Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Sacramento Valley Tiger Beetle as Endangered, 63421-63424 [E8-25403]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 207 / Friday, October 24, 2008 / Proposed Rules
clause and does not impose an
economic impact beyond that addressed
in the current clause.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act (Pub.
L. 104–13) is not applicable because the
NFS changes do not impose information
collection requirements that require the
approval of the Office of Management
and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501, et
seq.
List of Subjects in 48 CFR Part 1852
Government Procurement.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 2455(a), 2473(c)(1).
PART 1852—SOLICITATION
PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT
CLAUSES
§ 1852.247–71 Protection of the Florida
Manatee. As prescribed in 1847.7001, insert
the following clause:
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
50 CFR Part 17
[FWS–R8–ES–2008–0112; MO 9221050083–
B2]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a
Petition To List the Sacramento Valley
Tiger Beetle as Endangered
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition
finding.
AGENCY:
2. Section 1852.247–71 is revised to
read as follows:
PROTECTION OF THE FLORIDA MANATEE
(XX/XX)
(a) Pursuant to the Endangered Species Act
of 1973 (Pub. L. 93–205), as amended, and
the Marine Mammals Protection Act of 1972
(Pub. L. 92–522), the Florida Manatee
(Trichechus Manatus) has been designated an
endangered species, and the Indian River
Lagoon system within and adjacent to
National Aeronautics and Space
Administration’s (NASA’s) Kennedy Space
Center (KSC) has been designated as a critical
habitat of the Florida Manatee. The KSC
Environmental Management Branch will
advise all personnel associated with the
project of the potential presence of manatees
in the work area, and the need to avoid
collisions and/or harassment of the manatees.
Contractors shall ensure that all employees,
subcontractors, and other individuals
associated with this contract and who are
involved in vessel operations, dockside work,
and selected disassembly functions are aware
of the civil and criminal penalties for
harming, harassing, or killing manatees.
(b) All contractor personnel shall be
responsible for complying with all applicable
Federal and/or state permits (e.g. Florida
Department of Environmental Protection
[FDEP], St. Johns River Water Management
District [WMD], Fish & Wildlife Service
[FWS]) in performing water-related activities
within the contract. Where no Federal and/
or state permits are required for said contract,
and the contract scope requires activities
within waters at KSC, the Contractor shall
obtain a KSC Manatee Protection Permit from
the Environmental Management Branch. All
conditions of Federal, state, and/or KSC
Jkt 217001
BILLING CODE 7510–01–P
Fish and Wildlife Service
Accordingly, 48 CFR Part 1852 is
proposed to be amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for 48 CFR
Part 1852 continues to read as follows:
17:11 Oct 23, 2008
[FR Doc. E8–25401 Filed 10–23–08; 8:45 am]
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
William P. McNally,
Assistant Administrator for Procurement.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
regulations and permits for manatee
protection shall be binding to the contract.
Notification and coordination of all water
related activities at KSC will be done through
the Environmental Management Branch.
(c) The Contractor shall incorporate the
provisions of this clause in applicable
subcontracts.
(End of clause)
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), announce a
90-day finding on a petition to list the
Sacramento Valley tiger beetle
(Cicindela hirticollis abrupta) as
threatened or endangered under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act). We find that the petition
does not present substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating that
listing the Sacramento Valley tiger
beetle may be warranted. Therefore, we
will not be initiating a further status
review in response to this petition.
However, we ask the public to submit to
us any new information that becomes
available concerning the status of, or
threats to, the Sacramento Valley tiger
beetle or its habitat at any time.
DATES: The finding announced in this
document was made on October 24,
2008.
This finding is available on
the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov. Supporting
documentation we used in preparing
this finding is available for public
inspection, by appointment, during
normal business hours at the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Sacramento Fish
and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, 2800 Cottage Way,
Room W–2605, Sacramento, CA 95825–
1846. Please submit any new
information, materials, comments, or
questions concerning this finding to the
above address.
ADDRESSES:
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
63421
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Susan Moore, Field Supervisor, or
Arnold Roessler, Listing Branch Chief,
of the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife
Office (see ADDRESSES), by telephone at
(916) 414–6600, or by facsimile to (916)
414–6712. If you use a
telecommunications device for the deaf
(TDD), please call the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at
800–877–8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act)
(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 to indicate that
the petitioned action may be warranted.
We are to base this finding on
information provided in the petition,
supporting information submitted with
the petition, and information otherwise
available in our files at the time we
make the determination. To the
maximum extent practicable, we are to
make this finding within 90 days of our
receipt of the petition, and publish our
notice of the finding promptly in the
Federal Register.
