
90-day finding on a petition to remove
the Utah (desert) valvata snail (Valvata
utahensis) from the Federal List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
(List) pursuant to the Endangered
Species Act (Act). We find that the
petition presents substantial scientific
information that delisting the Utah
Public Information Solicited
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
should be considered during scheduled
annual reviews of the Conservation
Agreement.
Following completion of the status
review, we will evaluate whether the
species or a Distinct Population
Segment warrant listing as endangered
or threatened. The petitioners also
requested that critical habitat be
designated for this species. We always
consider the need for critical habitat
designation when listing species. If we
determine in our 12-month finding that
listing the yellow-billed loon is
warranted, we will address the
designation of critical habitat at the time
of the proposed rulemaking.
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited
herein is available upon request from
the Fairbanks Fish and Wildlife Field
Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(see ADDRESSES).
Author
The primary author of this document
is Dr. Angela Matz, Fairbanks Fish and
Wildlife Field Office, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Fairbanks, Alaska.
Authority: The authority for this action is
the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)
Dated: May 11, 2007.
Kenneth Stansell,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.
[FR Doc. E7–10823 Filed 6–5–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–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 Remove the Utah (Desert)
Valvata Snail (Valvata utahensis) from
the List of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife
rmajette on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS
AGENCY:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:18 Jun 05, 2007
Jkt 211001
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
information, we are soliciting any
additional information, comments, or
suggestions on the Utah valvata snail
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 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.
Please note that comments merely
stating support or opposition to the
actions under consideration without
providing supporting information,
although noted, will not be considered
in making a determination, as section
4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that
determinations as to whether any
species is a threatened or endangered
species shall be made ‘‘solely on the
basis of the best scientific and
commercial data available.’’ At the
conclusion of the status review, we will
issue the 12-month finding on the
petition, as provided in section
4(b)(3)(B) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.).
If you wish to comment or provide
information, you may submit your
comments and materials concerning this
finding to the Field Supervisor (see
ADDRESSES) by the date listed in the
DATES section.
Before including your address, phone
number, e-mail address, or other
personal identifying information in your
comment, you should be aware that
your entire comment—including your
personal identifying information—may
be made publicly available at any time.
While you can ask us in your comment
to withhold your personal identifying
information from public review, we
cannot guarantee that we will be able to
do so. If you wish us to withhold your
name and/or address, you must state
this prominently at the beginning of
your comment. However, we will not
consider anonymous comments.
Comments and materials received will
be available for public inspection, by
appointment, during normal business
hours at the address listed in the
ADDRESSES section.
Background
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Endangered
Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended
(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires that we
make a finding on whether a petition to
list, delist, or reclassify a species
presents substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating that
the petitioned action may be warranted.
E:\FR\FM\06JNP1.SGM
06JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 108 / Wednesday, June 6, 2007 / Proposed Rules
rmajette on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS
The finding is based on information
contained in the petition and
information otherwise available in our
files at the time we make the finding. To
the maximum extent practicable, we are
to make the finding within 90 days of
receiving the petition, and publish our
notice of the finding in the Federal
Register.
This finding summarizes the
information included in the petition and
information available to us at the time
of the petition review. Under section
4(b)(3)(A) of the Act and our regulations
in 50 CFR 424.14(b), our review of a 90day finding is limited to a determination
of whether the information in the
petition meets the ‘‘substantial scientific
or commercial information’’ threshold.
Our standard for substantial information
with regard to a 90-day petition finding
is ‘‘that amount of information that
would lead a reasonable person to
believe that the measure proposed in the
petition may be warranted’’ (50 CFR
424.14(b)). If we find that substantial
information was presented, we are
required to promptly commence a
review of the status of the species and
publish the results of that status review
in a 12-month finding.
Species Information
The Utah valvata snail is a habitat
generalist, occupying coldwater springs,
spring creeks, the mainstem Snake
River, and reservoirs in both fine
sediments and more coarse substrates at
a variety of water depths (Hinson 2006,
pp. 30–33). Utah valvata snails have
been documented in discontinuous
colonies along a 260-mile stretch of the
Snake River in southern and eastern
Idaho from Upper Salmon Falls Dam in
southern Idaho (River Mile (RM) 581.3)
upstream to the State Highway 33
Bridge on the Henry’s Fork in eastern
Idaho (Hinson 2006, p. 15). Colonies are
also known to exist in Snake River
tributaries (e.g., the Big Wood River and
Box Canyon Creek) and in coldwater
springs adjacent to the Snake River (e.g.,
Thousand Springs Preserve) (reviewed
by Hinson 2006, p. 15).
The Utah valvata snail is univoltine,
meaning it has a 1-year life cycle.
Emergence of new cohorts of the Utah
valvata snails occurs throughout the
year, depending on habitat (Frest and
Johannes 1992, p. 15; U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation (USBR) 2002, pp. 6–7;
USBR 2003, pp. 9–12; Lysne 2003, p.
93), and is followed by rapid growth
through the summer and fall. Over
winter, snails become dormant (Cleland
1954, p. 170; Lysne 2003, p. 83, USBR
2003, pp. 9–12). Following the cessation
of dormancy in spring, growth
continues through summer until sexual
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:18 Jun 05, 2007
Jkt 211001
maturity is reached at 4 to 5 millimeters
(mm) of length (Hershey 1990, p. 29;
Lysne and Koetsier 2006, p. 287).
Reproduction and spawning occur
asynchronously between March and
October, depending on habitat, with the
majority of young spawned between
August and October (Cleland 1954, p.
172; USBR 2003, p. 9). Emergence of a
new cohort follows approximately two
weeks after oviposition (Cleland 1954,
p. 170; Heard 1963, p. 66; Dillon 2000,
p. 103) and senescent snails (i.e., those
approximately 1 year old) die shortly
after reproduction (Cleland 1954, pp.
170–171; Lysne and Koetsier 2006, p.
287).
