Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Rule To Remove the Idaho Springsnail (Pyrgulopsis(=Fontelicella) idahoensis, 43560-43563 [E7-15111]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
43560
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 150 / Monday, August 6, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
(G) * * *
Note to paragraph (c)(5)(iii)(G): The
application of the reporting or recordkeeping
provisions included in paragraph
(c)(5)(iii)(G) of this section to interconnected
VoIP providers will be submitted for
approval to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB). They are not effective as to
interconnected VoIP providers until OMB
approval has been obtained. The FCC will
publish a notice of the effective date of the
reporting and recordkeeping provisions of
this rule as to interconnected VoIP providers
after it obtains OMB approval.
*
*
(6) *
(v) *
(A) *
(3) *
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
(G) * * *
*
*
*
*
(7) * * *
*
*
Note to paragraph (c)(7): The application of
the reporting or recordkeeping provisions
included in paragraph (c)(7) of this section to
interconnected VoIP providers will be
submitted for approval to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB). They are
not effective as to interconnected VoIP
providers until OMB approval has been
obtained. The FCC will publish a notice of
the effective date of the reporting and
recordkeeping provisions of this rule as to
interconnected VoIP providers after it obtains
OMB approval.
10. Section 64.606 is amended by
adding a note to paragraph (b) to read
as follows:
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC62 with RULES
I
§ 64.606 Furnishing related customer
premises equipment.
*
*
*
(b) * * *
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Note to paragraph (b): The application of
the reporting or recordkeeping provisions
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:11 Aug 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
publication satisfies the statement that
the Commission would publish a
document announcing the effective date
of the rule changes requiring OMB
approval.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7–15138 Filed 8–3–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
Note to paragraph (c)(6)(v)(G): The
application of the reporting or recordkeeping
provisions included in paragraph (c)(6)(v)(G)
of this section to interconnected VoIP
providers will be submitted for approval to
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
They are not effective as to interconnected
VoIP providers until OMB approval has been
obtained. The FCC will publish a notice of
the effective date of the reporting and
recordkeeping provisions of this rule as to
interconnected VoIP providers after it obtains
OMB approval.
*
[FR Doc. E7–15086 Filed 8–3–07; 8:45 am]
*
Note to paragraph (c)(6)(v)(A)(3): The
application of the reporting or recordkeeping
provisions included in paragraph
(c)(6)(v)(A)(3) of this section to
interconnected VoIP providers will be
submitted for approval to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB). They are
not effective as to interconnected VoIP
providers until OMB approval has been
obtained. The FCC will publish a notice of
the effective date of the reporting and
recordkeeping provisions of this rule as to
interconnected VoIP providers after it obtains
OMB approval.
*
included in paragraph (b) of this section to
interconnected VoIP providers will be
submitted for approval to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB). They are
not effective as to interconnected VoIP
providers until OMB approval has been
obtained. The FCC will publish a notice of
the effective date of the reporting and
recordkeeping provisions of this rule as to
interconnected VoIP providers after it obtains
OMB approval.
47 CFR Part 76
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[MB Docket No. 05–311; FCC 06–180]
Implementation of Section 621(a)(1) of
the Cable Communications Policy Act
of 1984 as Amended by the Cable
Television Consumer Protection and
Competition Act of 1992
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Final rule; announcement of
effective date.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This document announces the
effective dates of rules published in the
Federal Register on March 21, 2007.
The rules relate to section 621 of the
Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C.
541, which prohibits franchising
authorities from unreasonably refusing
to award competitive franchises for the
provision of cable services.
DATES: The final rule published on
March 21, 2007 (72 FR 13189), adding
47 CFR 76.41, is effective August 6,
2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
additional information on this
proceeding, contact Brendan Murray,
Brendan.Murray@fcc.gov of the Media
Bureau, Policy Division, (202) 418–
1573.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a
Report and Order released on March 5,
2007, FCC 06–180, and published in the
Federal Register on March 21, 2007, 72
FR 13189, the Federal Communications
Commission adopted a new rule which
contained information collection
requirements subject to the Paperwork
Reduction Act. The Report and Order
stated that the rule changes requiring
OMB approval would become effective
immediately upon announcement in the
Federal Register of OMB approval. On
July 25, 2007, the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) approved the
information collection requirements
contained in 47 CFR 76.41. This
information collection is assigned OMB
Control No. 3060–1103. This
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
RIN 1018–AU66
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Final Rule To Remove the
Idaho Springsnail
(Pyrgulopsis(=Fontelicella) idahoensis)
From the List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS, Service, or
we), under the Endangered Species Act
of 1973, as amended (Act), hereby
remove the Idaho springsnail
(Pyrgulopsis(=Fontelicella) idahoensis)
from the Federal List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife (List). This
determination is based on a thorough
review of all available data, which
indicate that the Idaho springsnail is not
a discrete taxonomic entity and does not
meet the definition of a species under
the Act. It is now considered to be part
of a more widely distributed taxon, the
Jackson Lake springsnail. Because the
Idaho springsnail is not recognized as a
species, as defined by the Act, we have
determined that it is not a listable entity
and are removing it from the List.