Our standard for substantial
information within the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) with regard to a 90day 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.
We base this finding on information
provided by the petitioner that we
determined to be reliable after reviewing
sources referenced in the petition and
information available in our files at the
time of the petition review. We
evaluated that information in
accordance with 50 CFR 424.14(b). Our
process for making this 90-day finding
under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act and
50 CFR 424.14(b) of our regulations is
limited to a determination of whether
the information in the petition meets the
‘‘substantial information’’ threshold.
Petition History
On May 14, 2003, we received a
petition, dated May 13, 2003, from Mr.
John Mendoza of Chico, California,
requesting we emergency list the
Sacramento Valley tiger beetle as an
endangered species. The petition clearly
identified itself as such and included
the requisite identification information
E:\FR\FM\24OCP1.SGM
24OCP1
63422
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 207 / Friday, October 24, 2008 / Proposed Rules
of the petitioner required at 50 CFR
424.14(a). In our July 9, 2003, response
letter to Mr. Mendoza, we explained
that we had reviewed the petition and
determined that an emergency listing
was not warranted, and that due to court
orders and judicially approved
settlement agreements, we would not be
able to further address the petition to
list the Sacramento Valley tiger beetle at
that time, but would complete the
action when workload and funding
allowed. This finding addresses the
petition.
Previous Federal Actions
We had included the Sacramento
Valley tiger beetle as a candidate
(Category 2) for Federal listing as either
threatened or endangered in the 1994
Candidate Notice of Review (CNOR) (59
FR 58981, November 15, 1994, p.
59014). Category 2 status included those
taxa for which information in the
Service’s possession indicated that a
proposed listing rule was possibly
appropriate, but for which sufficient
data on biological vulnerability and
threats were not available to support a
proposed rule. In the CNOR published
on February 28, 1996, we announced a
revised list of animal and plant taxa that
were regarded as candidates for possible
addition to the Lists of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife and Plants (61 FR
7595). The revised candidate list
included only former Category 1
species. All former Category 2 species
were dropped from the list in order to
reduce confusion about the conservation
status of these species, and to clarify
that the Service no longer regarded
these species as candidates for listing.
Because the Sacramento Valley tiger
beetle was a Category 2 species, it was
no longer recognized as a candidate
species as of the February 28, 1996,
CNOR.
Species Information
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Subspecies Description
The Sacramento Valley tiger beetle is
one of 11 recognized subspecies of the
hairy-necked tiger beetle (Cicindela
hirticollis), so called because of the
small white hairs on the side of the
thorax (the middle of three body
sections in insects) (Pearson et al. 2006,
p. 71). Hairy-necked tiger beetles are
medium-sized beetles approximately 10
to 15 millimeters (mm) (0.4 to 0.6 inches
(in)) long, with cream-colored
maculations (spots and squiggles) on
their wing covers (elytra).
The Sacramento Valley tiger beetle is
distinguished most easily by its dark
blackish-brown background color, and
by the two G-shaped maculations at the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:11 Oct 23, 2008
Jkt 217001
front of the elytra (Pearson et al. 2006,
p. 72). These maculations tend to be
strongly hooked, and separate from a
line running along the outer elytral
edge. The Sacramento Valley tiger beetle
was first described as a subspecies in
1913 (Casey 1913, p. 31), and its
subspecies status was confirmed by
Graves et al. in 1988 (Graves et al. 1988,
pp. 660–661).
Distribution
The petition did not provide any
information on the Sacramento Valley
tiger beetle’s distribution or life history.
However, from information in our files,
we know that although the hairy-necked
tiger beetle is distributed widely across
North America, the Sacramento Valley
tiger beetle is only known from five
locations in the Sacramento Valley of
California (Knisley 2004, p. 8, fig. 1,
table 1; Pearson et al. 2006, p. 74;
CNDDB 2007, pp. 1–5). Three of the five
locations are in or near the cities of:
Colusa, in Colusa County; Nicolaus, in
Sutter County; and Davis, in Yolo
County. A fourth location is along the
Feather River, about 6 miles (10
kilometers) southwest of Nicolaus, in
Sutter County. The fifth location does
not appear in the California Natural
Diversity Database (CNDDB), but is
supported by various collection
specimens examined by Knisley (2004,
p. 8, table 1). The specimens were
variously labeled ‘‘Sacramento’’ and
‘‘Sacramento, west’’, and so may come
from either the City of Sacramento, in
Sacramento County, or West
Sacramento, in Yolo County. Knisley
stated they were probably from West
Sacramento (Knisley 2004, p. 8, fig. 1),
but he also indicated they may have
come from Discovery Park, which is in
the city of Sacramento (Knisley 2004, p.