We listed the Utah valvata snail as
endangered on December 14, 1992 (57
FR 59244). At that time, we determined
that the Utah valvata snail was
threatened by construction of new
hydropower dams, the operation of
existing hydropower dams, degraded
water quality, water diversions, the
introduced New Zealand mudsnail
(Potamopyrgus antipodarum), and the
lack of existing regulatory protections
(57 FR 59244). The Utah valvata snail
was described as existing ‘‘at a few
springs and mainstem Snake River sites
in the Hagerman Valley and at a few
sites below American Falls Dam
downstream to Burley [Idaho].’’ We
published the Snake River Aquatic
Species Recovery Plan, which included
the Utah valvata snail, in 1995 (Service
1995). Critical habitat has not been
designated for this species.
Review of Petition
On December 26, 2006, we received a
petition from the Governor of Idaho and
attorneys for several irrigation districts
and canal companies requesting that the
Utah valvata snail be removed from the
List. The delisting petition cites a recent
status review conducted by Steward &
Associates (Hinson 2006), a review of
Utah valvata snail sampling
methodology (D.R. Hinson and C.
Steward (Steward & Associates), in litt.
2007), a memorandum addressing
perceived threats to Utah valvata snail
from 1996 to 2006 (Barker Rosholt &
Simpson LLP, in litt. 2006), the MidSnake Springs Habitat Protection Plan
(Wilkison 2005), species data from the
Thousand Springs Preserve (Idaho
Power 2006, unpublished data), water
quality data from Idaho Department of
Environmental Quality (IDEQ 2007),
and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation data for
the Utah valvata snail (USBR 2002,
2003, 2005). The petition clearly
identified itself as a petition and
included the requisite identification
information for the petitioners, as
required in 50 CFR 424.14(a). The
PO 00000
Frm 00070
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
31265
petition cited information on the natural
history of the Utah valvata snail, its
population status, and advances in
knowledge about the species’ ecology
and threats since listing. The petition
states that many of the threats identified
in the 1992 listing rule no longer exist
or have been attenuated by subsequent
actions. It also states that the Utah
valvata snail is more abundant, is more
continuously distributed, and exists in
more diverse habitats than previously
recorded.
Threats Analysis
The factors for listing, delisting, or
reclassifying a 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.
Section 4(a)(1) of the Act requires that
we determine whether a species is
endangered or threatened based on one
or more of the five following factors: (A)
Present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of habitat
or range; (B) overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes; (C) disease or
predation; (D) inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other
natural or manmade factors affecting its
continued existence. In making this 90day finding, we evaluated whether
information presented in the December
2006 petition, when considered along
with information in our files, constitutes
substantial scientific or commercial
information such that delisting may be
warranted. Our evaluation of this
information is presented below.
A. Present or Threatened Destruction,
Modification, or Curtailment of the
Species’ Habitat or Range
Habitat Use
The petitioners claim that Utah
valvata snails are able to live in a variety
of habitats previously thought to be
unsuitable for the species, including
reservoirs. They provided a status report
by Hinson (2006) as the primary source
of information to support this claim.
Hinson (2006, p. 21) used available data
from the Bureau of Reclamation, Idaho
Power Company, Hinson & Falter, the
Idaho Department of Fish and Game, the
Service, and the Idaho Transportation
Department to analyze the current
distribution of Utah valvata snails
related to habitat features (i.e., depth
E:\FR\FM\06JNP1.SGM
06JNP1
31266
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 108 / Wednesday, June 6, 2007 / Proposed Rules
rmajette on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS
and dominant substrate size). Based on
this analysis, Hinson (2006, pp. 3, 23–
32) reported Utah valvata snails using a
number of substrates (fines, cobbles,
gravel), habitat types (river, springs,
reservoirs), depths (from less than 1.6
feet (ft) (0.5 meter (m)) to greater than
32.8 ft (10 m)), and water temperatures
(from 40.1 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) (4.5
degrees Celsius (°C)) to 66.6 °F (19.2
°C)). The snails have also been found in
areas of low and high concentrations of
aquatic plants, and, in one case, were
found in very fine, black, organically
enriched sediments with dense
submerged aquatic plant communities
and attached filamentous (long threadlike) algae (Hinson 2006, pp. 30–33).
At the time of listing, we stated: ‘‘In
the Snake River, V. utahensis lives in
deep pools adjacent to rapids or in
perennial flowing waters associated
with large spring complexes. The
species avoids areas with heavy currents
or rapids. The snail prefers welloxygenated areas of non-reducing
calcareous mud or mud-sand substrate
among beds of submergent aquatic
vegetation. The species is absent from
pure gravel-boulder bottoms’’ (57 FR
59244, p. 59245).
We accept the petitioners’
characterization of Utah valvata snail
habitat use and find that they have
presented substantial information
suggesting that current information
about Utah valvata snail habitat use may
be different than indicated by the best
available information at the time of
listing in 1992.
Range
Based primarily on a status report by
Hinson (2006), the petitioners claim that
the species is more widely distributed
than recorded at the time of listing in
1992. Hinson (2006, p. 15) reported that
Utah valvata snails occupy
discontinuous colonies in a 260-mile
(418-kilometer) range in the Snake River
Basin from Upper Salmon Falls Dam
(RM 581.3) upstream to the State
Highway 33 bridge on the Henry’s Fork.
Colonies are also known to exist in
habitats adjacent to mainstem Snake
River habitats, including the Big Wood
River (joins the Snake River at RM 571),
Box Canyon Creek (joins the Snake
River at RM 588), and Thousand Springs
Preserve (joins the Snake River at RM
585) (reviewed by Hinson 2006, p. 15).
Based on a collection of empty shells of
recent origin, colonies may also exist in
Magic Reservoir, upstream of the Big
Wood River colony (J. Keebaugh, Orma
J. Smith Museum of Natural History,
pers. comm. 2006, cited in Hinson 2006,
p. 15). At present, the most abundant
colonies of Utah valvata snails known to
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:18 Jun 05, 2007
Jkt 211001
exist in the Snake River Basin occur in
river and reservoir habitats from
Minidoka Dam (RM 675) upstream to
the middle portion of American Falls
Reservoir (approximately RM 725)
(reviewed by Hinson 2006, p. 15).