DATES: This rule is effective September
5, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Susan Burch, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, 1387 S. Vinnell Way, Room
368, Boise, ID 83709 (telephone 208/
378–5243; facsimile 208/378–5262).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Idaho springsnail
(Pyrgulopsis(=Fontelicella) idahoensis;
Hydrobiidae) was first described by
Pilsbry (1933, pp. 11–12) and placed in
the genus Amnicola. Subsequently, Greg
and Taylor (1965, pp. 103–110) placed
E:\FR\FM\06AUR1.SGM
06AUR1
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC62 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 150 / Monday, August 6, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
the Idaho springsnail—along with the
Harney Lake springsnail (P.
hendersoni), and Jackson Lake
springsnail (P. robusta)—in the newly
created Fontelicella genus and Natricola
subgenus. After several taxonomic
revisions, the subgenus Natricola was
subsumed under the genus Pyrgulopsis
(Hershler and Thompson 1987, pp. 28–
31), the largest genus of freshwater
mollusks in North America, comprised
of over 120 described species (Liu and
Hershler 2005, p. 284). The genus
occurs in much of eastern North
America, throughout western North
America, and in parts of northern
Mexico (Hershler and Thompson 1987,
p. 30). The genus expresses its greatest
diversity in the Great Basin of the
western United States, where most
species are endemic to springs, spring
systems, and drainage basins (Hershler
and Sada 2000, p. 367; Hershler and
Sada 2002, p. 255).
In 2004, Hershler and Liu (2004, pp.
78–79) revised the taxonomic status of
four Pyrgulopsis springsnail species—
the Idaho springsnail, Harney Lake
springsnail, Jackson Lake springsnail,
and Columbia springsnail (P. species A
(unnamed))—by combining them into a
single species and, following standard
naming conventions, naming this
combined taxon for the first taxon to be
described among the four previously
recognized species, the Jackson Lake
springsnail (Walker 1908, p. 97). The
authors reviewed morphological
characters, mitochondrial DNA
sequences, and nuclear DNA sequences
to establish the revised taxonomic
classification.
The methods employed by Hershler
and Liu (2004, pp. 67–70) are
considered contemporary in the field of
genetics and are consistent with those
used by numerous authors
reconstructing phylogenies based on
molecular evidence in general
(Raahauge and Kristensen 2000, pp. 87–
89; Jones et al. 2001, pp. 281; Attwood
et al. 2003, pp. 265–266), and with
western hydrobiid snails in particular
(Hershler et al. 2003, pp. 358–359; Liu
et al. 2003, pp. 2772–2775; Hurt 2004,
pp. 1174–1177; Liu and Hershler 2005,
p. 285). Further, it is the position of the
American Malacological Society that the
Hershler and Liu (2004) revised
taxonomy sets the standard for
understanding this group of springsnails
until evidence is presented to refute this
classification (Leal in litt. 2004).
Therefore, Hershler and Liu (2004, pp.
66–81) represents the best available
scientific and commercial data on the
taxonomic status of the four previously
recognized Pyrgulopsis springsnails.
These springsnails are now considered
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:24 Aug 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
to be a single species, the Jackson Lake
springsnail—a species we recently
determined, in a 12-month finding (71
FR 56938), does not warrant listing
under the Act.
Previous Federal Actions
We published the final rule listing the
Idaho springsnail as endangered on
December 14, 1992 (57 FR 59244). At
the time of listing we believed that the
species was restricted to small
populations in permanent, flowing
waters of the mainstem Snake River
from rm 518 (rkm 834) to rm 553 (rkm
890). In that rule, we described range
reduction, the threat of dam
construction, operation of existing
hydroelectric dams, deteriorating water
quality from multiple sources, and
potential competition with the invasive
New Zealand mudsnail (Potamopyrgus
antipodarum) as the major threats to the
species. We have not designated critical
habitat for the Idaho springsnail.
On June 28, 2004, we received a
petition from the Idaho Office of Species
Conservation and the Idaho Power
Company (IPC) requesting that the Idaho
springsnail be delisted based on a recent
taxonomic revision of the species. The
petitioners also provided new Idaho
springsnail scientific information, and
contrasted this new information with
information used in the 1992 Idaho
springsnail listing decision (57 FR
59244). The petitioners stated that,
based on this new information, threats
to the Idaho springsnail identified in the
1992 listing rule have been eliminated,
are being actively addressed by State
and private entities, or are no longer
relevant.
On August 5, 2004, we received a
petition from Dr. Peter Bowler, the
Biodiversity Conservation Alliance, the
Center for Biological Diversity, the
Center for Native Ecosystems, the
Western Watersheds Project, and the
Xerces Society, requesting that the
Jackson Lake springsnail, Harney Lake
springsnail, and Columbia springsnail
be listed as either threatened or
endangered species, either as individual
species or, together with the Idaho
springsnail, as a single new species. The
listing petition discussed the recent
taxonomic revision and acknowledged
that the Jackson Lake springsnail,
Harney Lake springsnail, Columbia
springsnail, and Idaho springsnail may
be one species, but contended that,
whether considered individually or as
one species, all four springsnails
warranted the protection of the Act. (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) The petition cited
habitat loss and degradation from
development of springs, domestic
livestock grazing, and groundwater
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
43561
withdrawal, among other factors, as
threats to the continued existence of
these springsnails.