8).
The CNDDB lists the Nicolaus site as
historically supporting the largest
known population, with over 250
individuals seen in 1984, but it is
difficult to make comparisons since
population estimates for other sites were
not recorded (Knisley 2004, table 1;
CNDDB 2007, pp. 1–5). The Nicolaus
site has also provided the majority of
collection records (19 of 29), and was
the location of the subspecies’ last
known siting on April 14, 1984 (Knisley
2004, p. 8, table 1; CNDDB 2007, pp. 1–
5). Existing records for other sites are
much older, ranging from May 1918 in
‘‘Sacramento,’’ to April 1959 at the site
6 miles (10 kilometers) southwest of
Nicolaus (Knisley 2004, table 1).
Habitat and Life History
Although there is essentially no
literature on the specific biology of the
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Sacramento Valley tiger beetle, the
hairy-necked tiger beetle species as a
whole lives on sandy soils near water,
including sandy riverbanks and sand
bars (Graves et al. 1988, p. 647; Knisley
2004, p. 5; Knisley and Fenster 2005, p.
451). In relatively warmer areas of North
America, including Virginia and
presumably in California’s Sacramento
Valley, eggs are laid in early spring, and
the grublike larvae hatch and pass
through three molts prior to becoming
adults in late summer (Knisley 2004, p.
6). Beginning in late September to midOctober, the adults overwinter in
burrows they dig in the sand. They then
re-emerge in early spring to mate and
lay eggs (Knisley 2004, pp. 5, 6). They
are not known to live through two
winters as adults, although subspecies
living in colder areas may overwinter
their first year as larvae and overwinter
a second year as adults. Both adults and
larvae are predatory and feed on small
arthropods such as ants, flies, and
spiders (Knisley 2004, p. 6; Pearson et
al. 2006, pp. 7, 8). Larvae dig burrows
in the sand from which they ambush
passing prey (Pearson et al. 2006, pp. 8,
9). Adults hunt during the day, running
down prey items by sight and catching
them with their large mandibles. They
may also scavenge on dead organisms
(Fenster and Knisley 2006, p. 2).
Status of the Species
The petition cites a February 2003
final draft report to the Service on the
status of the Sacramento Valley tiger
beetle as reported by Dr. C. Barry
Knisley (Knisley 2003, pp. 1–19 plus
appendices). The status review cited by
the petition indicates that only three
Sacramento Valley tiger beetles were
found during comprehensive surveys of
historically occupied sites and potential
habitat within the subspecies’ known
range. However, a subsequently revised
draft of the report (2004 revised report)
explains that the surveys did not in fact
find any Sacramento Valley tiger
beetles, and concludes that the
Sacramento Valley tiger beetle ‘‘must
now be extinct from throughout its
former range along the Feather and
Sacramento Rivers and from other areas
of potential range’’ (Knisley 2004, p. 10).
Knisley explains in the 2004 revised
report (Knisley 2004, p. 10), that the
three ‘‘Sacramento Valley tiger beetles’’
previously reported were actually
Cicindela hirticollis gravida collected at
Point Reyes, California, and mistakenly
placed by a colleague in a vial
containing C. oregona tiger beetles from
Nicolaus, California.
Knisley (2004, pp. 9–10) concluded
the Sacramento Valley tiger beetle is
extinct based on 4 years of surveys
E:\FR\FM\24OCP1.SGM
24OCP1
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 207 / Friday, October 24, 2008 / Proposed Rules
(2001 to 2004) conducted during
months and times when the adults
should have been active (May to
October). The surveys included all
potential sites within the Sacramento
Valley tiger beetle’s known historic
range, as well as many additional sites
outside the subspecies’ known range
that contained the necessary habitat
characteristics. The areas surveyed
included stream reaches of the Kings
River in Tulare, Kings, and Fresno
Counties; San Joaquin River in Fresno,
Madera, Stanislaus, San Joaquin,
Sacramento, and Contra Costa Counties;
American River in Sacramento County;
Yuba River in Yuba County; Feather
River in Yuba and Sutter Counties; and
the Sacramento River in Shasta,
Tehama, Glenn, Colusa, Sutter, Yolo,
Sacramento, and Solano Counties. River
sections deemed most likely to still
support Sacramento Valley tiger beetles
(based on remaining habitat and historic
population locations) were surveyed
four to six times each over 4 years. Over
150 different sites were surveyed from
2001 to 2004, including 130 sites in
2003–2004. Survey methods and
conclusions were also published in a
peer-reviewed journal (Knisley and
Fenster 2005). Because the sandy
shoreline habitat preferred by
Sacramento Valley tiger beetles was
easily identified and searched, there is
a high likelihood the surveys would
have accounted for year-to-year
variation in population numbers and
would have found Sacramento Valley
tiger beetles had any remained extant.
