Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List the Giant Palouse Earthworm (Drilolerius americanus) as Threatened or Endangered, 44547-44564 [2011-18645]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
wreier-aviles on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 143 / Tuesday, July 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules
Wastewater Contaminants in the United
States—(II) Untreated Drinking Water
Sources. The Science of the Total
Environment. Vol. 402:201–216.
54. Rudel, R.A.; Melly, S.J.; Geno, P.W.; Sun,
G.; and Brody, J.G. 1998. Identification of
Alkylphenols and Other Estrogenic
Phenolic Compounds in Wastewater,
Septage, and Groundwater on Cape Cod,
MA. Environmental Science &
Technology. Vol. 32:861–869.
55. Wilson, N.K.; Chuang, J.C.; Lyu, C.;
Menton, R.; and Morgan, M.K. 2003.
Aggregate exposures of nine preschool
children to persistent organic pollutants
at day care and home. Journal of
Exposure Analysis and Environmental
Epidemiology. Vol. 13:187–202.
56. Stuart, J.D.; Capulong, C.P.; Launer, K.D.;
and Pan, X. 2005. Analyses of phenolic
endocrine disrupting chemicals in
marine samples by both gas and liquid
chromatography-mass spectrometry.
Journal of Chromatography A. Vol.
1079:136–145.
57. Boyd, G.R.; Palmerib, J.M.; and Grimm,
D.A. 2004. Pharmaceuticals and Personal
Care Products (PPCPs) and Endocrine
Disrupting Chemicals (EDCs) in
Stormwater Canals and Bayou St. John in
New Orleans, Louisiana, USA. The
Science of the Total Environment. Vol.
333:137–48.
58. Staples, C.A.; Dorn, P.B.; Klecka, G.M.;
O’Block, S.T.; Branson, D.R.; and Harris,
L.R. 2000. Bisphenol A Concentrations
in Receiving Waters Near U.S.
Manufacturing and Processing Facilities.
Chemosphere. Vol. 40:521–525.
59. Zhang, S.; Zhang, Q.; Darisaw, S.; Ehie,
O.; and Wang, G. 2007. Simultaneous
Quantification of Polycyclic Aromatic
Hydrocarbons (PAHs), Polychlorinated
Biphenyls (PCBs), and Pharmaceuticals
and Personal Care Products (PPCPs) in
Mississippi River Water, in New Orleans,
Louisiana, USA. Chemosphere. Vol.
66:1057–1069.
60. Stackelberg, P.E.; Furlong, E.T.; Meyer,
M.T.; Zaugg, S.D.; Henderson, A.K.; and
Reissman, D.B. 2004. Persistence of
Pharmaceutical Compounds and Other
Organic Wastewater Contaminants in a
Conventional Drinking-Water-Treatment
Plant. The Science of the Total
Environment. Vol. 329:99–113.
61. Drewes, J.E.; Hemming, J.; Ladenburger,
S.J.; Schauer, J.; and Sonzogni, W. 2005.
An Assessment of Endocrine Disrupting
Activity Changes during Wastewater
Treatment through the Use of Bioassays
and Chemical Measurements. Water
Environment Research. Vol. 77:12–23.
62. ASTM International (ASTM). 2009.
ASTM D7574–09 Standard Test Method
for Determination of Bisphenol A in
Environmental Waters by Liquid
Chromatography/Tandem Mass
Spectrometry. Available on-line at https://
www.astm.org/Standards/D7574.htm.
63. ASTM. 2004. ASTM D5730–04 Standard
Guide for Site Characterization for
Environmental Purposes With Emphasis
on Soil, Rock, the Vadose Zone and
Ground Water. Available on-line at
https://www.astm.org/Standards/
D5730.htm.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:37 Jul 25, 2011
Jkt 223001
64. EPA. 1998. Method 8270D (SW–846),
Semivolatile Organic Compounds by Gas
Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry
(GC/MS), Revision 4. Available on-line at
https://www.epa.gov/sam/pdfs/EPA8270d.pdf.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under Executive Order 12866,
entitled ‘‘Regulatory Planning and
Review’’ (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993),
this action was submitted to the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) for
review. Any changes made to this
document in response to OMB
comments received by EPA during that
review have been documented in the
docket as required by the Executive
Order.
Since this document does not impose
or propose any requirements, and
instead seeks comments and suggestions
for the Agency to consider in possibly
developing a subsequent proposed rule,
the various other review requirements
that apply when an agency imposes
requirements do not apply to this
action. Nevertheless, as part of your
comments on this ANPRM, you may
include any comments or information
that you have regarding this action.
In particular, any comments or
information that would help the Agency
to assess the potential impact of a rule
on small entities pursuant to the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.); to consider
voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272
note); to consider environmental health
or safety effects on children pursuant to
Executive Order 13045, entitled
‘‘Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); or
to consider human health or
environmental effects on minority or
low-income populations pursuant to
Executive Order 12898, entitled
‘‘Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low-Income
Populations’’ (59 FR 7629, February 16,
1994).
The Agency will consider such
comments during the development of
any subsequent proposed rule as it takes
appropriate steps to address any
applicable requirements.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 799
Environmental protection, Bisphenol
A, BPA, Chemicals, Hazardous
substances, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
44547
Dated: July 20, 2011.
Stephen. A. Owens,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical
Safety and Pollution Prevention.
[FR Doc. 2011–18842 Filed 7–25–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS–R1–ES–2010–0023; MO
92210–0–008–B2]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a
Petition To List the Giant Palouse
Earthworm (Drilolerius americanus) as
Threatened or Endangered
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition
finding.
AGENCY:
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), announce a
12-month finding on a petition to list
the giant Palouse earthworm (Driloleirus
americanus) as threatened or
endangered as petitioned, and to
designate critical habitat under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act). After review of all
available scientific and commercial
information, we find that listing the
giant Palouse earthworm is not
warranted at this time. However, we ask
the public to submit to us any new
information that becomes available
concerning the threats to the giant
Palouse earthworm or its habitat at any
time.
DATES: The finding announced in this
document was made on July 26, 2011.
ADDRESSES: This finding is available on
the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov at Docket Number
FWS–R1–ES–2010–0023. 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, Washington Fish
and Wildlife Office, 510 Desmond Drive
SE., Suite 102, Lacey, WA 98503–1263;
telephone 360–753–9440; facsimile
360–753–9008. Please submit any new
information, materials, comments, or
questions concerning this finding to the
above street address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ken
Berg, Manager, Washington Fish and
Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES). If you
use a telecommunications device for the
deaf (TDD), please call the Federal
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\26JYP1.SGM
26JYP1
44548
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 143 / Tuesday, July 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at
800–877–8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
wreier-aviles on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with PROPOSALS
Background
Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act)
(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires that,
for any petition to revise the Federal
Lists of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife and Plants that contains
substantial scientific or commercial
information that listing the species may
be warranted, we make a finding within
12 months of the date of receipt of the
petition. In this finding, we will
determine that the petitioned action is:
(1) Not warranted, (2) warranted, or (3)
warranted, but the immediate proposal
of a regulation implementing the
petitioned action is precluded by other
pending proposals to determine whether
species are endangered or threatened,
and expeditious progress is being made
to add or remove qualified species from
the Federal Lists of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Section
4(b)(3)(C) of the Act requires that we
treat a petition for which the requested
action is found to be warranted but
precluded as though resubmitted on the
date of such finding, that is, requiring a
subsequent finding to be made within
12 months. We must publish these 12month findings in the Federal Register.
Previous Federal Actions
On August 30, 2006, we received a
petition dated August 18, 2006, from
three private citizens and three other
parties (the Palouse Prairie Foundation,
the Palouse Audubon Society, and
Friends of the Clearwater) requesting
that the giant Palouse earthworm
(Driloleirus americanus) (GPE) be listed
as an endangered or threatened species
under the Act, and critical habitat be
designated. The petition included
supporting information regarding the
species’ taxonomy and ecology,
distribution, present status, and causes
of decline. On October 9, 2007, we
published a 90-day finding stating that
the August 30, 2006, petition did not
provide substantial scientific or
commercial information to indicate that
listing the GPE may be warranted (72 FR
57273). On January 24, 2008, the
petitioners filed a lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court, Eastern District of
Washington against the U.S. Department
of the Interior and the Service
challenging the ‘‘not substantial’’
decision (Palouse Prairie Foundation et
al. v. Dirk Kempthorne, et al., No. 2:08–
cv–0032–FVS). On February 12, 2009,
the District Court denied the
Appellants’ motion for summary
judgment and granted summary
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:37 Jul 25, 2011
Jkt 223001
judgment in favor of the Service,
upholding the October 9, 2007,
determination. The U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed
the District Court ruling on June 14,
2010 (D.C. no. 2:08–cv–00032–FVS).