On April 20, 2005, we published
combined 90-day petition findings (70
FR 20512), stating that both petitions
provided substantial information
suggesting that delisting of the Idaho
springsnail, or listing of the Jackson
Lake springsnail (both the new and the
old taxonomic grouping), the Harney
Lake springsnail, and the Columbia
springsnail, may be warranted.
On September 28, 2006, we published
a warranted 12-month finding on the
petition to delist the endangered Idaho
springsnail along with a not warranted
12-month finding on the petition to list
the Jackson Lake springsnail (both the
new and the old taxonomic grouping),
Harney Lake springsnail, and Columbia
springsnail. Concurrent with these
findings we published a proposed rule
to remove the Idaho springsnail from
the List of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife due to the change in its
taxonomic status (71 FR 56938).
Summary of Comments and
Recommendations
In our September 28, 2006, combined
12-month finding and proposed rule (71
FR 56938), we requested that all
interested parties submit comments or
information concerning the proposed
delisting of the Idaho springsnail. We
provided notification of this document
through e-mail, telephone calls, letters,
and news releases faxed and/or mailed
to the appropriate Federal, State, and
local agencies, county governments,
elected officials, media outlets, local
jurisdictions, scientific organizations,
interested groups, and other interested
parties. We also posted the document on
our regional Web site.
We accepted public comments on the
proposal for 60 days, ending November
27, 2006. By that date, we received
comments from three parties,
specifically one law firm representing
the State of Idaho’s Office of Species
Conservation and IPC, and two
organizations.
In accordance with our peer review
policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR
34270), we solicited independent
opinions from four knowledgeable
individuals who have expertise with the
genus Pyrgulopsis, who possess a
current knowledge of the geographic
region where the species occurs, and/or
are familiar with the principles of
conservation biology. We received
comments from four peer reviewers,
three of whom are associated with
academic research institutions and one
who is employed by the U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS).
E:\FR\FM\06AUR1.SGM
06AUR1
43562
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 150 / Monday, August 6, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC62 with RULES
We reviewed all comments received
from peer reviewers and the public for
substantive issues and new information
regarding the proposed delisting of the
Idaho springsnail. Substantive
comments received during the comment
period are addressed below.
We also received several comments
from both the public and peer reviewers
concerning threats to the Jackson Lake
springsnail because our proposed rule to
delist the Idaho springsnail due to
taxonomic revision was published
jointly with our 12-month finding on a
petition to list the Jackson Lake
springsnail (71 FR 56938). However, we
addressed the threats to the Jackson
Lake springsnail in our 12-month
finding and found that listing was not
warranted. Therefore, comments on the
threats to the Jackson Lake springsnail
are outside the scope of the proposed
rule to delist the Idaho springsnail and
those comments are not addressed in
this final rule.
Public Comments
(1) Comment: The Idaho springsnail is
more widespread than previously
known at the time of its listing and is
more resilient and less vulnerable to
certain habitat-altering activities than
previously thought.
Response: Although the Idaho
springsnail is no longer recognized as a
discreet taxon, the formerly recognized
species is now known from more
locations than at the time of listing and
appears to be more resilient and less
vulnerable to certain habitat-altering
activities than previously thought. We
appreciate the efforts of those who
collected and synthesized information
to expand our understanding of
Pyrgulopsis taxonomy and ecology.
(2) Comment: Despite their
conclusions, the data presented by
Hershler and Liu (2004) illustrate the
geographic, morphological, and genetic
divergence of the Idaho springsnail from
other springsnails in the region, and
therefore the Idaho springsnail should
continue to be protected under the Act.
Response: In a recent scientific article
by Hershler and Liu (2004), published
in the Veliger (an international, peerreviewed scientific quarterly published
by the California Malacozoological
Society), the authors revised the
taxonomic status of the Idaho
springsnail, combining it with three
other groups of Natricola springsnails.
Hershler and Liu (2004, p. 77)
concluded ‘‘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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:24 Aug 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
applied concepts of this taxonomic
rank.’’ For the reasons stated in the
Background section of this final rule, we
believe that Hershler and Liu (2004, pp.
66–81) represents the best available
scientific and commercial data on the
taxonomic status of the four Natricola
springsnails and that the Idaho
springsnail no longer constitutes a
distinct species and does not warrant
protection under the Act.
(3) Comment: The ecological and
evolutionary divergence of the Idaho
springsnail is significant and would
easily qualify it for continued protection
as a distinct population segment under
the Act.