Knisley and Fenster (2005, p. 451)
estimated the subspecies probably went
extinct in the late 1980s to early 1990s.
Based on the best scientific
information available, the most likely
cause of the Sacramento Valley tiger
beetle’s extinction is habitat change
brought about by construction of
Oroville and Shasta dams (Knisley 2003,
p. 15; Knisley 2004, p. 24; Knisley and
Fenster 2005, p. 456; Fenster and
Knisley 2006, pp. 19–20). Flow
alterations established by these dams
likely led to the gradual loss of finegrained shoreline habitat due to
reduction of sediment transport,
reduced variability in water flow, and
resulting increases to vegetation growth
along the water’s edge. Due to these
factors, relatively little suitable habitat
now remains along the Feather and
Sacramento rivers within the
Sacramento Valley tiger beetle’s historic
range (Knisley and Fenster 2005, p.
456). Flow releases are also likely to
have resulted in prolonged flooding of
large areas of remaining, suitable
habitat, drowning larvae in their
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:11 Oct 23, 2008
Jkt 217001
burrows during summer months, and
adults in their overwintering burrows
during the winter (Fenster and Knisley
2006, p. 19). Both larvae and adults
have adapted to short periods of
immersion, such as might have resulted
from heavy flows prior to dam
construction, but C. hirticollis larvae
will die after 4 to 8 days of immersion,
and may simply dig out of their burrows
prior to that, to be swept away by the
flow (Knisley 2004, p. 19; Fenster and
Knisley 2006, p. 20). Adults survive
only a few days of immersion (Fenster
and Knisley 2006, p. 20), although it is
unclear to what extent an overwintering
adult would be able to simply move to
higher ground (Knisley 2004, p. 22).
Additional habitat loss has been
caused by riprapping and
channelization, particularly in the
Sacramento River south of Colusa
(Knisley 2003, p. 14; Knisley 2004, p.
25; Knisley and Fenster 2005, p. 456).
The ‘‘Davis’’ occurrence, which likely
was actually west of Davis along Putah
Creek (Knisley 2004, p. 8), would not
have been affected by the construction
of Shasta or Oroville dams, but would
have been subjected to similar losses of
sandy shoreline habitat due to the
construction of Monticello dam in 1957
(Knisley 2004, p. 28; USBR 2007, p. 1).
Some suitable sandy river edge habitat
may remain at the site of the
‘‘Sacramento’’ occurrence, assuming
that site to be Discovery Park (Knisley
2004, p. 8), but that habitat is heavily
impacted by human foot traffic and
would therefore be largely unsuitable
for Sacramento Valley tiger beetles.
Species Status Summary: Stream flow
management through the construction of
dams and streambank alteration through
channelization and riprapping has
posed a serious threat to the Sacramento
Valley tiger beetle by causing habitat
destruction, alteration, and inundation
of historic and other suitable habitat for
the subspecies. Extensive survey efforts
of areas with known populations and
other areas with suitable habitat have
been unable to locate any extant
populations of the Sacramento Valley
tiger beetle. As a result of these survey
efforts, the Sacramento Valley tiger
beetle is believed to be extinct, and this
likely occurred sometime in the late
1980s or early 1990s. Although no
single factor (dam construction and
operation, stream channelization, levee
construction, riprapping, etc.) can be
singled out as the cause for the
subspecies’ decline, the combination of
all these factors has led to the extinction
of this subspecies.
The petition presented information
for one of the five listing factors (Factor
A) in section 4 of the Act in an effort
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
63423
to identify threats that may be leading
to the decline of the Sacramento Valley
tiger beetle. However, these factors are
pertinent only in cases where the
organism being proposed for listing:
May be a listable entity as defined by
section 3(16) of the Act; and is extant in
the wild. Because the information in our
files indicates that the Sacramento
Valley tiger beetle is now extinct and, at
the time the petition was presented to
the Service, no longer extant in the
wild, the five threat factors are not
analyzed here.
Significant Portion of the Range
Analysis
We have reviewed the information
presented and supported in the petition
and in our files to assess whether there
may be any area within the range of the
subspecies that would be considered a
significant portion of its range. Because
the information in our files indicates
that the Sacramento Valley tiger beetle
to be extinct, an analysis of what might
constitute a significant portion of the
subspecies’ range is not applicable.