History of the Current Petition
On July 1, 2009, we received a new
petition dated June 30, 2009, from
Friends of the Clearwater, Center for
Biological Diversity, Palouse Audubon,
Palouse Prairie Foundation, and Palouse
Group of the Sierra Club (petitioners)
requesting that the GPE be listed as an
endangered or threatened species either
in the entirety of its range, or in the
Palouse bioregion as a significant
portion of its range, and that critical
habitat be designated under the Act. The
petition clearly identified itself as such
and included the requisite identification
information for the petitioners, as
required by 50 CFR 424.14(a). The
petition included information on the
GPE’s taxonomy, species description,
distribution, habitat, status, and
potential threats. The petition was
accompanied by a letter from Samuel W.
James, who stated that he is ‘‘the only
earthworm taxonomist operating in the
U.S.A.’’ and has ‘‘extensive experience
in biodiversity of earthworms’’ (2009 in
litt.), and included additional
information about the GPE and potential
threats to the species. In an August 5,
2009, letter to the petitioners, we
acknowledged receipt of the petition
and determined that issuing an
emergency regulation temporarily
listing the species under section 4(b)(7)
of the Act was not warranted. We also
stated that, due to funding constraints in
fiscal year 2009, we would not be able
to further address the petition at that
time but that we would further evaluate
the petition when funding became
available in fiscal year 2010.
On July 20, 2010, the Service
announced a 90-day finding on the 2009
petition to list the GPE as endangered or
threatened under the Act, and to
designate critical habitat (75 FR 42059).
Based on our review, we found the
petition presented substantial scientific
or commercial information indicating
that listing the GPE as endangered or
threatened may be warranted. We
initiated a review of the status of the
species to determine whether listing the
GPE was warranted, and requested
scientific and commercial data, and
other information, regarding the species.
This notice constitutes the 12-month
finding on the July 1, 2009, petition to
list the GPE as endangered or
threatened, as petitioned.
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Species Information
The GPE is one of about 100 native
and at least 45 nonnative earthworms
described in the United States (Hendrix
and Bohlen 2002, p. 802). However,
very little is known about the species.
The GPE was first described by Smith in
1897, based on a collection near
Pullman, Washington. At the time of
this collection, Smith stated: ‘‘This
species is very abundant in that region
of the country and their burrows are
sometimes seen extending to a depth of
over 15 feet’’ (Smith 1897, pp. 202–203).
His writing is based on second-hand
information provided by R.W. Doane of
Washington State Agricultural School
(now Washington State University) in
Pullman, Washington, which does not
offer numerical or geographical context
for his use of the terms ‘‘very abundant’’
or ‘‘that region of the country.’’ This
burrow depth characterization has not
been confirmed or contradicted by any
subsequent field work.
Early descriptions indicate the GPE
can be as long as 3 feet (ft) (0.9 meters
(m); Smith 1897, p. 203). Reports in the
popular literature of GPEs up to 3.3 ft
(1 m) in length (Science Daily 2006, p.
1; Science Daily 2008, p. 1) have not
been confirmed, and collections suggest
that specimens are more moderate in
size (approximately 6 to 8 inches (in)
(15.2 to 20.3 centimeters (cm)) in length)
(Smith 1937, p. 161; Science Daily 2006,
p. 1; Science Daily 2008, p. 1).
Taxonomy and Species Description
The Service accepts the current
taxonomic classification of the GPE
(Subclass—Lumbricina; Superfamily—
Megascolecoidea; Family—
Megascolecidae; Genus—Driloleirus;
Species—americanus) (Smith 1897, p.
203; Fender and McKey-Fender 1990, p.
372; Fender 1995, pp. 53–54). While the
naming conventions of the GPE have
changed over time (Megascolides
americanus in 1897 (Smith 1897, p.
203) changed to Driloleirus americanus
by 1990 (Fender and McKey-Fender
1990, p. 372), there is no information
provided in the petition or in our files
that would indicate scientific
disagreement about its taxonomic
classification as a species. Adult
specimens in the Driloleirus genus are
generally distinctive, but identifying to
the species level requires expert
morphological analysis, including
dissection or DNA evidence. Both
methods take time, and there are few
species experts. It is difficult to identify
juvenile earthworm species, because
they have no clitellum (a glandular
section in the body wall, similar in
shape to a saddle). The clitellum is a
E:\FR\FM\26JYP1.SGM
26JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 143 / Tuesday, July 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules
key morphological difference for
determining many species, and juvenile
earthworm coloration can also vary,
depending on soil type. Newly hatched
earthworms are even more difficult to
identify, and until DNA analysis
becomes a more available tool,
earthworm identification requires the
examination of sexually mature
individuals. Depending on site
conditions and growth, an earthworm
would need to be 3 to 6 months of age
before being recognizable as being in the
genus Driloleirus (Johnson-Maynard
2011, pers. com.).
Distribution
Distribution of native earthworm
species in the Pacific Northwest is
limited by several factors. Pleistocene
glaciation covered nearly the whole of
Canada and the northern edge of the
United States, eliminating earthworms
from the area covered with ice (Fender
1995, p. 54). Since the retreat of the
glaciers, earthworms in the Lumbricidae
family have been able to colonize the
ice-free areas in a few centuries,
although earthworm distribution in the
Megascolecidae family (to which the
GPE belongs) stops near the terminal
moraines (ridges of rock, gravel and soil
across valleys at the end glaciers or ice
fields) of the ice sheet. This may be
because the megascolecids prefer fine-
textured soils, which are largely absent
at the edge of Pleistocene glaciation
(Fender 1995, p. 55). Other barriers,
including mountain ranges and arid
areas (Bailey et al. 2002, p. 26), have
slowed recolonization of the Columbia
Basin.
At the time of the original description,
in 1897, this taxon was known only
from the area around Pullman,
Washington (Smith 1937, p. 157). The
GPE was originally considered to be an
endemic species (a species native to a
particular region), that uses grassland
sites with deep soil and native
vegetation of the Palouse bioregion
(Wells 1983, p. 213; James 1995, p. 1;
Niwa et al. 2001, p. 34). The Palouse
bioregion is an area of rolling hills and
deep soil in southeastern Washington
and adjacent northwestern Idaho. More
recently, this species has also been
found in Douglas-fir forests in the
Palouse region (Johnson-Maynard,
September 21, 2010, in litt. p. 1;
November 30, 2010, in litt. p. 1), and on
the eastern slope of the North Cascades
Mountains (Cascades) west of
Ellensburg, Washington (Fender and
McKey-Fender 1990, p. 358). In 2010,
the GPE was also documented in dry
pine forest habitat near Leavenworth,
Washington (Johnson-Maynard 2010, p.
3, in litt.). This broader distribution,
44549
which is now known to include Latah
County (Idaho), Whitman County
(Washington), Kittitas County
(Washington), and Chelan County
(Washington), provides evidence that
the species may not be endemic to
Palouse grasslands.
Confirmed GPE locations, and other
potential GPE locations (DNA is
currently being analyzed for these
specimens), are identified in Table 1.
Two of the potential GPE collections are
of particular interest: one in shrub/
grassland habitat near Chelan,
Washington, and one in second-growth
forest habitat east of Moscow, Idaho
(Johnson-Maynard 2010, pp. 1–2;
November 30, 2010, in litt. p. 2). The
DNA or morphology results for these
specimens are not yet available to
enable identification to the species
level, but if these specimens are
confirmed to be GPE, the currently
known distribution and habitat types
documented for the species will be
expanded. One commenter provided a
list of possible GPE locations in the
Palouse region (Hall 2010, in litt. pp. 2–
3), but acknowledged that the sites were
not confirmed. Although these
anecdotal locality reports may be
helpful in identifying areas for future
GPE surveys, they are not relevant to
this finding.