Response: Section 4(a)(1) of the Act
outlines the factors for which we may
list an endangered or threatened
species. Section 3 of the Act defines an
endangered species as ‘‘any species
which is in danger of extinction
throughout all or a significant portion of
its range,’’ and a threatened species as
‘‘any species which is likely to become
an endangered species throughout all or
a significant portion of its range.’’
Section 3 of the Act also defines a
species to include any subspecies of fish
or wildlife or plants, and any distinct
population segment of any species of
vertebrate fish or wildlife which
interbreeds when mature. Because
springsnails are invertebrates, they do
not qualify for protection as a distinct
population segment under the Act.
(4) Comment: The Service should
specify in its final rule that delisting of
the Idaho springsnail is warranted due
to recovery and original data for
classification in error.
Response: Section 4(a)(1) of the Act
and regulations (50 CFR part 424) issued
to implement the listing provisions of
the Act set forth the procedures for
adding species to, or removing them
from, Federal lists. The regulations at 50
CFR 424.11(d) state that a species may
be delisted if: (1) The species is extinct
or has been extirpated from its previous
range; (2) the species has recovered and
is no longer endangered or threatened;
or (3) investigations show that the best
scientific or commercial data available
when the species was listed, or the
interpretation of such data, were in
error. Since the time of the Idaho
springsnail listing in 1992, genetics
research and additional survey effort
have revealed that it is not a distinct
species, but is now part of a combined
taxon that is widely distributed
(occurring in Wyoming, Oregon, Idaho,
and Washington) and occurs in a variety
of habitat types.
We acknowledge that numerous
recovery actions were implemented for
the Idaho springsnail, and we commend
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
the State of Idaho, IPC, and other
conservation partners for their ongoing
efforts to conserve listed species, but the
primary reason we are removing the
Idaho springsnail from the List is its
taxonomic reclassification.
Peer Review Comments
(1) Comment: Data presented in the
combined 12-month finding and
proposed rule support the case for
combining the Idaho springsnail under
the Jackson Lake springsnail as
recommended by Hershler and Liu
(2004), but further ecological, biological,
and population genetic evidence would
greatly strengthen this case.
Response: We acknowledge that more
scientific inquiry and subsequent
information may strengthen the case for
Hershler and Liu’s (2004) taxonomic
revisions with the Pyrgulopsis genus;
however, our charge is to use the best
available commercial and scientific
information in our assessments.
Hershler and Liu (2004) published their
taxonomic review of the Idaho
springsnail, the Harney Lake
springsnail, the Jackson Lake
springsnail, and the Columbia
springsnail in a peer-reviewed scientific
journal and determined that they were
all one species. No other peer-reviewed
scientific studies have been published
that challenge the veracity or
conclusions of Hershler and Liu (2004).
Furthermore, it is the position of the
American Malacological Society that the
Hershler and Liu (2004) revised
taxonomy sets the standard for
understanding this group of springsnails
(Leal in litt. 2004). Therefore, we believe
that Hershler and Liu (2004) currently
represents the best scientific
information available with respect to
Idaho springsnail taxonomy.
(2) Comment: The Service appears to
be delisting the Idaho springsnail solely
because it is more wide-ranging than
thought at the time of listing, regardless
of the fact that we know relatively little
about the species as a whole.
Response: Although the range of the
Jackson Lake springsnail was one factor
that contributed to our ‘‘not warranted’’
petition finding for that species (see 71
FR 56938), our decision to delist the
Idaho springsnail is based on the fact
that it is not currently recognized as a
valid species as defined by the Act.
Delisting Analysis
After a review of all information
available, we are removing the Idaho
springsnail from the List of Endangered
and Threatened Wildlife. Section 4(a)(1)
of the Act and regulations (50 CFR part
424) issued to implement the listing
provisions of the Act set forth the
E:\FR\FM\06AUR1.SGM
06AUR1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 150 / Monday, August 6, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
procedures for adding species to or
removing them from Federal lists. The
regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d) state
that a species may be delisted if (1) it
becomes extinct, (2) it recovers, or (3)
the original classification data were in
error.
New scientific information has
become available since we listed the
Idaho springsnail in 1992. Most
pertinent among this new information is
a taxonomic reappraisal of Natricola
snails, published by Hershler and Liu
(2004), in a peer-reviewed scientific
journal. Their study indicated that this
formerly recognized species has been
subsumed by a more widely distributed
taxon. Because the Idaho springsnail is
no longer considered a species as
defined by the Act, it does not qualify
for listing under the Act. The original
classification data related to Pyrgulopsis
taxonomy, although considered the best
available information at the time of
listing, are now thought to be in error.
When a listed species is subsumed by
another entity, we believe it is prudent
to examine the status of the new entity
before delisting the subsumed taxon. In
our combined 12-month finding and
proposed rule we considered whether
listing the Jackson Lake springsnail was
warranted, and found that it was not (71
FR 56938).
Effects of This Rule
This action removes the Idaho
springsnail from the List of Endangered
and Threatened Wildlife. The
prohibitions and conservation measures
provided by the Act, particularly under
sections 7 and 9, no longer apply to the
Idaho springsnail. Federal agencies no
longer are required to consult with the
Service under section 7 of the Act on
actions they fund, authorize, or carry
out that may affect the Idaho
springsnail. There is no designated
critical habitat for the Idaho springsnail.