Finding
The petition focused entirely on
threats posed by Factor A (habitat
alterations), arguing that riprapping,
channelization, and inopportune water
releases from Oroville and Shasta dams
altered the beetle’s habitat in a manner
that threatens or endangers the
subspecies. All available evidence
indicates that the subspecies is extinct,
and most likely this occurred in the late
1980s or early 1990s, approximately a
decade before the petition to list was
submitted to the Service. The Act and
our regulations define an ‘‘endangered
species’’ to mean a species that is in
danger of extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range (16
U.S.C. 1532(6) and 50 CFR 424.02(e)).
Similarly, a ‘‘threatened species’’ is
defined as any species that is likely to
become an endangered species within
the foreseeable future throughout all or
a significant portion of its range (16
U.S.C. 1532(20) and 50 CFR 424.02(m)).
Because the Sacramento Valley tiger
beetle is extinct, it therefore is not
eligible for listing as an endangered or
threatened species under the Act.
We have reviewed the petition and
supporting information provided with
the petition and evaluated that
information in relation to other
pertinent literature and information
available to us at the time of the petition
review. Because the subspecies is
extinct, we also determined that a
significant portion of the range analysis
for the subspecies is not appropriate.
Based on this review and evaluation, we
E:\FR\FM\24OCP1.SGM
24OCP1
63424
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 207 / Friday, October 24, 2008 / Proposed Rules
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
find that the petition and other available
information does not present substantial
information demonstrating that listing
the Sacramento Valley tiger beetle under
the Act as threatened or endangered in
all or a significant portion of its range
may be warranted at this time. We
encourage interested parties to continue
to gather and provide data on potential
occurrence information for the
Sacramento Valley tiger beetle.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:11 Oct 23, 2008
Jkt 217001
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited
in this document is available, upon
request, from the Sacramento Fish and
Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES).
Author
The primary authors of this notice are
staff of Sacramento Fish and Wildlife
Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
2800 Cottage Way, Sacramento, Ca
95825.
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Authority
The authority for this action is the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: October 17, 2008.
Kenneth Stansell,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.
[FR Doc. E8–25403 Filed 10–23–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
E:\FR\FM\24OCP1.SGM
24OCP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 207 (Friday, October 24, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 63421-63424]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-25403]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[FWS-R8-ES-2008-0112; MO 9221050083-B2]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on
a Petition To List the Sacramento Valley Tiger Beetle as Endangered
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition finding.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a
90-day finding on a petition to list the Sacramento Valley tiger beetle
(Cicindela hirticollis abrupta) as threatened or endangered under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We find that the
petition does not present substantial scientific or commercial
information indicating that listing the Sacramento Valley tiger beetle
may be warranted. Therefore, we will not be initiating a further status
review in response to this petition. However, we ask the public to
submit to us any new information that becomes available concerning the
status of, or threats to, the Sacramento Valley tiger beetle or its
habitat at any time.
DATES: The finding announced in this document was made on October 24,
2008.
ADDRESSES: This finding is available on the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov. Supporting documentation we used in preparing this
finding is available for public inspection, by appointment, during
normal business hours at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento
Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2800 Cottage
Way, Room W-2605, Sacramento, CA 95825-1846. Please submit any new
information, materials, comments, or questions concerning this finding
to the above address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Moore, Field Supervisor, or
Arnold Roessler, Listing Branch Chief, of the Sacramento Fish and
Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES), by telephone at (916) 414-6600, or by
facsimile to (916) 414-6712. If you use a telecommunications device for
the deaf (TDD), please call the Federal Information Relay Service
(FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act) (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 to indicate that the
petitioned action may be warranted. We are to base this finding on
information provided in the petition, supporting information submitted
with the petition, and information otherwise available in our files at
the time we make the determination. To the maximum extent practicable,
we are to make this finding within 90 days of our receipt of the
petition, and publish our notice of the finding promptly in the Federal
Register.
Our standard for substantial information within the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) 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.
We base this finding on information provided by the petitioner that
we determined to be reliable after reviewing sources referenced in the
petition and information available in our files at the time of the
petition review. We evaluated that information in accordance with 50
CFR 424.14(b). Our process for making this 90-day finding under section
4(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 50 CFR 424.14(b) of our regulations is
limited to a determination of whether the information in the petition
meets the ``substantial information'' threshold.
Petition History
On May 14, 2003, we received a petition, dated May 13, 2003, from
Mr. John Mendoza of Chico, California, requesting we emergency list the
Sacramento Valley tiger beetle as an endangered species. The petition
clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite
identification information
[[Page 63422]]
of the petitioner required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). In our July 9, 2003,
response letter to Mr. Mendoza, we explained that we had reviewed the
petition and determined that an emergency listing was not warranted,
and that due to court orders and judicially approved settlement
agreements, we would not be able to further address the petition to
list the Sacramento Valley tiger beetle at that time, but would
complete the action when workload and funding allowed. This finding
addresses the petition.