TABLE 1—LOCATIONS AND CHARACTERISTICS OF COLLECTIONS OF THE GPE OR Driloleirus GENUS
County/State
Positive ID as
GPE
Vegetation and other site
characteristics, if known
Collector
(sources)
comments
Pullman,
1897?
Pullman, 1931
Latah, ID ........
Yes ................
...............................................
Whitman, WA
Yes ................
...............................................
Pullman, 1978
Whitman WA?
Yes ................
Beneath hawthorn thicket .....
Hwy 95/195,
1978.
wreier-aviles on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with PROPOSALS
Site name/
year
Whitman, WA
Yes ................
...............................................
Moscow
Mountain,
1988.
Latah, ID ........
Yes ................
Douglas fir forest; Under the
moss and litter layer of a
forested site.
Collected by Doane. (Smith
1897, Gates 1967).
Collected by Svilha. (Smith
1937).
Collected by Fender. (Wells
et al. 1983, p. 213, credited to Fender). One mile
east of Pullman.
Collected by Fender. (Wells
et al. 1983, p. 213; credited to Fender). Follow-up
visit by Johnson-Maynard
and Fender in 2006
showed habitat significantly
degraded (Johnson-Maynard November 20, 2010,
in litt, p. 1).
Collected by Johnson and
Johnson. (Palouse Prairie
Foundation 2006; JohnsonMaynard, September 21,
2010, in litt. p. 1).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:37 Jul 25, 2011
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\26JYP1.SGM
Survey methods, if known
26JYP1
44550
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 143 / Tuesday, July 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1—LOCATIONS AND CHARACTERISTICS OF COLLECTIONS OF THE GPE OR Driloleirus GENUS—Continued
County/State
Positive ID as
GPE
Vegetation and other site
characteristics, if known
Collector
(sources)
comments
Ellensburg,
pre-1990.
Kittitas, WA ....
Yes ** .............
...............................................
Smoot Hill,
2005.
Whitman, WA
Yes ................
Native Palouse prairie remnant, some shrubs; 25%
slope, Northwest aspect,
2,723 feet elevation; Soil:
silt loam, gravelly sandy.
Collected by Fender. (Fender
1995; James 2000).
** Specimen in poor shape,
but reflects properties of
GPE (Fender Sept. 14,
2010, in litt. p. 1; Fender,
Sept. 30, 2010, in litt. p.
10; Johnson-Maynard
2011, Pers. Comm.).
´
Collected by Sanchez-de
´
´
´
Leon. (Sanchez-de Leon
and Johnson-Maynard
2009, p.1398; JohnsonMaynard November 30,
2010 in litt. p. 2–3 ). Found
during 2-year survey that
included remnant prairie
and Conservation Reserve
Program (CRP) grasslands
in Palouse.
Paradise
Ridge, 2008.
Latah, ID ........
Yes ................
Palouse prairie, some
shrubs; 30% slope; Southwest aspect; 3,527 feet
elevation; blue bunch
wheatgrass, Idaho fescue,
snowberry, non-native
grasses; Soil: Loam, high
content of gravel.
Paradise
Ridge, 2010.
Latah, ID ........
Yes. Identified
by James.
Palouse prairie, same as
above.
East of Moscow, ID,
2010.
Latah, ID ........
Pending .........
Secondary growth forest
(Douglas fir).
Leavenworth,
2007.
Chelan, WA ...
Pending .........
Open forest, savanna; Relatively open Ponderosa
pine forest. Compacted
area covered with gravel
soil.
wreier-aviles on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with PROPOSALS
Site name/
year
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:37 Jul 25, 2011
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Survey methods, if known
Characterized earthworm
populations in two grassland types (native prairie
and CRP) in Latah County,
ID, and Whitman County,
WA. Conducted surveys in
May and June of 2003
through 2005. Methods: 5
measured pits randomly located and excavated at
each site and earthworms
were sampled by hand
sorting, then classified to
species.
Collected by Umiker and
Robertson. (Science Daily
2008, Johnson-Maynard
November 30, 2010, in litt.
p. 2–3; Hill, 2010 in litt. pp.
2–3; Johnson-Maynard,
September 21, 2010, in litt.
p. 1; Johnson-Maynard
2010 p. 2–3). Determined
to be GPE based on location and partial specimen.
Collected by Xu and Umiker. 2010 GPE specimens were
(Johnson-Maynard, Nocollected with
vember 30, 2010, in litt. p.
electroshocker.*
2). Adult GPE found at a
Handsorting conducted at
privately owned prairie
the same time did not reremnant near Moscow,
sult in the collection of
Idaho, 2008 and 2010 ParGPE (Johnson-Maynard
adise Ridge sites less than
December 21, 2010 in litt.
50 feet from each other.
p. 2). *Use of electrodes
Nearby location surveyed
and a generator to direct
in 2005 with no GPE found.
electric current into the
soil.
Collected by: ? (JohnsonMaynard, November 30,
2010, in litt. p. 2). Sample
too degraded for morphological description; currently analyzing DNA.
Collected by resident, initially. (Science Daily 2008,
Johnson-Maynard 2010,
pp. 3–4 Johnson-Maynard
November 30, 2010, in litt.
p. 2.) Driloleirus genus;
Currently analyzing DNA.
E:\FR\FM\26JYP1.SGM
26JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 143 / Tuesday, July 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules
44551
TABLE 1—LOCATIONS AND CHARACTERISTICS OF COLLECTIONS OF THE GPE OR Driloleirus GENUS—Continued
County/State
Positive ID as
GPE
Vegetation and other site
characteristics, if known
Collector
(sources)
comments
Leavenworth,
2010.
Chelan, WA ...
Yes. Adult examined by
Fender.
Ponderosa pine, Arrowleaf
baslamroot/mule’s ear, annual grasses; South aspect, 27% slope; 1,846
feet elevation; Soil: sandy
loam.
Collected by Xu and Umiker.
(Johnson-Maynard 2010 p.
2–4). Multiple hatchling
specimens—will analyze
one injured hatchling for
DNA.
Near Camas
Meadows
(near Leavenworth),
2010.
Chelan, 2010
wreier-aviles on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with PROPOSALS
Site name/
year
Chelan, WA ...
Pending .........
Arrowleaf balsamroot, scattered ponderosa pine.
Chelan, WA ...
Pending .........
Grasses, Arrowleaf
balsamroot, sagebrush,
sparse ponderosa pine
nearby; ∼38% slope, South
aspect; 2,057 feet elevation; Soil: gravelly sandy
loam.
Collected by: Fleckenstein
(Johnson-Maynard December 22, 2010 in litt. p. 2)
Smaller adult, will analyze
DNA.
Juvenile found—will analyze
for DNA (Johnson-Maynard
2010, p. 2–4).
Table 1 identifies confirmed GPE and
potential GPE locations (at this time just
identified to Driloleirus genus; DNA
analysis is pending), and information on
survey methods for each collection
where available. While negative survey
data are important to understand the
distribution of any species, the Service
found little information on surveys with
negative results in the Palouse, and no
information on negative surveys outside
of the Palouse. The available
information on negative survey results
is presented in Table 1.
Earthworms are not randomly
distributed in the soil (Guild 1952, as
referenced in Edwards and Lofty 1977,
p. 127), and some are difficult to detect.
Factors that influence this non-random
distribution could include: (1) Physical
and chemical characteristics of the soil;
(2) food availability; (3) the reproductive
potential and dispersal capabilities of
the species; or (4) interactions between
these factors (Murchie 1958, as
referenced in Edwards and Lofty 1977,
p. 127). Earthworms also occur in
patchy distributions, which make it
difficult to determine population
demographics (Whalen 2004, pp. 143,
148, Umicker 2009, p. 187). Edwards
and Bohlen (1996, p. 90) stated that
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:37 Jul 25, 2011
Jkt 223001
assessments of size, distribution, and
structure of earthworm populations are
difficult because numbers change with
season, demography, and vertical
distribution in the substrate.