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC62 with RULES
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
This rule does not contain any new
collections of information that require
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) approval under the Paperwork
Reduction Act. We may not conduct or
sponsor, and you are not required to
respond to, a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number.
National Environmental Policy Act
The Service has determined that
Environmental Assessments and
Environmental Impact Statements, as
defined under the authority of the
National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:24 Aug 03, 2007
Jkt 211001
be prepared in connection with actions
adopted under section 4(a) of the Act.
We published a notice outlining our
reasons for this determination in the
Federal Register on October 25, 1983
(48 FR 49244). This assertion was
upheld in the courts of the Ninth Circuit
(Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d
1495 (9th Cir. Ore. 1995), cert. denied
116 S. Ct. 698 (1996)).
Government-to-Government
Relationship With Tribes
In accordance with the President’s
memorandum of April 29, 1994,
‘‘Government-to-Government Relations
with Native American Tribal
Governments’’ (59 FR 22951), Executive
Order 13175, and the Department of the
Interior’s manual at 512 DM 2, we
readily acknowledge our responsibility
to communicate meaningfully with
recognized Federal Tribes on a
government-to-government basis.
Therefore, we have solicited
information from Native American
Tribes during the comment period and
informational briefing to determine
potential effects on them or their
resources that may result from the
delisting of the Idaho springsnail.
References
A complete list of all references cited
is available on request from the Snake
River Fish and Wildlife Office, 1387 S.
Vinnell Way, Room 368, Boise, ID
83709.
Author
The primary authors of this document
are staff of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (see References Section above).
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species,
Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements,
Transportation.
Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we amend part 17,
subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the
Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
I
PART 17 [AMENDED]
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 16 U.S.C.
1531–1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201–4245; Pub. L. 99–
625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.
[Amended].
2. Amend § 17.11(h) by removing the
entry ‘‘Springsnail, Idaho (Fontelicella
idahoensis)’’ under ‘‘SNAILS’’ from the
List of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife.
I
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Dated: July 26, 2007.
Randall Luthi,
Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. E7–15111 Filed 8–2–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 660
[Docket number 070718330–7330–02; I.D.
022807F]
RIN 0648–AU73
Fisheries Off West Coast States;
Highly Migratory Species Fisheries
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: NMFS issues a final rule to
amend vessel identification regulations
of the Fishery Management Plan (FMP)
for U.S. West Coast Fisheries for Highly
Migratory Species (HMS). The current
regulatory text requires all commercial
fishing vessels and recreational charter
vessels fishing under the HMS FMP to
display their official numbers on the
port and starboard sides of the
deckhouse or hull, and on an
appropriate weather deck (horizontal or
flat surface) so as to be visible from
enforcement vessels and aircraft. The
final rule exempts HMS recreational
charter vessels from complying with the
vessel identification requirements. The
regulation is intended to relieve a
restriction for which the costs outweigh
the benefits. Current state and Federal
(U.S. Coast Guard) marking
requirements are sufficient for law
enforcement personnel to adequately
identify HMS recreational charter
vessels at-sea and the added burden to
vessel owners of additional vessel
marking requirements was deemed
unnecessary.
This final rule is effective
September 5, 2007.
DATES:
1. The authority citation for part 17
continues to read as follows:
I
§ 17.11
43563
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Craig Heberer, Sustainable Fisheries
Division, NMFS, 760–431–9440, ext.
303.
Rodney R. McInnis,
Regional Administrator, Southwest
Region, NMFS, 501 West Ocean Blvd.,
Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802 4213.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April
7, 2004, NMFS published a final rule to
implement the HMS FMP (69 FR 18444)
ADDRESSES:
E:\FR\FM\06AUR1.SGM
06AUR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 150 (Monday, August 6, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 43560-43563]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-15111]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
RIN 1018-AU66
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Rule To
Remove the Idaho Springsnail (Pyrgulopsis(=Fontelicella) idahoensis)
From the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS, Service, or
we), under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), hereby
remove the Idaho springsnail (Pyrgulopsis(=Fontelicella) idahoensis)
from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (List).
This determination is based on a thorough review of all available data,
which indicate that the Idaho springsnail is not a discrete taxonomic
entity and does not meet the definition of a species under the Act. It
is now considered to be part of a more widely distributed taxon, the
Jackson Lake springsnail. Because the Idaho springsnail is not
recognized as a species, as defined by the Act, we have determined that
it is not a listable entity and are removing it from the List.
DATES: This rule is effective September 5, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Burch, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, 1387 S. Vinnell Way, Room 368, Boise, ID 83709 (telephone 208/
378-5243; facsimile 208/378-5262).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Idaho springsnail (Pyrgulopsis(=Fontelicella) idahoensis;
Hydrobiidae) was first described by Pilsbry (1933, pp. 11-12) and
placed in the genus Amnicola. Subsequently, Greg and Taylor (1965, pp.