Previous Federal Actions
We had included the Sacramento Valley tiger beetle as a candidate
(Category 2) for Federal listing as either threatened or endangered in
the 1994 Candidate Notice of Review (CNOR) (59 FR 58981, November 15,
1994, p. 59014). Category 2 status included those taxa for which
information in the Service's possession indicated that a proposed
listing rule was possibly appropriate, but for which sufficient data on
biological vulnerability and threats were not available to support a
proposed rule. In the CNOR published on February 28, 1996, we announced
a revised list of animal and plant taxa that were regarded as
candidates for possible addition to the Lists of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife and Plants (61 FR 7595). The revised candidate list
included only former Category 1 species. All former Category 2 species
were dropped from the list in order to reduce confusion about the
conservation status of these species, and to clarify that the Service
no longer regarded these species as candidates for listing. Because the
Sacramento Valley tiger beetle was a Category 2 species, it was no
longer recognized as a candidate species as of the February 28, 1996,
CNOR.
Species Information
Subspecies Description
The Sacramento Valley tiger beetle is one of 11 recognized
subspecies of the hairy-necked tiger beetle (Cicindela hirticollis), so
called because of the small white hairs on the side of the thorax (the
middle of three body sections in insects) (Pearson et al. 2006, p. 71).
Hairy-necked tiger beetles are medium-sized beetles approximately 10 to
15 millimeters (mm) (0.4 to 0.6 inches (in)) long, with cream-colored
maculations (spots and squiggles) on their wing covers (elytra).
The Sacramento Valley tiger beetle is distinguished most easily by
its dark blackish-brown background color, and by the two G-shaped
maculations at the front of the elytra (Pearson et al. 2006, p. 72).
These maculations tend to be strongly hooked, and separate from a line
running along the outer elytral edge. The Sacramento Valley tiger
beetle was first described as a subspecies in 1913 (Casey 1913, p. 31),
and its subspecies status was confirmed by Graves et al. in 1988
(Graves et al. 1988, pp. 660-661).
Distribution
The petition did not provide any information on the Sacramento
Valley tiger beetle's distribution or life history. However, from
information in our files, we know that although the hairy-necked tiger
beetle is distributed widely across North America, the Sacramento
Valley tiger beetle is only known from five locations in the Sacramento
Valley of California (Knisley 2004, p. 8, fig. 1, table 1; Pearson et
al. 2006, p. 74; CNDDB 2007, pp. 1-5). Three of the five locations are
in or near the cities of: Colusa, in Colusa County; Nicolaus, in Sutter
County; and Davis, in Yolo County. A fourth location is along the
Feather River, about 6 miles (10 kilometers) southwest of Nicolaus, in
Sutter County. The fifth location does not appear in the California
Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), but is supported by various
collection specimens examined by Knisley (2004, p. 8, table 1). The
specimens were variously labeled ``Sacramento'' and ``Sacramento,
west'', and so may come from either the City of Sacramento, in
Sacramento County, or West Sacramento, in Yolo County. Knisley stated
they were probably from West Sacramento (Knisley 2004, p. 8, fig. 1),
but he also indicated they may have come from Discovery Park, which is
in the city of Sacramento (Knisley 2004, p. 8).
The CNDDB lists the Nicolaus site as historically supporting the
largest known population, with over 250 individuals seen in 1984, but
it is difficult to make comparisons since population estimates for
other sites were not recorded (Knisley 2004, table 1; CNDDB 2007, pp.
1-5). The Nicolaus site has also provided the majority of collection
records (19 of 29), and was the location of the subspecies' last known
siting on April 14, 1984 (Knisley 2004, p. 8, table 1; CNDDB 2007, pp.
1-5). Existing records for other sites are much older, ranging from May
1918 in ``Sacramento,'' to April 1959 at the site 6 miles (10
kilometers) southwest of Nicolaus (Knisley 2004, table 1).
Habitat and Life History
Although there is essentially no literature on the specific biology
of the Sacramento Valley tiger beetle, the hairy-necked tiger beetle
species as a whole lives on sandy soils near water, including sandy
riverbanks and sand bars (Graves et al. 1988, p. 647; Knisley 2004, p.