At the time of listing, we stated: ‘‘The
Utah valvata snail historically occurred
from river mile 492 (near Grandview) to
river mile 585 just above Thousand
Springs with a disjunct population in
the American Falls Dam tailwater near
Eagle Rock damsite at river mile 709.
The taxa was known historically from
northern Utah, although recent mollusk
surveys throughout the State revealed
no live sites and the species is believed
extirpated there (Clarke 1991). At
present, this species occurs in a few
springs and mainstem Snake River sites
in the Hagerman Valley and a few sites
below American Falls Dam downstream
to Burley (Beak 1987; Taylor 1987)’’ (57
FR 59245).
We accept the petitioners’
characterization of the Utah valvata
snail’s current range and find that they
have presented substantial information
indicating that the current range of the
Utah valvata snail may be significantly
larger than the range we described in
our 1992 listing rule.
Construction of New Hydropower Dams
The petition states that threats to Utah
valvata snail habitat from future hydropower development are not as they were
perceived when the species was listed
in 1992. The petitioners provided a
document from the State of Idaho (Idaho
2006), indicating that all recent permits
for the construction of new dams along
the Mid-Snake River have either lapsed
or have been denied by the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).
They also provided the following
documents as evidence that specific
permits are no longer moving forward:
(1) A 2002 notice of surrender of
preliminary permit for the River Side
Project (FERC 2002a), (2) 2002 orders
denying application for preliminary
permits for the Eagle Rock (FERC 2002b)
and Star Falls Hydroelectric Projects
(FERC 2002c), and (3) a 2003 notice of
surrender of preliminary permit for the
Auger Falls Project (FERC 2003).
At the time of listing, there were six
active proposals for new hydroelectric
projects in the middle-Snake River. In
our listing rule, we stated: ‘‘Six
proposed hydroelectric projects,
including two high dam facilities,
would alter free flowing river reaches
within the existing range of [the Utah
valvata snail]. Dam construction
threatens the [Utah valvata snail]
through direct habitat modification and
moderates the Snake River’s ability to
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
assimilate point and non-point
pollution. Further hydroelectric
development along the Snake River
would inundate existing mollusk
habitats through impoundment, reduce
critical shallow, littoral shoreline
habitats in tailwater areas due to
operating water fluctuations, elevate
water temperatures, reduce dissolved
oxygen levels in impounded sediments,
and further fragment remaining
mainstem populations or colonies of
these snails’’ (57 FR 59251).
We have no information in our files
suggesting that future hydropower
development in the middle-Snake River
is likely to occur and we therefore
accept the petitioners’ claim that the
threats from hydropower development
may have dissipated since the time of
listing.
Water Quality
A threats analysis provided by the
petitioners states that threats to Utah
valvata snail habitat from water
pollution are not as they were perceived
when the species was listed in 1992
(Barker et al. 2006, in litt., p. 10). The
petitioners presented data on
improvements to Snake River water
quality and on changes in our
understanding of Utah valvata snail’s
tolerance of nutrient-rich (e.g., nitrogen
and phosphorus) water in the Snake
River resulting from return flows from
irrigated agriculture, runoff from
feedlots and dairies, hatchery effluent,
municipal sewage effluent, and other
point and non-point discharges. The
Utah valvata snail status report
provided by the petitioners (Hinson
2006, p. 19) noted that the U.S. Bureau
of Reclamation (2003) conducted
studies measuring the organic content in
the sediment (ash-free dry weight)
where Utah valvata snails are found in
an attempt to create an index that relates
snail densities with available forage.
The highest Utah valvata snail densities
sampled coincided with lower Lake
Walcott reservoir habitat that had the
greatest percentage of organic content in
the sediments, suggesting that Utah
valvata snails can reach their greatest
densities in areas that are subject to high
concentrations of nitrogen and
phosphorus (Hinson 2006, p. 19).
At the time of listing, we stated: ‘‘The
quality of water in [snail] habitats has a
direct effect on the species survival. The
[Utah valvata snail] require[s] cold,
well-oxygenated unpolluted water for
survival. Any factor that leads to a
deterioration in water quality would
likely extirpate [the Utah valvata snail]’’
(57 FR 59244, p. 59252).
Therefore, we find that the petitioners
have presented substantial information
E:\FR\FM\06JNP1.SGM
06JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 108 / Wednesday, June 6, 2007 / Proposed Rules
indicating that Utah valvata snails may
be more tolerant of nutrient-rich waters
than indicated by the best available
information at the time of listing in
1992.
B. Overutilization for Commercial,
Recreational, Scientific, or Educational
Purposes
The petitioners did not provide
information regarding the
overutilization of Utah valvata snails for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes. We did not
consider this factor applicable to our
listing decision in 1992, and we do not
have information in our files suggesting
that overutilization is a threat to the
species.
rmajette on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS
C. Disease or Predation
The petitioners did not provide
information regarding the effects of
disease or predation on Utah valvata
snails. At the time of listing we stated
that changes in the fish fauna of the
middle Snake River had been suggested
as a potential threat to the Utah valvata
snail (57 FR 59244, p. 59253). At that
time there was no data to support this
suggestion, and we did not consider this
factor to be significant in our listing
decision. Currently, we have no
information in our files suggesting that
disease or predation are significant
threats to the Utah valvata snail.
D. The Inadequacy of Existing
Regulatory Mechanisms
The petitioners provided numerous
documents regarding surface water
quality programs, water rights, aquifer
recharge, and groundwater management
in the Snake River and Snake River
Plain aquifer (e.g., Idaho 2004; Idaho
2005; IDWR 2006). These documents
indicate that the State of Idaho has
regulatory mechanisms to limit or
exclude the development of new surface
water or groundwater rights within the
range of the Utah valvata snail. These
documents also indicate that the State
has regulatory mechanisms to prioritize
existing water rights based on seniority.