In his letter submitted with the
petition, James (2009 in litt. p. 2) states
that a reasonable and sufficient effort
has been made to find the GPE in a
variety of habitats within its presumed
range, and that these efforts have failed
except in very rare instances in natural
or little-disturbed vegetation. James also
stated that the Washington State
University team surveyed many
locations (most importantly in
agricultural lands), looking for large
burrows that may indicate the presence
of large earthworms, but only found
Lumbricus terrestris (the common night
crawler), an invasive species (James
2009, in litt. pp. 2–3). However, recently
collected and confirmed specimens that
have been documented in forested
habitats and on the eastern slope of the
Cascade Mountains in Washington
(Table 1) indicate that survey efforts for
the GPE to date have not been adequate
to establish its distribution or the
diversity of habitat types in which it
occurs. Therefore, we believe the
petitioners’ assumptions regarding the
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Survey methods, if known
Follow-up surveys specific to
determining Driloleirus species and soil and site characteristics. Survey conducted in November, 2010.
Soil was excavated from
one large pit (approximately 60 cm by 60 cm) at
each site. Soil was handsorted and all earthworms
removed and counted. One
sample was collected from
each site for DNA analysis.
Follow-up surveys specific to
determining Driloleirus species and soil and site characteristics. Survey conducted in November, 2010.
Soil was excavated from
one large pit (approximately 60 cm by 60 cm) at
each site. Soil was handsorted and all earthworms
removed and counted. One
sample was collected from
each site for DNA analysis.
presumed distribution of the GPE are
likely erroneous.
Fauci and Bezdicek’s study (2002, pp.
258–259) compared nonnative
lumbricid earthworm distribution in the
Palouse region of eastern Washington
and northern Idaho. In the spring of
1999, they surveyed 46 sites in the
Palouse, including sites in agricultural
fields with a history of conservation
tillage, areas next to waterways, and
perennial vegetation areas along road
rights-of-way or on old homesteads.
Survey methods included digging six
spades of soil in a 10-square-meter area,
then hand-sorting and examining the
soil. Additional samples were taken if
immature worms were found to ensure
adults for identification. Although the
results for the GPE were negative, the
Fauci and Bezdicek survey was not
designed to specifically find this
species. In addition, survey protocols
have not yet been developed for the
GPE; therefore, it is uncertain the
protocol used in this study would have
found GPE, if present. If reports that the
GPE lives in burrows more than 15 feet
deep are correct, the spade sampling
method used by Fauci and Bezdicek
would appear to be inadequate to
confirm the species’ absence.
E:\FR\FM\26JYP1.SGM
26JYP1
wreier-aviles on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with PROPOSALS
44552
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 143 / Tuesday, July 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules
Other negative earthworm surveys in
the Palouse area were also not
specifically designed to find the GPE.
Umiker et al. (2009, pp. 184–185, 187)
compared soil characteristics, cropping
practices, and earthworm densities in 24
agricultural fields in the Palouse, but
did not identify the earthworms to
species level in that study (p. 187).
However, adult Driloleirus earthworms
are distinctive enough that they likely
would have been documented, had they
been collected. Juvenile Driloleirus
earthworms, on the other hand, are not
distinctive (Johnson-Maynard 2011,
pers. com.), and hence could have been
missed in this survey. Johnson-Maynard
et al. (2007, p. 338) compared
earthworm dynamics and soil properties
in conventionally tilled and no-till
agricultural fields on one research farm
in the Palouse, and found only the
nonnative southern worm
(Aporrectodea trapezoids) (p. 340).
Smetak et al. (2007, p. 161) investigated
earthworm population density in urban
settings in Moscow, Idaho; no native
earthworm species were collected (p.
166). Nevertheless, while the negative
survey data are interesting, in that the
GPE has not been detected in
agricultural fields or urban areas to date,
coupled with information in Table 1,
these data demonstrate how
geographically limited the known
survey efforts have been.
It is apparent that additional GPE
surveys are needed to determine the
range, habitat preference, and life
history of this species, particularly in
light of the recent confirmation of the
species near Leavenworth, Washington,
in forested habitat. James (2000, p. 5)
acknowledges there have been a limited
number of earthworms collected in the
Columbia basin, which includes the
eastern slope of the Cascade Mountains
and the Palouse area, and only a small
portion of potential habitat has been
surveyed. In addition to limited survey
efforts, this species is difficult to detect.
Fender (September 14, 2010, in litt. p.
1) noted that Driloleirus species can at
times be found near the surface during
suitable survey conditions, but if
conditions are dry they may be
undetectable. Johnson-Maynard
(September 21, 2010, in litt. p. 2) noted
that one Palouse site had negative
survey results for native earthworms in
2005, but later sampling in 2010
detected one adult GPE at the same site.
The Xerces Society stated that due to
the difficulty in detecting the Oregon
giant earthworm (Driloleirus
macelfreshi) (a similar species in the
same genus), abundance estimates have
not been made, and the species’ status
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:37 Jul 25, 2011
Jkt 223001
and threats cannot be determined until
an effective survey protocol is
developed and tested (Xerces Society
2009, p. 3).
Due to the difficulty in surveying for
the GPE, the Idaho Department of Fish
and Game, the Service, and others have
contributed resources to the University
of Idaho to develop appropriate survey
protocols to address the scientific
challenges associated with GPE surveys
(Groen 2010, in litt. p. 2; JohnsonMaynard 2010, in litt. p. 2; Science
Daily 2008, p. 2). Staff at the University
of Idaho, including Johnson-Maynard
and others, are currently working to
develop and refine sampling methods
and strategies, including a soil
electroshocking technique that appears
to be promising.
In summary, the level of survey effort
for the GPE has been low, the species is
difficult to detect, and effective survey
methods are still being developed.
There is a lack of survey data, and large
geographic and taxonomic gaps in our
knowledge (Fleckenstein 2011, in litt. p.
1). Researchers have only recently
begun to look more broadly for the
species including localities along the
eastern slope of the Cascades. However,
the GPE has now been documented in
dry forest habitats, which provides
further evidence that the complete range
and distribution of the species is
presently unknown, but are likely
broader than the area identified by the
petitioners.
Habitat
Habitat requirements for the GPE are
not well understood. The original
descriptions by Smith (1897, 1937) do
not present any descriptive information
about the habitat where the specimens
were initially collected. The GPE was
originally thought to be a Palouse-region
grassland species, and several
specimens have been found in Palouse
´
grassland remnants (Table 1; Sanchez´
de Leon and Johnson-Maynard 2009, p.
1393; Science Daily 2008, p. 1; JohnsonMaynard September 21, 2010, in litt. pp.
1–2; Johnson-Maynard, November 30,
2010, in litt. p. 2–3; Jensen 2010, in litt.
p. 6). Wells et al. (1983, p. 213) stated
that Fender collected specimens under
hawthorn thickets; Johnson-Maynard
(September 21, 2010, in litt. p. 1)
described the vegetation type at Johnson
and Johnson’s Moscow Mountain site as
Douglas-fir forest.
There is limited specific information
on the habitat type associated with the
GPE collected near Ellensburg,
Washington. Fender and McKey-Fender
(1990) described the location as ‘‘in the
hills west of Ellensburg,’’ and they
described the GPE range at this locality
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
as extending into ‘‘treeless areas’’ (pp.
358, 366). The GPE was not collected in
recent surveys conducted in agricultural
and urban locations in Latah County,
Idaho (Johnson-Maynard et al. 2007, p.
340, Smetak et al. 2007, p. 166; Umiker
et al. 2009, p. 187), and Whitman
County, Washington (Fauci and
Bezdicek, 2002 p. 257). Vegetation and
soil characteristics of confirmed and
potential GPE sites are described above
in Table 1, where that information was
´
´
available. Sanchez-de Leon and
Johnson-Maynard (2009, p. 1394;
Petition, p. 5) observed that remaining
prairie remnants in the Palouse are often
steep or rocky, or contain shallow soil,
and, therefore, may be less suitable for
´
´
earthworms (Sanchez-de Leon and
Johnson-Maynard 2009, pp. 1394, 1398;
Petition, p. 5). However, JohnsonMaynard (2010, pp. 2–3) noted that soils
at the Paradise Ridge site near Latah,
Idaho, had a high gravel content,
suggesting that the GPE may be able to
exist in soil types that would not be
expected to be preferred habitat for most
earthworms. She further noted that past
Driloleirus samples provided by a
landowner near Leavenworth,
Washington, were obtained from a
compacted area covered with gravel.