5; Knisley and Fenster 2005, p. 451). In relatively warmer areas of
North America, including Virginia and presumably in California's
Sacramento Valley, eggs are laid in early spring, and the grublike
larvae hatch and pass through three molts prior to becoming adults in
late summer (Knisley 2004, p. 6). Beginning in late September to mid-
October, the adults overwinter in burrows they dig in the sand. They
then re-emerge in early spring to mate and lay eggs (Knisley 2004, pp.
5, 6). They are not known to live through two winters as adults,
although subspecies living in colder areas may overwinter their first
year as larvae and overwinter a second year as adults. Both adults and
larvae are predatory and feed on small arthropods such as ants, flies,
and spiders (Knisley 2004, p. 6; Pearson et al. 2006, pp. 7, 8). Larvae
dig burrows in the sand from which they ambush passing prey (Pearson et
al. 2006, pp. 8, 9). Adults hunt during the day, running down prey
items by sight and catching them with their large mandibles. They may
also scavenge on dead organisms (Fenster and Knisley 2006, p. 2).
Status of the Species
The petition cites a February 2003 final draft report to the
Service on the status of the Sacramento Valley tiger beetle as reported
by Dr. C. Barry Knisley (Knisley 2003, pp. 1-19 plus appendices). The
status review cited by the petition indicates that only three
Sacramento Valley tiger beetles were found during comprehensive surveys
of historically occupied sites and potential habitat within the
subspecies' known range. However, a subsequently revised draft of the
report (2004 revised report) explains that the surveys did not in fact
find any Sacramento Valley tiger beetles, and concludes that the
Sacramento Valley tiger beetle ``must now be extinct from throughout
its former range along the Feather and Sacramento Rivers and from other
areas of potential range'' (Knisley 2004, p. 10). Knisley explains in
the 2004 revised report (Knisley 2004, p. 10), that the three
``Sacramento Valley tiger beetles'' previously reported were actually
Cicindela hirticollis gravida collected at Point Reyes, California, and
mistakenly placed by a colleague in a vial containing C. oregona tiger
beetles from Nicolaus, California.
Knisley (2004, pp. 9-10) concluded the Sacramento Valley tiger
beetle is extinct based on 4 years of surveys
[[Page 63423]]
(2001 to 2004) conducted during months and times when the adults should
have been active (May to October). The surveys included all potential
sites within the Sacramento Valley tiger beetle's known historic range,
as well as many additional sites outside the subspecies' known range
that contained the necessary habitat characteristics. The areas
surveyed included stream reaches of the Kings River in Tulare, Kings,
and Fresno Counties; San Joaquin River in Fresno, Madera, Stanislaus,
San Joaquin, Sacramento, and Contra Costa Counties; American River in
Sacramento County; Yuba River in Yuba County; Feather River in Yuba and
Sutter Counties; and the Sacramento River in Shasta, Tehama, Glenn,
Colusa, Sutter, Yolo, Sacramento, and Solano Counties. River sections
deemed most likely to still support Sacramento Valley tiger beetles
(based on remaining habitat and historic population locations) were
surveyed four to six times each over 4 years. Over 150 different sites
were surveyed from 2001 to 2004, including 130 sites in 2003-2004.
Survey methods and conclusions were also published in a peer-reviewed
journal (Knisley and Fenster 2005). Because the sandy shoreline habitat
preferred by Sacramento Valley tiger beetles was easily identified and
searched, there is a high likelihood the surveys would have accounted
for year-to-year variation in population numbers and would have found
Sacramento Valley tiger beetles had any remained extant. Knisley and
Fenster (2005, p. 451) estimated the subspecies probably went extinct
in the late 1980s to early 1990s.
Based on the best scientific information available, the most likely
cause of the Sacramento Valley tiger beetle's extinction is habitat
change brought about by construction of Oroville and Shasta dams
(Knisley 2003, p. 15; Knisley 2004, p. 24; Knisley and Fenster 2005, p.
456; Fenster and Knisley 2006, pp. 19-20). Flow alterations established
by these dams likely led to the gradual loss of fine-grained shoreline
habitat due to reduction of sediment transport, reduced variability in
water flow, and resulting increases to vegetation growth along the
water's edge. Due to these factors, relatively little suitable habitat
now remains along the Feather and Sacramento rivers within the
Sacramento Valley tiger beetle's historic range (Knisley and Fenster
2005, p. 456). Flow releases are also likely to have resulted in
prolonged flooding of large areas of remaining, suitable habitat,
drowning larvae in their burrows during summer months, and adults in
their overwintering burrows during the winter (Fenster and Knisley
2006, p. 19). Both larvae and adults have adapted to short periods of
immersion, such as might have resulted from heavy flows prior to dam
construction, but C. hirticollis larvae will die after 4 to 8 days of
immersion, and may simply dig out of their burrows prior to that, to be
swept away by the flow (Knisley 2004, p. 19; Fenster and Knisley 2006,
p. 20). Adults survive only a few days of immersion (Fenster and
Knisley 2006, p. 20), although it is unclear to what extent an
overwintering adult would be able to simply move to higher ground
(Knisley 2004, p. 22).