At the time of listing, we found
inadequate regulatory mechanisms to be
a threat because (1) regulations were
inadequate to curb further water
withdrawal from groundwater spring
outflows or tributary spring streams, (2)
it was unlikely that pollution control
regulations would reverse the trend in
nutrient loading in the near future, (3)
there was a lack of protections for
invertebrate species in Idaho, and (4)
regulations did not require FERC or the
U.S. Army Corp of Engineers to address
Service concerns regarding licensing
hydroelectric projects or permitting
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:18 Jun 05, 2007
Jkt 211001
projects under the Clean Water Act for
unlisted snails.
Information provided by the
petitioner, along with information in
our files, suggests that the threat to Utah
valvata snails from inadequate
regulatory mechanisms may be less than
indicated by the best available
information at the time of listing. There
are now regulatory mechanisms to limit
future surface water and groundwater
development, and some pollution
control regulations have been
implemented.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors
Affecting Its Continued Existence
The status report provided by the
petitioner (Hinson 2006) states that
threats to the Utah valvata snail from
the New Zealand mudsnail
(Potamopyrgus antipodarum) are not as
they were perceived when the species
was listed in 1992. According to Hinson
(2006, pp. 41–42), the fact that Utah
valvata snails and New Zealand
mudsnails frequently occur in the same
samples indicates that these two species
are able to co-exist, which either
indicates that resources are not limiting
or that the snails actually have slightly
different algae preferences.
However, Hinson (2006, p. 41) also
notes that the overlap in habitat
utilization between the Utah valvata
snail and the New Zealand mudsnail
could lead to direct competition for
resources between these two species.
Hinson (2006, p. 41) states: ‘‘P.
antipodarum densities have been
steadily increasing in reservoir habitats
of the Snake River (e.g., Lake Walcott)
(USBOR 2003; USBOR 2004a). This
overlap in habitat utilization between V.
utahensis and P. antipodarum could
lead to direct competition for resources
between these two species. Known
densities of the exotic P. antipodarum
in the Middle Snake River can exceed
800,000 individuals per square meter
(Minshall 1993). This factor alone
increases the likelihood that V.
utahensis can be outcompeted by P.
antipodarum and physically displaced
in areas where the two species overlap.
P. antipodarum populations in the
Snake River Basin have been shown to
reproduce rapidly and quickly deplete
growths of periphytic algae (USFWS
2005), which is known to be an
important food source for V. utahensis
and many of the other listed Snake
River snails.’’
At the time of listing, we stated that
New Zealand mudsnails were not
abundant in coldwater springflows with
colonies of the Utah valvata snail, but
that they did compete with the Utah
valvata snail in the mainstem Snake
PO 00000
Frm 00072
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
31267
River (57 FR 59244, p. 59254). We have
no direct evidence that New Zealand
mudsnails have displaced colonies of
Utah valvata snails, but New Zealand
mudsnails have been documented in
dense mats (at densities of nearly 400
individuals per square inch) in freeflowing habitats within the range of the
Utah valvata snail (57 FR 59244, p.
59254). Furthermore, New Zealand
mudsnails have become established in
every spring-fed creek or tributary to the
Snake River in the Hagerman Reach that
has been surveyed.
Based on information provided by the
petitioner, along with information in
our files, New Zealand mudsnails likely
compete with Utah valvata snails for
food or space. Although the information
provided by the petitioners indicates
that the Utah valvata snail and New
Zealand mudsnail co-occur in various
locations, the petitioners acknowledge
that, given the densities that New
Zealand mudsnails can achieve, there is
an increased likelihood that ‘‘V.
utahensis can be outcompeted by P.
antipodarum and physically displaced
in areas where the two species overlap.’’
Therefore, we find that Hinson’s (2006)
analysis is largely consistent with our
analysis at the time of listing in 1992,
and that New Zealand mudsnails may
still be a substantive threat to the Utah
valvata snail.
Finding
We have reviewed the delisting
petition and the supporting documents,
as well as other information in our files.
We find that the delisting petition and
other information in our files presents
substantial information indicating that
delisting the Utah valvata snail may be
warranted, and we are initiating a status
review. Petitioners have provided a
detailed status report that updates the
state of knowledge regarding Utah
valvata snail habitat use, distribution,
and threats. The status report provides
substantial information indicating that
the Utah valvata snail may be more
widely distributed than previously
recorded and that it can occur in a wide
variety of habitat types, substrates,
depths, and water temperatures.
Information provided by the petitioners
also indicates that threats from
hydropower development are not what
we perceived when we listed the
species in 1992, and that additional
regulatory mechanisms now exist that
could limit water development and
improve water quality in Utah valvata
snail habitat. New Zealand mudsnails
appear to be a persistent threat to the
Utah valvata snail, but the significance
of this threat must be more fully
evaluated in the context of the
E:\FR\FM\06JNP1.SGM
06JNP1
31268
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 108 / Wednesday, June 6, 2007 / Proposed Rules
remaining threats and the species’
overall status.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
5-Year Review
Section 4(c)(2)(A) of the Act requires
that we conduct a status review of listed
species at least once every 5 years. We
are then, under section 4(c)(2)(B), to
determine whether any species should
be removed from the List (delisted), or
reclassified from endangered to
threatened, or threatened to endangered.
We initiated a 5-year review for the
Utah valvata snail on April 11, 2006 (71
FR 18345). We are currently in the
process of completing our 5-year review
and will incorporate that review into
our 12-month finding.
References
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 Jesse D’Elia, Pacific Regional Office,
Portland, Oregon.
Authority
The authority for this action is section
4 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973
(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: May 25, 2007.
Randall B. Luthi,
Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. E7–10885 Filed 6–5–07; 8:45 am]
rmajette on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:18 Jun 05, 2007
Jkt 211001
RINs 1018–AG11 and 1018–AT60
Migratory Bird Permits; Changes in the
Regulations Governing Falconry and
Raptor Propagation; Final
Environmental Assessment on Take of
Raptors From the Wild for Falconry
and Raptor Propagation
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, announce the
availability of a Final Environmental
Assessment (FEA) evaluating the take of
raptors from the wild for use in falconry
and in raptor propagation, and a
Finding of No Significant Impact
(FONSI) for take of raptors for those
purposes. We have prepared the FEA
and the FONSI as part of the process we
must follow to finalize two rules under
the National Environmental Policy Act.