103-110) placed
[[Page 43561]]
the Idaho springsnail--along with the Harney Lake springsnail (P.
hendersoni), and Jackson Lake springsnail (P. robusta)--in the newly
created Fontelicella genus and Natricola subgenus. After several
taxonomic revisions, the subgenus Natricola was subsumed under the
genus Pyrgulopsis (Hershler and Thompson 1987, pp. 28-31), the largest
genus of freshwater mollusks in North America, comprised of over 120
described species (Liu and Hershler 2005, p. 284). The genus occurs in
much of eastern North America, throughout western North America, and in
parts of northern Mexico (Hershler and Thompson 1987, p. 30). The genus
expresses its greatest diversity in the Great Basin of the western
United States, where most species are endemic to springs, spring
systems, and drainage basins (Hershler and Sada 2000, p. 367; Hershler
and Sada 2002, p. 255).
In 2004, Hershler and Liu (2004, pp. 78-79) revised the taxonomic
status of four Pyrgulopsis springsnail species--the Idaho springsnail,
Harney Lake springsnail, Jackson Lake springsnail, and Columbia
springsnail (P. species A (unnamed))--by combining them into a single
species and, following standard naming conventions, naming this
combined taxon for the first taxon to be described among the four
previously recognized species, the Jackson Lake springsnail (Walker
1908, p. 97). The authors reviewed morphological characters,
mitochondrial DNA sequences, and nuclear DNA sequences to establish the
revised taxonomic classification.
The methods employed by Hershler and Liu (2004, pp. 67-70) are
considered contemporary in the field of genetics and are consistent
with those used by numerous authors reconstructing phylogenies based on
molecular evidence in general (Raahauge and Kristensen 2000, pp. 87-89;
Jones et al. 2001, pp. 281; Attwood et al. 2003, pp. 265-266), and with
western hydrobiid snails in particular (Hershler et al. 2003, pp. 358-
359; Liu et al. 2003, pp. 2772-2775; Hurt 2004, pp. 1174-1177; Liu and
Hershler 2005, p. 285). Further, it is the position of the American
Malacological Society that the Hershler and Liu (2004) revised taxonomy
sets the standard for understanding this group of springsnails until
evidence is presented to refute this classification (Leal in litt.
2004). Therefore, Hershler and Liu (2004, pp. 66-81) represents the
best available scientific and commercial data on the taxonomic status
of the four previously recognized Pyrgulopsis springsnails. These
springsnails are now considered to be a single species, the Jackson
Lake springsnail--a species we recently determined, in a 12-month
finding (71 FR 56938), does not warrant listing under the Act.
Previous Federal Actions
We published the final rule listing the Idaho springsnail as
endangered on December 14, 1992 (57 FR 59244). At the time of listing
we believed that the species was restricted to small populations in
permanent, flowing waters of the mainstem Snake River from rm 518 (rkm
834) to rm 553 (rkm 890). In that rule, we described range reduction,
the threat of dam construction, operation of existing hydroelectric
dams, deteriorating water quality from multiple sources, and potential
competition with the invasive New Zealand mudsnail (Potamopyrgus
antipodarum) as the major threats to the species. We have not
designated critical habitat for the Idaho springsnail.
On June 28, 2004, we received a petition from the Idaho Office of
Species Conservation and the Idaho Power Company (IPC) requesting that
the Idaho springsnail be delisted based on a recent taxonomic revision
of the species. The petitioners also provided new Idaho springsnail
scientific information, and contrasted this new information with
information used in the 1992 Idaho springsnail listing decision (57 FR
59244). The petitioners stated that, based on this new information,
threats to the Idaho springsnail identified in the 1992 listing rule
have been eliminated, are being actively addressed by State and private
entities, or are no longer relevant.
On August 5, 2004, we received a petition from Dr. Peter Bowler,
the Biodiversity Conservation Alliance, the Center for Biological
Diversity, the Center for Native Ecosystems, the Western Watersheds
Project, and the Xerces Society, requesting that the Jackson Lake
springsnail, Harney Lake springsnail, and Columbia springsnail be
listed as either threatened or endangered species, either as individual
species or, together with the Idaho springsnail, as a single new
species. The listing petition discussed the recent taxonomic revision
and acknowledged that the Jackson Lake springsnail, Harney Lake
springsnail, Columbia springsnail, and Idaho springsnail may be one
species, but contended that, whether considered individually or as one
species, all four springsnails warranted the protection of the Act. (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) The petition cited habitat loss and degradation
from development of springs, domestic livestock grazing, and
groundwater withdrawal, among other factors, as threats to the
continued existence of these springsnails.
On April 20, 2005, we published combined 90-day petition findings
(70 FR 20512), stating that both petitions provided substantial
information suggesting that delisting of the Idaho springsnail, or
listing of the Jackson Lake springsnail (both the new and the old
taxonomic grouping), the Harney Lake springsnail, and the Columbia
springsnail, may be warranted.