Johnson-Maynard (2010, pp. 3–4)
described the confirmed GPE collection
site near Leavenworth, Washington, as
Ponderosa pine forest with an
understory of Balsamorhiza sagittata
(arrowleaf balsamroot) and annual
grasses. Although the GPE has also been
documented in forests on the eastern
slope of the Cascades and in Douglas-fir
forests in the Palouse, significant
uncertainties exist as to whether the
species occurs in specific types or ages
of forests, occurs in previously logged
forests, or may be habitat-limited
because of elevation or other site
characteristics.
Biology
Earthworms are generally divided into
three life-history strategies based on
their habitat use: epigeic, endogeic, or
anecic (Bouche 1977, as referenced in
James 2000, p. 2; Edwards and Bohlen
1996, pp. 113–115). Epigeic worms live
near the ground’s surface and consume
organic litter on and near the surface.
Endogeic worms (which the petitioners
currently believe the GPE to be (James
2009, in litt. p. 3)): (1) Live in the upper
layers of mineral soil, (2) consume
organic material in the mineral soil or
at the soil-litter interface, and (3) are
often pale in appearance (Edwards and
Bohlen 1996, p. 114). Anecic worms,
which the petitioners initially believed
the GPE to be (James 2009, in litt. p. 3),
and we believe the GPE to be based on
E:\FR\FM\26JYP1.SGM
26JYP1
wreier-aviles on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 143 / Tuesday, July 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules
the prevailing evidence, live in deep,
semi-permanent burrows and move to
the surface to feed on fresh plant litter.
Anecic earthworms are the largest and
longest lived of the three earthworm
types (James 2000, p. 2; 1995, p. 6), and
transport fresh plant material from the
soil surface to subterranean levels.
Deep-burrowing anecic earthworms
usually produce castings on the surface
near exits to their burrows (Edwards
and Bohlen 1996, p. 198). GPE castings
were observed at the Leavenworth,
Washington, study area (JohnsonMaynard 2010, p. 2).
James (2009, in litt. p. 3) concluded
that, based on the lack of pigmentation
and information indicating that the
species is not associated with surface
castings, the GPE ‘‘is probably an
endogeic, meaning living entirely in the
soil, on soil resources consisting of
organic matter in varying stages of
decomposition.’’ He also states that
deep burrow depths would be useful in
avoiding dry soil conditions common in
late summer within the range of the
species (September 3, 2010, in litt. p. 1).
Fender (September 14, 2010, in litt. p.
1) thinks deep soils would be helpful to
survival and sees no reason to doubt the
earlier descriptions of burrowing
depths.
Characterizing earthworm life
histories within one of three life-history
strategies may not be entirely
instructive, because some species may
exhibit a combination of characteristics
(Bouche 1977, as referenced in Edwards
and Bohlen 1996, p. 113). However,
understanding an earthworm species’
life history is important for evaluating
potential threats, the pathways that
expose them to threats, and how they
might respond.
As stated earlier, James (2009, in litt.,
p. 3) initially speculated that the GPE
was an anecic species, but now believes
the species is probably an endogeic
earthworm. He indicated that this
conclusion is based on seeing a GPE
specimen and learning more about the
genus; if the GPE lacks pigmentation in
the head and does not defecate at the
surface (i.e., leave castings), it is highly
unlikely to have an anecic life-history
strategy. We have no information
indicating whether James has conducted
field surveys for this particular
earthworm species; however, his current
opinion appears to be inconsistent with
the existing literature, descriptions of
GPE burrowing depths described in the
literature, and field observations of
castings by researchers at the
Leavenworth, Washington, GPE location
(Smith 1897, pp. 202–203; Fender and
McKey-Fender 1990, p. 364; James 2000,
p. 5; Johnson-Maynard 2010, p. 2).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:37 Jul 25, 2011
Jkt 223001
In our 2010 90-day finding (75 FR
42059), we solicited scientific
information on the GPE’s endogeic or
anecic life-history strategy to inform our
status review. Johnson-Maynard (in litt.
2010, p. 2) stated that the GPE is likely
anecic, based on her surveys at locations
near Leavenworth, WA. In those studies,
the GPE was associated with pores
leading down into unconsolidated
parent material, and surface castings
were observed, which are indicative of
a deep-burrowing species. JohnsonMaynard has conducted or been
involved with a number of field surveys
where GPE specimens were collected
(see Table 1 above). Therefore, based on
the best available scientific information,
field observations, and the existing
literature, we believe the prevailing
evidence indicates the GPE is an anecic
earthworm species, although we
acknowledge that there are still
significant uncertainties regarding its
biological requirements.
In summary, the current
understanding regarding the life cycles
of even quite common earthworms is
inadequate and requires more study
(Edwards and Lofty 1977, p. 68), and
there are many species about which
little is known (Edwards and Bohlen
1996, p. 46). Accordingly, there are
significant scientific uncertainties
regarding the biology, distribution,
habitat, and population trends of the
GPE. The GPE’s distribution has been
documented to include areas within the
Palouse bioregion, and areas within the
eastern slope of the Cascade Mountains
in Washington. We do not know
whether there are other occupied sites
between or outside of these locations, as
few surveys have been conducted, the
species is difficult to survey for, and
survey methods are still being
developed.
Documented habitat types used by the
GPE in the Palouse bioregion include
native grasslands and Douglas-fir forest.
In addition, the GPE location near
Leavenworth, Washington, is described
as dry Ponderosa pine forest. There is
very little specific information on
habitat type at the GPE location west of
Ellensburg, Washington. The Driloleirus
earthworm species recently collected
near Chelan, Washington, and east of
Moscow, Idaho, are being identified (see
Table 1 above). If these specimens are
confirmed to be the GPE through DNA
or other analysis, the species’ range and
diversity of habitat types used would be
expanded.
Summary of Information Pertaining to
the Five Factors
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533)
and implementing regulations (50 CFR
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
44553
part 424) set forth procedures for adding
species to, removing species from, or
reclassifying species on the Federal
Lists of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife and Plants. Under section
4(a)(1) of the Act, a species may be
determined to be endangered or
threatened based on any of the
following five factors:
(A) The present or threatened
destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) Overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational
purposes;
(C) Disease or predation;
(D) The inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms; or
(E) Other natural or manmade factors
affecting its continued existence.
In making this finding, information
pertaining to the GPE in relation to the
five factors provided in section 4(a)(1) of
the Act is discussed below. In addition,
in making this 12-month finding on the
petition we considered and evaluated
the best available scientific and
commercial information.
Given the paucity of information on
GPE, surrogates may be useful. The
petitioners claim that it is appropriate to
use other earthworms as surrogates to
determine effects to the GPE, provided
they are biologically and ecologically
similar (Sappington et al. 2001, p. 2869;
Caro et al. 2005, p. 1821; Petition, p. 10).
In some instances, the use of surrogate
species (such as other earthworms) may
be helpful in evaluating potential effects
to the GPE, provided the appropriate
scientific controls and precautions are
taken. Caro et al. (2005, p. 1821) states
‘‘for substitute species to be appropriate,
they should share the same key
ecological or behavioral traits that make
the target species sensitive to
environmental disturbance and the
relationship between populations’ vital
rates and disturbance levels should
match that of the target; these
conditions are unlikely to pertain in
most circumstances and the use of
substitute species to predict endangered
populations’ responses to disturbance is
questionable.’’ The Oregon giant
earthworm (Driloleirus macelfreshi) is
in the same genus, and is believed to
construct permanent, deep, subsurface
burrows (a characteristic that indicates
an anecic life-history strategy), and
could potentially be an appropriate
surrogate. However, the status and
threats of this species cannot be
determined until an effective survey
protocol is developed and tested (Foltz
2009, pp. 2–3). Therefore, using it as a
surrogate would provide little to no
additional insight into potential threats
to GPE. No other relevant surrogate
E:\FR\FM\26JYP1.SGM
26JYP1
44554
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 143 / Tuesday, July 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules
species have been suggested or
investigated.
wreier-aviles on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with PROPOSALS
Factor A. The Present or Threatened
Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range
Habitat Loss and Fragmentation
Historical information regarding
potential habitat loss is presented in the
following discussion, for context.