ADDRESSES: The documents are
available from the Division of Migratory
Bird Management, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, 4401 North Fairfax
Drive, Mail Stop 4107, Arlington,
Virginia 22203–1610. They also are
available on the Division of Migratory
Bird Management Web pages at https://
migratorybirds.fws.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.
George T. Allen, Division of Migratory
Frm 00073
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
In the
draft Environmental Assessment, we
considered three alternatives for
amending the falconry and raptor
propagation regulations. In particular, at
the request of the Association of Fish
and Wildlife Agencies, we considered
elimination of the federal/state falconry
permitting system and replacing it with
a state permitting system operating
within a prescribed federal framework.
We received 313 electronic or written
comment letters on the draft
Environmental Assessment. We
modified the Draft Environmental
Assessment to respond to concerns
expressed by agencies, organizations,
and individuals.
Having reviewed the comments on the
draft, our proposed action is to establish
national take levels of concern for take
of raptor species based on the published
data for, and biology of, each species; to
eliminate the federal permitting for
falconry, but to leave the current captive
propagation federal permitting program
in place. Based on this assessment, I
have signed the Finding of No
Significant Impact for take of raptors
from the wild for use in falconry and in
raptor propagation.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
50 CFR Parts 21 and 22
PO 00000
Bird Management, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, at 703–358–1714.
Dated: May 25, 2007.
Todd Willens,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and
Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. E7–10909 Filed 6–5–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
E:\FR\FM\06JNP1.SGM
06JNP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 108 (Wednesday, June 6, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31264-31268]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-10885]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Remove the Utah (Desert) Valvata Snail (Valvata
utahensis) from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition finding and initiation of status
review.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a
90-day finding on a petition to remove the Utah (desert) valvata snail
(Valvata utahensis) from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife (List) pursuant to the Endangered Species Act (Act). We find
that the petition presents substantial scientific information that
delisting the Utah valvata snail may be warranted, and are initiating a
status review. We plan to conduct this review concurrent with the
ongoing status review initiated on April 11, 2006 (71 FR 18345), which
we are required to make every 5 years under section 4(c)(2)(A) of the
Act. We are requesting submission of any new information on the Utah
valvata snail since its original listing as an endangered species in
1992. At the conclusion of these simultaneous reviews, we will make the
requisite recommendation under section 4(c)(2)(B) of the Act and will
issue a 12-month finding on the petition, as provided in section
4(b)(3)(B) of the Act.
DATES: The finding announced in this document was made on June 6, 2007.
To be considered in the 12-month finding on this petition or the 5-year
review, comments and information must be submitted to us by September
4, 2007.
ADDRESSES: You may submit new information, materials, comments, or
questions concerning this species by any one of the following methods:
1. You may submit comments and information to the Field Supervisor,
Attention: Utah Valvata Snail Comments, Snake River Fish and Wildlife
Office, 1387 S. Vinnell Way, Suite 368, Boise, ID 83709.
2. You may hand-deliver written comments and information to the
above address.
3. You may fax your comments to 208-378-5262.
4. You may go to the Federal rulemaking Internet portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
5. You may e-mail your comments to fw1srbocomment@fws.gov.
Please include ``Utah Valvata Snail Comments'' in the subject line
for faxes and e-mails. Please submit electronic comments in unformatted
text, and avoid the use of special characters and encryption.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Burch, Fish and Wildlife
Biologist, Snake River Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES);
telephone: 208-378-5243; or e-mail: susan_burch@fws.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Public Information Solicited
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 Utah valvata
snail 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
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.
Please note that comments merely stating support or opposition to
the actions under consideration without providing supporting
information, although noted, will not be considered in making a
determination, as section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that
determinations as to whether any species is a threatened or endangered
species shall be made ``solely on the basis of the best scientific and
commercial data available.'' At the conclusion of the status review, we
will issue the 12-month finding on the petition, as provided in section
4(b)(3)(B) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
If you wish to comment or provide information, you may submit your
comments and materials concerning this finding to the Field Supervisor
(see ADDRESSES) by the date listed in the DATES section.
Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or
other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be
aware that your entire comment--including your personal identifying
information--may be made publicly available at any time. While you can
ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying
information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be
able to do so. If you wish us to withhold your name and/or address, you
must state this prominently at the beginning of your comment. However,
we will not consider anonymous comments. Comments and materials
received will be available for public inspection, by appointment,
during normal business hours at the address listed in the ADDRESSES
section.
Background
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires that we make a finding on
whether a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species presents
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the
petitioned action may be warranted.
[[Page 31265]]
The finding is based on information contained in the petition and
information otherwise available in our files at the time we make the
finding. To the maximum extent practicable, we are to make the finding
within 90 days of receiving the petition, and publish our notice of the
finding in the Federal Register.
This finding summarizes the information included in the petition
and information available to us at the time of the petition review.
Under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act and our regulations in 50 CFR
424.14(b), our review of a 90-day finding is limited to a determination
of whether the information in the petition meets the ``substantial
scientific or commercial information'' threshold. Our standard for
substantial information with regard to a 90-day petition finding is
``that amount of information that would lead a reasonable person to
believe that the measure proposed in the petition may be warranted''
(50 CFR 424.14(b)). If we find that substantial information was
presented, we are required to promptly commence a review of the status
of the species and publish the results of that status review in a 12-
month finding.