Additional habitat loss has been caused by riprapping and
channelization, particularly in the Sacramento River south of Colusa
(Knisley 2003, p. 14; Knisley 2004, p. 25; Knisley and Fenster 2005, p.
456). The ``Davis'' occurrence, which likely was actually west of Davis
along Putah Creek (Knisley 2004, p. 8), would not have been affected by
the construction of Shasta or Oroville dams, but would have been
subjected to similar losses of sandy shoreline habitat due to the
construction of Monticello dam in 1957 (Knisley 2004, p. 28; USBR 2007,
p. 1). Some suitable sandy river edge habitat may remain at the site of
the ``Sacramento'' occurrence, assuming that site to be Discovery Park
(Knisley 2004, p. 8), but that habitat is heavily impacted by human
foot traffic and would therefore be largely unsuitable for Sacramento
Valley tiger beetles.
Species Status Summary: Stream flow management through the
construction of dams and streambank alteration through channelization
and riprapping has posed a serious threat to the Sacramento Valley
tiger beetle by causing habitat destruction, alteration, and inundation
of historic and other suitable habitat for the subspecies. Extensive
survey efforts of areas with known populations and other areas with
suitable habitat have been unable to locate any extant populations of
the Sacramento Valley tiger beetle. As a result of these survey
efforts, the Sacramento Valley tiger beetle is believed to be extinct,
and this likely occurred sometime in the late 1980s or early 1990s.
Although no single factor (dam construction and operation, stream
channelization, levee construction, riprapping, etc.) can be singled
out as the cause for the subspecies' decline, the combination of all
these factors has led to the extinction of this subspecies.
The petition presented information for one of the five listing
factors (Factor A) in section 4 of the Act in an effort to identify
threats that may be leading to the decline of the Sacramento Valley
tiger beetle. However, these factors are pertinent only in cases where
the organism being proposed for listing: May be a listable entity as
defined by section 3(16) of the Act; and is extant in the wild. Because
the information in our files indicates that the Sacramento Valley tiger
beetle is now extinct and, at the time the petition was presented to
the Service, no longer extant in the wild, the five threat factors are
not analyzed here.
Significant Portion of the Range Analysis
We have reviewed the information presented and supported in the
petition and in our files to assess whether there may be any area
within the range of the subspecies that would be considered a
significant portion of its range. Because the information in our files
indicates that the Sacramento Valley tiger beetle to be extinct, an
analysis of what might constitute a significant portion of the
subspecies' range is not applicable.
Finding
The petition focused entirely on threats posed by Factor A (habitat
alterations), arguing that riprapping, channelization, and inopportune
water releases from Oroville and Shasta dams altered the beetle's
habitat in a manner that threatens or endangers the subspecies. All
available evidence indicates that the subspecies is extinct, and most
likely this occurred in the late 1980s or early 1990s, approximately a
decade before the petition to list was submitted to the Service. The
Act and our regulations define an ``endangered species'' to mean a
species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range (16 U.S.C. 1532(6) and 50 CFR 424.02(e)).
Similarly, a ``threatened species'' is defined as any species that is
likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range (16 U.S.C.
1532(20) and 50 CFR 424.02(m)). Because the Sacramento Valley tiger
beetle is extinct, it therefore is not eligible for listing as an
endangered or threatened species under the Act.
We have reviewed the petition and supporting information provided
with the petition and evaluated that information in relation to other
pertinent literature and information available to us at the time of the
petition review. Because the subspecies is extinct, we also determined
that a significant portion of the range analysis for the subspecies is
not appropriate. Based on this review and evaluation, we
[[Page 63424]]
find that the petition and other available information does not present
substantial information demonstrating that listing the Sacramento
Valley tiger beetle under the Act as threatened or endangered in all or
a significant portion of its range may be warranted at this time. We
encourage interested parties to continue to gather and provide data on
potential occurrence information for the Sacramento Valley tiger
beetle.
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited in this document is
available, upon request, from the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office
(see ADDRESSES).
Author
The primary authors of this notice are staff of Sacramento Fish and
Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2800 Cottage Way,
Sacramento, Ca 95825.
Authority
The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: October 17, 2008.
Kenneth Stansell,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. E8-25403 Filed 10-23-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