However, the focus for purposes of our
analysis and response to the petition is
on current and future habitat
conditions, and whether the activities
responsible for those conditions present
a threat to the GPE such that listing
under the Act is warranted.
As described in the 2010 90-day
finding (75 FR 42061), the petitioners
claim that the GPE is threatened by
habitat conversion, loss, and
fragmentation from agriculture and
urban sprawl in the Palouse region
(Petition, pp. 1, 7). The petitioners cite
´
´
Sanchez-de Leon and Johnson-Maynard
(2009, pp. 1393–1394, 1398), who state
that combined effects of land-use
change, habitat fragmentation, and
competitive interactions have caused
native earthworm declines. James (2009,
p. 1) stated that indigenous earthworms
are sensitive to habitat disturbance, and
that to find indigenous earthworms one
must work in undisturbed or mildly
disturbed vegetation. Undisturbed
vegetation is rare in the Palouse
bioregion, as the native grassland
habitat has been reduced to less than 1
percent of its pre-agricultural extent
(Petition, p. 8; James 2009, p. 1; Noss et
al. 1995, p. 74).
Estimates of native habitat conversion
in the Palouse bioregion vary, but
several studies indicate the conversion
has been high: 99.9 percent of Palouse
prairie habitats have been converted to
agriculture (Noss 1995, p. 74); 94
percent of the grasslands and 97 percent
of the wetlands in the Palouse bioregion
have been converted to crop, hay, or
pasture (Black et al. 1998, pp. 9–10); 21
percent of previously forested lands
have been converted to agriculture or
urban uses (Gilmore 2004, p. 3); and less
than 1 percent of the original
bunchgrass prairie habitat remains
(Donovan et al. 2009, p. 1). However,
comments on the 90-day finding noted
that habitat loss in the Palouse due to
agriculture happened historically and is
not currently occurring. Much of the
prairie was converted to farms by 1910,
and much of the urban growth around
the Pullman area occurred on farmland,
not remaining prairie fragments
(McGregor 2010, in litt., p. 2; McGregor
1982, p. 109). However, habitat
conversion in the Palouse may still
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:37 Jul 25, 2011
Jkt 223001
occur, as neither Latah County, Idaho,
nor Whitman County, Washington, have
ordinances to prevent native habitat
conversion (Latah County Board of
Commissioners 2010, pp. 1–27;
Whitman County 2010, pp. 1–76).
The petition identified several
locations in the Palouse area that
contain prairie remnants (Petition, p. 5).
A study of four prairie remnants and
adjacent Conservation Reserve Program
´
(CRP) fields was carried out by Sanchez´
de Leon and Johnson-Maynard (2009,
pp. 1393, 1395; Petition, p. 4). In that
study, the researchers collected one
GPE, and commented that many
remaining prairie remnants are not
suitable for tillage because they are
often steep or rocky, or contain shallow
soil (2009, p. 6; Petition, p. 5). They also
hypothesized that prairie remnants may
not be the preferred habitat for the GPE
due to shallow rocky soil. They
described the GPE collection site at
Paradise Ridge near Latah, Idaho, as
having a high gravel content (JohnsonMaynard 2010, pp. 2–3). They
acknowledged that sampling challenges
could bias survey information on the
GPE, and cautioned that hand-sampling
methods may underestimate abundance
´
´
of anecic species (Sanchez-de Leon and
Johnson-Maynard 2009, p. 1399).
There is no baseline (i.e., preagriculture) density and distribution
information on the GPE, and there are
significant challenges associated with
surveying for this species. These
challenges, coupled with the fact that
earthworms have patchy distributions
(Guild 1952, as referenced in Edwards
and Lofty 1977, p. 127; Murchie 1958,
as referenced in Edwards and Lofty
1977, p. 127; Whalen 2004, pp. 143,
148; Umicker 2009, p. 187), preclude
our ability to correlate land use impacts
with GPE abundance, based on the best
available information. The GPE has been
documented in both the Palouse
bioregion and on the eastern slope of the
Cascade Mountains, near Ellensburg and
Leavenworth, in central Washington
(see Table 1 above). There is little
descriptive information about the
habitat associated with the GPE that was
collected near Ellensburg; it isn’t clear
whether the location is grassland or a
different habitat type, and the specific
location is uncertain. James (2009 in
litt., p. 2) speculated the Ellensburg site
collection is a relict of a distribution
that must have been more or less
continuous at one time, but due to
climate change and increased aridity
has now become fragmented. Fender
and McKey-Fender (1990) described the
locality as being ‘‘in the hills west of
Ellensburg,’’ and noted that the range of
the GPE extends into ‘‘treeless areas’’
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
(pp. 358, 366). A report by Adolfson
Associates (2005, p. 1) was presented as
evidence of urban sprawl being a threat
to GPE habitat. However, this report was
limited to areas within the City of
Ellensburg, Washington boundary, and
is not particularly instructive in terms of
correlating future urban development
with loss of GPE habitat because predevelopment density or distribution or
both in that area are unknown. The
petitioners also claim the grasslands
around Ellensburg have been
extensively modified by agriculture,
similar to the Palouse bioregion
(Adolfson Associates 2005, p. 2;
Petition, p. 8; James 2009, in litt., p. 2).
However, the best available information
is insufficient to determine or infer how
or whether the GPE has been impacted
by habitat loss and fragmentation in this
area, because we have no baseline
information with which to correlate
land use modification with GPE
abundance.
The best available scientific
information is also inconclusive as to
whether the GPE occurs in a certain
forest type or age, or whether the
species occurs in a broad variety of
habitats. The GPE site near Moscow,
Idaho, is in Douglas-fir forest habitat,
and the Leavenworth, Washington, site
is in dry ponderosa pine forest. Quigley
et al. (1996, p. 54) stated that in the
Columbia Basin, the total area in forest
has remained relatively constant during
the last two centuries, and broad
indicators of sustainability indicate that
Basin forest acreage and inventory
volumes are relatively constant. If the
GPE is a forested habitat generalist, it
could be stable in forested locations;
however, if it requires a forest of a
specific type or age it may or may not
be impacted by habitat loss, depending
on the type of development activity
involved. In either case, the available
scientific evidence does not address that
uncertainty.
In summary, the GPE’s current and
historical population size, distribution,
and range of habitat types used are
unknown. Based on recent collections,
the GPE’s range outside of the Palouse
region has been expanded and now
includes portions of the eastern slope of
the Cascade Mountains. The GPE has
also been documented in both grassland
and forested habitats in the Palouse.
However, survey efforts have been
limited, and sampling protocols are still
being developed to improve researchers’
ability to detect the species during field
investigations. While habitat conversion
may occur and there may be local
impacts, the GPE range is much wider
than previously known and includes
more diverse habitats than previously
E:\FR\FM\26JYP1.SGM
26JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 143 / Tuesday, July 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules
wreier-aviles on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with PROPOSALS
known. Because we cannot identify the
full extent of the GPE’s range or the
varieties of habitat types it may use, we
are unable to correlate habitat
conversion with GPE abundance.
Therefore, for the reasons stated above,
the best available scientific information
does not indicate current or future
habitat loss or fragmentation represents
a threat to the species.
General Impacts to Soil Characteristics
The petitioners present several claims
in their petition, each of which has been
evaluated and addressed below. They
claim that earthworms or their grassland
habitats are influenced by soil
disturbance, tillage, traffic, food sources,
chemical and pesticide residues, and
soil microclimate (Jennings et al. 1990,
p. 75; Edwards and Bohlen 1996, pp.
283–289; Edwards et al. 1995, pp. 200–
201; USDA–NRCS 2001, p. 2; Petition,
p. 10). Moisture, temperature, and food
availability influence earthworm
populations in general, and earthworms
need the organic matter found in the
topsoil that agriculture removes (James
2000, pp. 1–2; Petition, p. 11). Bare soil
can increase the effects of flooding,
drought, or other weather conditions
due to the lack of vegetation that buffers
soil from extreme moisture, dryness,
and temperature fluctuations. These
conditions can temporarily or
permanently make soils unusable by
earthworms (James 2000, pp. 1–2;
Petition, p. 11). James (2009, in litt., p.