Species Information
The Utah valvata snail is a habitat generalist, occupying coldwater
springs, spring creeks, the mainstem Snake River, and reservoirs in
both fine sediments and more coarse substrates at a variety of water
depths (Hinson 2006, pp. 30-33). Utah valvata snails have been
documented in discontinuous colonies along a 260-mile stretch of the
Snake River in southern and eastern Idaho from Upper Salmon Falls Dam
in southern Idaho (River Mile (RM) 581.3) upstream to the State Highway
33 Bridge on the Henry's Fork in eastern Idaho (Hinson 2006, p. 15).
Colonies are also known to exist in Snake River tributaries (e.g., the
Big Wood River and Box Canyon Creek) and in coldwater springs adjacent
to the Snake River (e.g., Thousand Springs Preserve) (reviewed by
Hinson 2006, p. 15).
The Utah valvata snail is univoltine, meaning it has a 1-year life
cycle. Emergence of new cohorts of the Utah valvata snails occurs
throughout the year, depending on habitat (Frest and Johannes 1992, p.
15; U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) 2002, pp. 6-7; USBR 2003, pp. 9-
12; Lysne 2003, p. 93), and is followed by rapid growth through the
summer and fall. Over winter, snails become dormant (Cleland 1954, p.
170; Lysne 2003, p. 83, USBR 2003, pp. 9-12). Following the cessation
of dormancy in spring, growth continues through summer until sexual
maturity is reached at 4 to 5 millimeters (mm) of length (Hershey 1990,
p. 29; Lysne and Koetsier 2006, p. 287). Reproduction and spawning
occur asynchronously between March and October, depending on habitat,
with the majority of young spawned between August and October (Cleland
1954, p. 172; USBR 2003, p. 9). Emergence of a new cohort follows
approximately two weeks after oviposition (Cleland 1954, p. 170; Heard
1963, p. 66; Dillon 2000, p. 103) and senescent snails (i.e., those
approximately 1 year old) die shortly after reproduction (Cleland 1954,
pp. 170-171; Lysne and Koetsier 2006, p. 287).
We listed the Utah valvata snail as endangered on December 14, 1992
(57 FR 59244). At that time, we determined that the Utah valvata snail
was threatened by construction of new hydropower dams, the operation of
existing hydropower dams, degraded water quality, water diversions, the
introduced New Zealand mudsnail (Potamopyrgus antipodarum), and the
lack of existing regulatory protections (57 FR 59244). The Utah valvata
snail was described as existing ``at a few springs and mainstem Snake
River sites in the Hagerman Valley and at a few sites below American
Falls Dam downstream to Burley [Idaho].'' We published the Snake River
Aquatic Species Recovery Plan, which included the Utah valvata snail,
in 1995 (Service 1995). Critical habitat has not been designated for
this species.
Review of Petition
On December 26, 2006, we received a petition from the Governor of
Idaho and attorneys for several irrigation districts and canal
companies requesting that the Utah valvata snail be removed from the
List. The delisting petition cites a recent status review conducted by
Steward & Associates (Hinson 2006), a review of Utah valvata snail
sampling methodology (D.R. Hinson and C. Steward (Steward &
Associates), in litt. 2007), a memorandum addressing perceived threats
to Utah valvata snail from 1996 to 2006 (Barker Rosholt & Simpson LLP,
in litt. 2006), the Mid-Snake Springs Habitat Protection Plan (Wilkison
2005), species data from the Thousand Springs Preserve (Idaho Power
2006, unpublished data), water quality data from Idaho Department of
Environmental Quality (IDEQ 2007), and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation data
for the Utah valvata snail (USBR 2002, 2003, 2005). The petition
clearly identified itself as a petition and included the requisite
identification information for the petitioners, as required in 50 CFR
424.14(a). The petition cited information on the natural history of the
Utah valvata snail, its population status, and advances in knowledge
about the species' ecology and threats since listing. The petition
states that many of the threats identified in the 1992 listing rule no
longer exist or have been attenuated by subsequent actions. It also
states that the Utah valvata snail is more abundant, is more
continuously distributed, and exists in more diverse habitats than
previously recorded.
Threats Analysis
The factors for listing, delisting, or reclassifying a 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.
Section 4(a)(1) of the Act requires that we determine whether a
species is endangered or threatened based on one or more of the five
following factors: (A) Present or threatened destruction, modification,
or curtailment of habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or
predation; (D) inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E)
other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. In
making this 90-day finding, we evaluated whether information presented
in the December 2006 petition, when considered along with information
in our files, constitutes substantial scientific or commercial
information such that delisting may be warranted. Our evaluation of
this information is presented below.
A. Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of
the Species' Habitat or Range
Habitat Use
The petitioners claim that Utah valvata snails are able to live in
a variety of habitats previously thought to be unsuitable for the
species, including reservoirs. They provided a status report by Hinson
(2006) as the primary source of information to support this claim.
Hinson (2006, p. 21) used available data from the Bureau of
Reclamation, Idaho Power Company, Hinson & Falter, the Idaho Department
of Fish and Game, the Service, and the Idaho Transportation Department
to analyze the current distribution of Utah valvata snails related to
habitat features (i.e., depth
[[Page 31266]]
and dominant substrate size). Based on this analysis, Hinson (2006, pp.
3, 23-32) reported Utah valvata snails using a number of substrates
(fines, cobbles, gravel), habitat types (river, springs, reservoirs),
depths (from less than 1.6 feet (ft) (0.5 meter (m)) to greater than
32.8 ft (10 m)), and water temperatures (from 40.1 degrees Fahrenheit
([deg]F) (4.5 degrees Celsius ([deg]C)) to 66.6 [deg]F (19.2 [deg]C)).
The snails have also been found in areas of low and high concentrations
of aquatic plants, and, in one case, were found in very fine, black,
organically enriched sediments with dense submerged aquatic plant
communities and attached filamentous (long thread-like) algae (Hinson
2006, pp. 30-33).
At the time of listing, we stated: ``In the Snake River, V.
utahensis lives in deep pools adjacent to rapids or in perennial
flowing waters associated with large spring complexes. The species
avoids areas with heavy currents or rapids. The snail prefers well-
oxygenated areas of non-reducing calcareous mud or mud-sand substrate
among beds of submergent aquatic vegetation. The species is absent from
pure gravel-boulder bottoms'' (57 FR 59244, p. 59245).