On September 28, 2006, we published a warranted 12-month finding on
the petition to delist the endangered Idaho springsnail along with a
not warranted 12-month finding on the petition to list the Jackson Lake
springsnail (both the new and the old taxonomic grouping), Harney Lake
springsnail, and Columbia springsnail. Concurrent with these findings
we published a proposed rule to remove the Idaho springsnail from the
List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife due to the change in its
taxonomic status (71 FR 56938).
Summary of Comments and Recommendations
In our September 28, 2006, combined 12-month finding and proposed
rule (71 FR 56938), we requested that all interested parties submit
comments or information concerning the proposed delisting of the Idaho
springsnail. We provided notification of this document through e-mail,
telephone calls, letters, and news releases faxed and/or mailed to the
appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies, county governments,
elected officials, media outlets, local jurisdictions, scientific
organizations, interested groups, and other interested parties. We also
posted the document on our regional Web site.
We accepted public comments on the proposal for 60 days, ending
November 27, 2006. By that date, we received comments from three
parties, specifically one law firm representing the State of Idaho's
Office of Species Conservation and IPC, and two organizations.
In accordance with our peer review policy published on July 1, 1994
(59 FR 34270), we solicited independent opinions from four
knowledgeable individuals who have expertise with the genus
Pyrgulopsis, who possess a current knowledge of the geographic region
where the species occurs, and/or are familiar with the principles of
conservation biology. We received comments from four peer reviewers,
three of whom are associated with academic research institutions and
one who is employed by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS).
[[Page 43562]]
We reviewed all comments received from peer reviewers and the
public for substantive issues and new information regarding the
proposed delisting of the Idaho springsnail. Substantive comments
received during the comment period are addressed below.
We also received several comments from both the public and peer
reviewers concerning threats to the Jackson Lake springsnail because
our proposed rule to delist the Idaho springsnail due to taxonomic
revision was published jointly with our 12-month finding on a petition
to list the Jackson Lake springsnail (71 FR 56938). However, we
addressed the threats to the Jackson Lake springsnail in our 12-month
finding and found that listing was not warranted. Therefore, comments
on the threats to the Jackson Lake springsnail are outside the scope of
the proposed rule to delist the Idaho springsnail and those comments
are not addressed in this final rule.
Public Comments
(1) Comment: The Idaho springsnail is more widespread than
previously known at the time of its listing and is more resilient and
less vulnerable to certain habitat-altering activities than previously
thought.
Response: Although the Idaho springsnail is no longer recognized as
a discreet taxon, the formerly recognized species is now known from
more locations than at the time of listing and appears to be more
resilient and less vulnerable to certain habitat-altering activities
than previously thought. We appreciate the efforts of those who
collected and synthesized information to expand our understanding of
Pyrgulopsis taxonomy and ecology.
(2) Comment: Despite their conclusions, the data presented by
Hershler and Liu (2004) illustrate the geographic, morphological, and
genetic divergence of the Idaho springsnail from other springsnails in
the region, and therefore the Idaho springsnail should continue to be
protected under the Act.
Response: In a recent scientific article by Hershler and Liu
(2004), published in the Veliger (an international, peer-reviewed
scientific quarterly published by the California Malacozoological
Society), the authors revised the taxonomic status of the Idaho
springsnail, combining it with three other groups of Natricola
springsnails. Hershler and Liu (2004, p. 77) concluded ``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.'' For the reasons stated in
the Background section of this final rule, we believe that Hershler and
Liu (2004, pp. 66-81) represents the best available scientific and
commercial data on the taxonomic status of the four Natricola
springsnails and that the Idaho springsnail no longer constitutes a
distinct species and does not warrant protection under the Act.
(3) Comment: The ecological and evolutionary divergence of the
Idaho springsnail is significant and would easily qualify it for
continued protection as a distinct population segment under the Act.
Response: Section 4(a)(1) of the Act outlines the factors for which
we may list an endangered or threatened species. Section 3 of the Act
defines an endangered species as ``any species which is in danger of
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range,'' and
a threatened species as ``any species which is likely to become an
endangered species throughout all or a significant portion of its
range.'' Section 3 of the Act also defines a species to include any
subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population
segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds
when mature. Because springsnails are invertebrates, they do not
qualify for protection as a distinct population segment under the Act.
(4) Comment: The Service should specify in its final rule that
delisting of the Idaho springsnail is warranted due to recovery and
original data for classification in error.
Response: Section 4(a)(1) of the Act and regulations (50 CFR part
424) issued to implement the listing provisions of the Act set forth
the procedures for adding species to, or removing them from, Federal
lists. The regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d) state that a species may be
delisted if: (1) The species is extinct or has been extirpated from its
previous range; (2) the species has recovered and is no longer
endangered or threatened; or (3) investigations show that the best
scientific or commercial data available when the species was listed, or
the interpretation of such data, were in error. Since the time of the
Idaho springsnail listing in 1992, genetics research and additional
survey effort have revealed that it is not a distinct species, but is
now part of a combined taxon that is widely distributed (occurring in
Wyoming, Oregon, Idaho, and Washington) and occurs in a variety of
habitat types.