1) stated that earthworms are highly
sensitive to habitat disturbance, such as
forest clear cutting or conversion of any
habitat to agriculture, and the native
earthworms are generally destroyed by
any type of drastic and sudden habitat
modification. One commenter stated
there may have been long periods of
bare soil historically in the Palouse
region, but seeding and fertilizing
technology improvements now enable
farmers to prepare seedbeds with
minimal disturbance (McGregor 2010, in
litt., p. 2). James also stated, ‘‘when
seeking the indigenous earthworms, it is
almost always a complete waste of time
to work in anything but undisturbed or
mildly disturbed stands of vegetation’’
(James 2009, in litt., p. 1). GPE have
been found in forested locations, but it
is unknown whether these are
previously disturbed habitats.
We acknowledge that soil disturbance
has occurred and may still be occurring
in GPE habitat. However, we currently
have no information linking soil
disturbance with GPE presence or
absence. Survey efforts for GPE have
been limited, and sampling protocols
remain to be developed. Until we have
a better understanding of the species’
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:37 Jul 25, 2011
Jkt 223001
distribution and habitat information, we
are unable to determine with reasonable
confidence whether the GPE uses
disturbed or undisturbed habitats, or
both. Therefore, the best available
scientific information does not indicate
soil disturbance is a threat to the GPE.
Soil Compaction
The petitioners claim that soil
compaction from farm machinery or
other activities can affect earthworms by
making burrowing and feeding more
difficult (James 2000, p. 9), by
decreasing soil pore size and thereby
decreasing nutrient retention and
changing the soil food web (Niwa et al.
2001, pp. 7, 13), or by favoring
nonnative earthworms that prefer course
soils rather than the fine soils
apparently preferred by the GPE (Fender
and McKey-Fender 1990, p. 364;
Petition, p. 11). Johnson-Maynard
(September 21, 2010, in litt., pp. 2–3)
noted that the effects of soil compaction
on earthworm density can vary based on
the species’ ecological strategy (i.e.,
anecic versus endogeic); larger species,
such as anecic earthworms, have been
found to be less sensitive to soil
compaction than smaller species
(Cluzeau et al. 1992, p. 1661) and may
be more abundant in compacted areas
compared to non-compacted areas
(Cuendet 1992, p. 1467). Fender (1995,
p. 57) has often found other
Argilophilini worms (a tribe of native
Pacific Northwest earthworms that
includes the GPE) in compacted trails;
Capowiez et al. (2009, p. 214) notes that
our current knowledge of the sensitivity
of earthworms to compaction is limited.
In addition, the assumption that
compaction would favor exotic species
over native species due to their
preference for finer-textures soils is
invalid; while compaction does impact
total porosity and pore size distribution,
it does not alter soil texture (JohnsonMaynard, September 21, 2010, in litt., p.
3). Johnson-Maynard states that
generalizations such as those presented
by the authors of the 2009 petition,
suggesting that compaction favors
nonnative species, should be interpreted
with caution (Johnson-Maynard,
September 21, 2010, in litt., p. 3). In
addition, survey efforts for the GPE have
been limited, and sampling protocols
remain to be developed. Until we have
a better understanding of the species’
distribution and habitat information, we
are unable to determine with reasonable
confidence whether soil compaction is
occurring in GPE habitat, and if it is,
whether it is resulting in a negative
response in the species. Therefore, the
best available scientific information
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
44555
does not indicate soil compaction is a
threat to the species.
Soil Chemistry
The pH scale describes how acidic or
basic a substance is, and ranges from 0
to 14, with 7 being neutral, below 7
being acidic, and greater than 7 being
basic. The petitioners cite soil chemistry
effects, notably a reduction in soil pH
from nitrogenous fertilizer application,
as having deleterious effects on
earthworms (Ma et al. 1990, p. 76), and
state that generally earthworms do not
thrive in soils with a pH below 5
(Petition, p. 11; Edwards and Lofty
1977, p. 234). However, the best
available scientific information related
to the responses of earthworms to pH
appears to both support and contradict
the petitioners’ claim with regard to the
GPE. Soil pH is a factor that often
greatly affects earthworm populations,
both in numbers of individuals and
numbers of species. According to the
Natural Resources Conservation Service
(USDA–NRCS 2001, p. 5), earthworms
do not thrive in soils with a pH below
5 (USDA–NRCS 2001, p. 2; Edwards and
Lofty 1977, p. 234; Edwards and Bohlen
1996, p. 276). However, one Australian
study of tillage effects to one native
anecic earthworm species (Spencefiella
hamiltoni) described the surface soil in
the study area as highly acidic (pH =
4.1), with the pH increasing (or acidity
decreasing) with depth (pH = 5.0 at 0.8
meters) (Chan 2004, p. 90). Some
earthworm species are intolerant of acid
soil conditions, some are tolerant, and
others can tolerate wide ranges of soil
pH (Edwards and Bohlen 1996, p. 142).
Because soil pH is related to other soil
factors, such as clay content, or cation
exchange capacity (the ability to hold
plant nutrients), it is often difficult to
establish a direct cause-and-effect
relationship between soil pH and the
size of earthworm populations (Edwards
and Bohlen 1996, p. 144).
Fender (1995, p. 56) stated that
Argilophilini worms appear to have
higher tolerance than lumbricids
(nonnative earthworms, such as the
night crawler) for low pH (below 5,
acidic) soils; high clay; and resinous,
´
low-nitrogen, plant litter. Sanchez-de
´
Leon and Johnson-Maynard (2009, pp.
1397, 1399) found a significant negative
interaction between soil pH and mean
earthworm density and mean
earthworm fresh weight. The nonnative
southern earthworm (Aporectodea
trapezoids) was more abundant in CRP
sites with lower pH values (pH 5.9 to
6.2) than prairie soils (pH 6.3 to 6.6) in
a study of four paired CRP and prairie
remnant sites. Their data did not
support their hypothesis that native
E:\FR\FM\26JYP1.SGM
26JYP1
wreier-aviles on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with PROPOSALS
44556
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 143 / Tuesday, July 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules
earthworms would be dominant in
prairie remnants and exotic earthworms
dominant in CRP set-aside lands
´
´
(Sanchez-de Leon and Johnson-Maynard
2009, pp. 1398). In that study, one GPE
was collected during sampling at the
Smoot Hill prairie remnant study site. In
the study, the prairie remnants’ mean
soil pH at depth was pH 6.3 (20–30 cm),
pH 6.5 (10–20 cm), and pH 6.6 (0–10
cm), while in the CRP study sites the
mean soil pH at depth was pH 6.2 (20–
30 cm), pH 6.0 (10–20 cm), and pH 5.9
´
´
(0–10 cm) (Sanchez-de Leon and
Johnson-Maynard 2009, p. 1397). The
researchers stated they were unsure
whether lower pH (more acid) in CRP
sites correlated with some other nonmeasured soil parameter, such as
previous fertilizer applications and
resultant increased organic matter. They
hypothesized the negative relationship
between earthworm density and soil pH
could be a reflection of a past land use
rather than a direct effect of soil pH on
´
´
earthworms (Sanchez-de Leon and
Johnson-Maynard 2009, p. 1399). Other
studies in the Palouse region
demonstrated the mean soil pH in
direct-seeded agricultural fields was pH
5.35, and in conventional tillage fields
pH 5.61 (Umiker et al. 2009, p. 184).
One commenter (McGregor 2010, in litt.,
p. 4) stated less than 0.5 to 1 percent of
the soils sampled in the Palouse have
pH levels below 5.