We accept the petitioners' characterization of Utah valvata snail
habitat use and find that they have presented substantial information
suggesting that current information about Utah valvata snail habitat
use may be different than indicated by the best available information
at the time of listing in 1992.
Range
Based primarily on a status report by Hinson (2006), the
petitioners claim that the species is more widely distributed than
recorded at the time of listing in 1992. Hinson (2006, p. 15) reported
that Utah valvata snails occupy discontinuous colonies in a 260-mile
(418-kilometer) range in the Snake River Basin from Upper Salmon Falls
Dam (RM 581.3) upstream to the State Highway 33 bridge on the Henry's
Fork. Colonies are also known to exist in habitats adjacent to mainstem
Snake River habitats, including the Big Wood River (joins the Snake
River at RM 571), Box Canyon Creek (joins the Snake River at RM 588),
and Thousand Springs Preserve (joins the Snake River at RM 585)
(reviewed by Hinson 2006, p. 15). Based on a collection of empty shells
of recent origin, colonies may also exist in Magic Reservoir, upstream
of the Big Wood River colony (J. Keebaugh, Orma J. Smith Museum of
Natural History, pers. comm. 2006, cited in Hinson 2006, p. 15). At
present, the most abundant colonies of Utah valvata snails known to
exist in the Snake River Basin occur in river and reservoir habitats
from Minidoka Dam (RM 675) upstream to the middle portion of American
Falls Reservoir (approximately RM 725) (reviewed by Hinson 2006, p.
15).
At the time of listing, we stated: ``The Utah valvata snail
historically occurred from river mile 492 (near Grandview) to river
mile 585 just above Thousand Springs with a disjunct population in the
American Falls Dam tailwater near Eagle Rock damsite at river mile 709.
The taxa was known historically from northern Utah, although recent
mollusk surveys throughout the State revealed no live sites and the
species is believed extirpated there (Clarke 1991). At present, this
species occurs in a few springs and mainstem Snake River sites in the
Hagerman Valley and a few sites below American Falls Dam downstream to
Burley (Beak 1987; Taylor 1987)'' (57 FR 59245).
We accept the petitioners' characterization of the Utah valvata
snail's current range and find that they have presented substantial
information indicating that the current range of the Utah valvata snail
may be significantly larger than the range we described in our 1992
listing rule.
Construction of New Hydropower Dams
The petition states that threats to Utah valvata snail habitat from
future hydro-power development are not as they were perceived when the
species was listed in 1992. The petitioners provided a document from
the State of Idaho (Idaho 2006), indicating that all recent permits for
the construction of new dams along the Mid-Snake River have either
lapsed or have been denied by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(FERC). They also provided the following documents as evidence that
specific permits are no longer moving forward: (1) A 2002 notice of
surrender of preliminary permit for the River Side Project (FERC
2002a), (2) 2002 orders denying application for preliminary permits for
the Eagle Rock (FERC 2002b) and Star Falls Hydroelectric Projects (FERC
2002c), and (3) a 2003 notice of surrender of preliminary permit for
the Auger Falls Project (FERC 2003).
At the time of listing, there were six active proposals for new
hydroelectric projects in the middle-Snake River. In our listing rule,
we stated: ``Six proposed hydroelectric projects, including two high
dam facilities, would alter free flowing river reaches within the
existing range of [the Utah valvata snail]. Dam construction threatens
the [Utah valvata snail] through direct habitat modification and
moderates the Snake River's ability to assimilate point and non-point
pollution. Further hydroelectric development along the Snake River
would inundate existing mollusk habitats through impoundment, reduce
critical shallow, littoral shoreline habitats in tailwater areas due to
operating water fluctuations, elevate water temperatures, reduce
dissolved oxygen levels in impounded sediments, and further fragment
remaining mainstem populations or colonies of these snails'' (57 FR
59251).
We have no information in our files suggesting that future
hydropower development in the middle-Snake River is likely to occur and
we therefore accept the petitioners' claim that the threats from
hydropower development may have dissipated since the time of listing.
Water Quality
A threats analysis provided by the petitioners states that threats
to Utah valvata snail habitat from water pollution are not as they were
perceived when the species was listed in 1992 (Barker et al. 2006, in
litt., p. 10). The petitioners presented data on improvements to Snake
River water quality and on changes in our understanding of Utah valvata
snail's tolerance of nutrient-rich (e.g., nitrogen and phosphorus)
water in the Snake River resulting from return flows from irrigated
agriculture, runoff from feedlots and dairies, hatchery effluent,
municipal sewage effluent, and other point and non-point discharges.
The Utah valvata snail status report provided by the petitioners
(Hinson 2006, p. 19) noted that the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (2003)
conducted studies measuring the organic content in the sediment (ash-
free dry weight) where Utah valvata snails are found in an attempt to
create an index that relates snail densities with available forage. The
highest Utah valvata snail densities sampled coincided with lower Lake
Walcott reservoir habitat that had the greatest percentage of organic
content in the sediments, suggesting that Utah valvata snails can reach
their greatest densities in areas that are subject to high
concentrations of nitrogen and phosphorus (Hinson 2006, p. 19).
At the time of listing, we stated: ``The quality of water in
[snail] habitats has a direct effect on the species survival. The [Utah
valvata snail] require[s] cold, well-oxygenated unpolluted water for
survival. Any factor that leads to a deterioration in water quality
would likely extirpate [the Utah valvata snail]'' (57 FR 59244, p.
59252).
Therefore, we find that the petitioners have presented substantial
information
[[Page 31267]]
indicating that Utah valvata snails may be more tolerant of nutrient-
rich waters than indicated by the best available information at the
time of listing in 1992.
B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
The petitioners did not provide information regarding the
overutilization of Utah valvata snails for commercial, recreational,
scientific, or educational purposes. We did not consider this factor
applicable to our listing decision in 1992, and we do not have
information in our files suggesting that overutilization is a threat to
the species.