We acknowledge that numerous recovery actions were implemented for
the Idaho springsnail, and we commend the State of Idaho, IPC, and
other conservation partners for their ongoing efforts to conserve
listed species, but the primary reason we are removing the Idaho
springsnail from the List is its taxonomic reclassification.
Peer Review Comments
(1) Comment: Data presented in the combined 12-month finding and
proposed rule support the case for combining the Idaho springsnail
under the Jackson Lake springsnail as recommended by Hershler and Liu
(2004), but further ecological, biological, and population genetic
evidence would greatly strengthen this case.
Response: We acknowledge that more scientific inquiry and
subsequent information may strengthen the case for Hershler and Liu's
(2004) taxonomic revisions with the Pyrgulopsis genus; however, our
charge is to use the best available commercial and scientific
information in our assessments. Hershler and Liu (2004) published their
taxonomic review of the Idaho springsnail, the Harney Lake springsnail,
the Jackson Lake springsnail, and the Columbia springsnail in a peer-
reviewed scientific journal and determined that they were all one
species. No other peer-reviewed scientific studies have been published
that challenge the veracity or conclusions of Hershler and Liu (2004).
Furthermore, it is the position of the American Malacological Society
that the Hershler and Liu (2004) revised taxonomy sets the standard for
understanding this group of springsnails (Leal in litt. 2004).
Therefore, we believe that Hershler and Liu (2004) currently represents
the best scientific information available with respect to Idaho
springsnail taxonomy.
(2) Comment: The Service appears to be delisting the Idaho
springsnail solely because it is more wide-ranging than thought at the
time of listing, regardless of the fact that we know relatively little
about the species as a whole.
Response: Although the range of the Jackson Lake springsnail was
one factor that contributed to our ``not warranted'' petition finding
for that species (see 71 FR 56938), our decision to delist the Idaho
springsnail is based on the fact that it is not currently recognized as
a valid species as defined by the Act.
Delisting Analysis
After a review of all information available, we are removing the
Idaho springsnail from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.
Section 4(a)(1) of the Act and regulations (50 CFR part 424) issued to
implement the listing provisions of the Act set forth the
[[Page 43563]]
procedures for adding species to or removing them from Federal lists.
The regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d) state that a species may be
delisted if (1) it becomes extinct, (2) it recovers, or (3) the
original classification data were in error.
New scientific information has become available since we listed the
Idaho springsnail in 1992. Most pertinent among this new information is
a taxonomic reappraisal of Natricola snails, published by Hershler and
Liu (2004), in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Their study
indicated that this formerly recognized species has been subsumed by a
more widely distributed taxon. Because the Idaho springsnail is no
longer considered a species as defined by the Act, it does not qualify
for listing under the Act. The original classification data related to
Pyrgulopsis taxonomy, although considered the best available
information at the time of listing, are now thought to be in error.
When a listed species is subsumed by another entity, we believe it
is prudent to examine the status of the new entity before delisting the
subsumed taxon. In our combined 12-month finding and proposed rule we
considered whether listing the Jackson Lake springsnail was warranted,
and found that it was not (71 FR 56938).
Effects of This Rule
This action removes the Idaho springsnail from the List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. The prohibitions and conservation
measures provided by the Act, particularly under sections 7 and 9, no
longer apply to the Idaho springsnail. Federal agencies no longer are
required to consult with the Service under section 7 of the Act on
actions they fund, authorize, or carry out that may affect the Idaho
springsnail. There is no designated critical habitat for the Idaho
springsnail.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
This rule does not contain any new collections of information that
require Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval under the
Paperwork Reduction Act. We may not conduct or sponsor, and you are not
required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays
a currently valid OMB control number.
National Environmental Policy Act
The Service has determined that Environmental Assessments and
Environmental Impact Statements, as defined under the authority of the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.),
need not be prepared in connection with actions adopted under section
4(a) of the Act. We published a notice outlining our reasons for this
determination in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR
49244). This assertion was upheld in the courts of the Ninth Circuit
(Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. Ore. 1995), cert.
denied 116 S. Ct. 698 (1996)).
Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994,
``Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal
Governments'' (59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175, and the Department
of the Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. Therefore, we have
solicited information from Native American Tribes during the comment
period and informational briefing to determine potential effects on
them or their resources that may result from the delisting of the Idaho
springsnail.
References
A complete list of all references cited is available on request
from the Snake River Fish and Wildlife Office, 1387 S. Vinnell Way,
Room 368, Boise, ID 83709.
Author
The primary authors of this document are staff of the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (see References Section above).
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Regulation Promulgation
0
Accordingly, we amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of
the Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
PART 17 [AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C.
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.
Sec. 17.11 [Amended].
0
2. Amend Sec. 17.11(h) by removing the entry ``Springsnail, Idaho
(Fontelicella idahoensis)'' under ``SNAILS'' from the List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.
Dated: July 26, 2007.
Randall Luthi,
Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. E7-15111 Filed 8-2-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