C. Disease or Predation
The petitioners did not provide information regarding the effects
of disease or predation on Utah valvata snails. At the time of listing
we stated that changes in the fish fauna of the middle Snake River had
been suggested as a potential threat to the Utah valvata snail (57 FR
59244, p. 59253). At that time there was no data to support this
suggestion, and we did not consider this factor to be significant in
our listing decision. Currently, we have no information in our files
suggesting that disease or predation are significant threats to the
Utah valvata snail.
D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
The petitioners provided numerous documents regarding surface water
quality programs, water rights, aquifer recharge, and groundwater
management in the Snake River and Snake River Plain aquifer (e.g.,
Idaho 2004; Idaho 2005; IDWR 2006). These documents indicate that the
State of Idaho has regulatory mechanisms to limit or exclude the
development of new surface water or groundwater rights within the range
of the Utah valvata snail. These documents also indicate that the State
has regulatory mechanisms to prioritize existing water rights based on
seniority.
At the time of listing, we found inadequate regulatory mechanisms
to be a threat because (1) regulations were inadequate to curb further
water withdrawal from groundwater spring outflows or tributary spring
streams, (2) it was unlikely that pollution control regulations would
reverse the trend in nutrient loading in the near future, (3) there was
a lack of protections for invertebrate species in Idaho, and (4)
regulations did not require FERC or the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers to
address Service concerns regarding licensing hydroelectric projects or
permitting projects under the Clean Water Act for unlisted snails.
Information provided by the petitioner, along with information in
our files, suggests that the threat to Utah valvata snails from
inadequate regulatory mechanisms may be less than indicated by the best
available information at the time of listing. There are now regulatory
mechanisms to limit future surface water and groundwater development,
and some pollution control regulations have been implemented.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence
The status report provided by the petitioner (Hinson 2006) states
that threats to the Utah valvata snail from the New Zealand mudsnail
(Potamopyrgus antipodarum) are not as they were perceived when the
species was listed in 1992. According to Hinson (2006, pp. 41-42), the
fact that Utah valvata snails and New Zealand mudsnails frequently
occur in the same samples indicates that these two species are able to
co-exist, which either indicates that resources are not limiting or
that the snails actually have slightly different algae preferences.
However, Hinson (2006, p. 41) also notes that the overlap in
habitat utilization between the Utah valvata snail and the New Zealand
mudsnail could lead to direct competition for resources between these
two species. Hinson (2006, p. 41) states: ``P. antipodarum densities
have been steadily increasing in reservoir habitats of the Snake River
(e.g., Lake Walcott) (USBOR 2003; USBOR 2004a). This overlap in habitat
utilization between V. utahensis and P. antipodarum could lead to
direct competition for resources between these two species. Known
densities of the exotic P. antipodarum in the Middle Snake River can
exceed 800,000 individuals per square meter (Minshall 1993). This
factor alone increases the likelihood that V. utahensis can be
outcompeted by P. antipodarum and physically displaced in areas where
the two species overlap. P. antipodarum populations in the Snake River
Basin have been shown to reproduce rapidly and quickly deplete growths
of periphytic algae (USFWS 2005), which is known to be an important
food source for V. utahensis and many of the other listed Snake River
snails.''
At the time of listing, we stated that New Zealand mudsnails were
not abundant in coldwater springflows with colonies of the Utah valvata
snail, but that they did compete with the Utah valvata snail in the
mainstem Snake River (57 FR 59244, p. 59254). We have no direct
evidence that New Zealand mudsnails have displaced colonies of Utah
valvata snails, but New Zealand mudsnails have been documented in dense
mats (at densities of nearly 400 individuals per square inch) in free-
flowing habitats within the range of the Utah valvata snail (57 FR
59244, p. 59254). Furthermore, New Zealand mudsnails have become
established in every spring-fed creek or tributary to the Snake River
in the Hagerman Reach that has been surveyed.
Based on information provided by the petitioner, along with
information in our files, New Zealand mudsnails likely compete with
Utah valvata snails for food or space. Although the information
provided by the petitioners indicates that the Utah valvata snail and
New Zealand mudsnail co-occur in various locations, the petitioners
acknowledge that, given the densities that New Zealand mudsnails can
achieve, there is an increased likelihood that ``V. utahensis can be
outcompeted by P. antipodarum and physically displaced in areas where
the two species overlap.'' Therefore, we find that Hinson's (2006)
analysis is largely consistent with our analysis at the time of listing
in 1992, and that New Zealand mudsnails may still be a substantive
threat to the Utah valvata snail.
Finding
We have reviewed the delisting petition and the supporting
documents, as well as other information in our files. We find that the
delisting petition and other information in our files presents
substantial information indicating that delisting the Utah valvata
snail may be warranted, and we are initiating a status review.
Petitioners have provided a detailed status report that updates the
state of knowledge regarding Utah valvata snail habitat use,
distribution, and threats. The status report provides substantial
information indicating that the Utah valvata snail may be more widely
distributed than previously recorded and that it can occur in a wide
variety of habitat types, substrates, depths, and water temperatures.
Information provided by the petitioners also indicates that threats
from hydropower development are not what we perceived when we listed
the species in 1992, and that additional regulatory mechanisms now
exist that could limit water development and improve water quality in
Utah valvata snail habitat. New Zealand mudsnails appear to be a
persistent threat to the Utah valvata snail, but the significance of
this threat must be more fully evaluated in the context of the
[[Page 31268]]
remaining threats and the species' overall status.
5-Year Review
Section 4(c)(2)(A) of the Act requires that we conduct a status
review of listed species at least once every 5 years. We are then,
under section 4(c)(2)(B), to determine whether any species should be
removed from the List (delisted), or reclassified from endangered to
threatened, or threatened to endangered. We initiated a 5-year review
for the Utah valvata snail on April 11, 2006 (71 FR 18345). We are
currently in the process of completing our 5-year review and will
incorporate that review into our 12-month finding.
References
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 Jesse D'Elia, Pacific
Regional Office, Portland, Oregon.
Authority
The authority for this action is section 4 of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: May 25, 2007.
Randall B. Luthi,
Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. E7-10885 Filed 6-5-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P