In summary, studies investigating
relationships between earthworms and
soil pH indicate that earthworm
response can vary with species,
location, life-history strategy, or other
attributes. The best available scientific
information on this relationship for the
GPE is limited (e.g., to our knowledge,
only the Smoot Hill study has
investigated the potential soil pH
relationship). There is significant
uncertainty regarding the correlation
between soil pH and GPE occurrence or
persistence, and insufficient data to
identify pH cause-and-effect
relationships that might be limiting for
the persistence of this species. However,
in the Palouse region, soil pH levels do
not appear to be so acidic (below pH 5)
that they negatively affect earthworms
generally. Also, the GPE may be more
tolerant to acidity than some species of
earthworms. In addition, the range of
the GPE is wider than previously
known, and includes pine forests on the
eastern slope of the Cascades, although
the full extent and type of forested
habitats occupied by the GPE are not yet
known. Detailed soil characteristics are
not known for the GPE location near
Leavenworth, Washington. Accordingly,
the best available information does not
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:37 Jul 25, 2011
Jkt 223001
indicate that changes in soil chemistry
represent a threat to the GPE.
Tillage and Agriculture
The petition states that tillage
removes the original topsoil, which may
reduce earthworm burrow densities, soil
aeration, soil infiltration rates, and the
amount of organic matter available to
the GPE for forage (Petition, pp. 10–11).
Literature cited by the petitioners stated
the original topsoil has been lost from
10 percent of Palouse cropland, and 60
percent of cropland has lost 25 to 75
percent of its topsoil (Veseth 1986b, p.
2). The petition did not present detailed
information on agriculture activities in
the Ellensburg area, although the
Adolphson Associates report (2005, pp.
14–22) presented with the petition
includes maps and photographs
depicting areas converted to agriculture
within the Ellensburg, Washington, city
boundaries.
The potential threats to the GPE from
tillage and cultivation are reduced food
sources and burrow compaction, but
would likely vary depending on its lifehistory strategy. Annual crops put a
small fraction of their production into
root mass (James 2009, in litt., pp. 3–4),
whereas perennial prairie grasses put
approximately 50 percent of their
annual production into roots, which
provide resources for soil invertebrates
(including endogeic earthworms).
Endogeic earthworms, which the
petitioners assert the GPE to be (James
2009, in litt., pp. 3–4), would probably
be more susceptible to agricultural
activities that reduce soil organic
matter, based on their need for organic
matter as a food source. However,
anecic earthworms use surface litter as
a food source, and the best available
scientific information supports the GPE
being an anecic earthworm species. In
either case, surveys to date in the
Palouse have not documented the GPE
in either agricultural fields or CRP lands
(Fauci and Bezdicek, 2002, p. 254;
´
´
Sanchez-de Leon and Johnson-Maynard
2009, p. 1393; Johnson-Maynard et al.
2007, p. 340). Therefore, we have no
information indicating that the GPE
would be exposed to reduced soil
organic matter or reduced surface litter
caused by ongoing cultivation in the
Palouse region.
One Australian study demonstrated
that 3 years of tillage reduced
earthworm burrow density by nearly 90
percent (Chan 2004, p. 89; Petition, p.
10), which reduced the maximum
infiltration rate of the soil and
significantly increased the likelihood of
runoff and erosion. Chan’s study (2004,
p. 90) compared tillage effects to soil
infiltration by monitoring burrow
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
density for the North Auckland worm
(Spenceriella hamiltoni), an anecic
member of the Megascolecidae (in the
same family as the GPE), under three
conditions: no-till (crops drilled directly
into ground with a special slit drill),
conventional one-pass, and
conventional two-pass tilled agriculture
(Chan 2004, p. 94). The effect of tillage
on earthworm abundance is usually
negative because tilling causes physical
damage and burial of residues, although
tillage could also increase the
abundance of some earthworm species
due to increases in food supply by
incorporation of residues into the soil
(Chan 2004, p. 90). In this study, tillage
was found to decrease burrow density
and water infiltration into the soil (Chan
2004, pp. 89, 94). The author concluded
that under cropping, preservation of
earthworm burrows can be achieved by
adopting conservation tillage techniques
(Chan 2004, p. 96). Conservation tillage
techniques generally involve
establishing crops in a previous crop’s
residues, which conserves water and
minimizes soil disturbance and erosion.
Johnson-Maynard (September 21,
2010, in litt., p. 2) discusses studies in
which tillage effects on earthworm
density were found to be dependent on
the ecological grouping of earthworms
in an area (i.e., anecic or endogeic).
Chan (2001, pp. 179, 185–187) found in
a 3-year study that tillage had a strong
negative impact on anecic species due
to a combination of direct damage,
burial of residue (food source), and
destruction of earthworm burrows,
while endogeic species were positively
affected in the short term due to their
smaller size (less physical damage) and
increased availability of organic matter.
In the Palouse bioregion, tillage removes
the original topsoil, which may reduce
earthworm burrow densities, soil
aeration, soil infiltration rates, and the
amount of organic matter available to
the giant Palouse earthworm for forage
(Veseth 1986b, p. 2; Petition, pp. 10–11).
Edwards and Bohlen (1996, p. 215)
stated that earthworm populations were
much larger in soil that was
manipulated using no-till methods. Notill agriculture accounted for 14,563
acres (5,893 hectares), or roughly 5
percent of the total surveyed acreage in
the Palouse in 1989, up from the
previous 5-year average (1984–1988) of
3 percent (Hall 1999, p. 15).
The GPE has been documented in the
Palouse in remnant native grassland and
in Douglas-fir forests, and in ponderosa
pine forest at the Leavenworth site near
Chelan, Washington. The GPE
distribution is wider than previously
known, but its total distribution remains
uncertain because the species is very
E:\FR\FM\26JYP1.SGM
26JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 143 / Tuesday, July 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules
wreier-aviles on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with PROPOSALS
difficult to detect, survey protocols are
still being developed, and the level of
survey efforts within and outside of the
Palouse area has been very low. While
there may have been historical impacts
to the GPE from agriculture in the
Palouse, the magnitude of threats from
those activities is difficult to determine
because we have no baseline population
or distribution information with which
to make a comparison, other than the
anecdotal statement in Smith (1897, pp.
202–203). In addition, to date the GPE
has not been found in agriculture fields
in the Palouse, and we have no
information that indicates the GPE is or
will be exposed to tillage and
agriculture. Accordingly, the best
available information does not indicate
that tilling and agriculture represent a
threat to the GPE.
Grazing
James stated that grazing degrades
earthworm habitats, potentially to the
point of causing extirpation, and that
soil compaction from livestock grazing
can affect earthworms by making
burrowing and feeding more difficult
(James 2000, pp. 9–10). The petition
also claims that livestock grazing
changes the quality and accessibility of
detrital material, decreasing organic
matter available to earthworms through
conversion of herbage to partly digested
clumps of organic matter (James 2000, p.
9; Petition, p. 14).
The petitioners describe livestock
grazing as a pervasive land use in the
range of the GPE. James (2000, p. 9)
stated: (1) Livestock grazing can cause
soil compaction, thereby making
burrowing and feeding more difficult for
earthworms; (2) effects are variable by
earthworm species or habitat type (or
both); (3) large earthworm species are
less heavily impacted by grazing; and
(4) ‘‘without further knowledge about
native earthworms and the presence or
absence of earthworms in lands subject
to grazing in the Columbia River basin
assessment area, it is of little use to
speculate further.’’ Cluzeau et al. (1992,
pp. 1661, 1663) demonstrated intensive
trampling by cattle can reduce
earthworm densities, particularly for
smaller species and those living near the
surface. No specific information was
provided by the petitioners regarding
the extent of livestock grazing impacts
in the Palouse or Ellensburg areas.
However, several individuals (Field
2010, in litt., p. 2; Jensen 2010, in litt.,
p. 6) commented that grazing can
benefit some earthworms through
increasing organic matter and plant
species diversity (Dorsey et al. 1998, p.
2; Taylor and Neary 2008, p. 2). We
cannot assess the distribution of the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:37 Jul 25, 2011
Jkt 223001
GPE in relation to grazing activities or
grazing intensity because the species’
range is unknown, but is wider than
previously documented, there have been
very few surveys, and the habitats used
by the species are more variable than
previously known. However, the best
available information indicates grazing
can sometimes benefit earthworms and
larger species like the GPE may be less
impacted by grazing than smaller
species. Accordingly, based on the best
available information, grazing has not
been demonstrated to be a threat to the
species.
Chemical Applications
Earthworms have been shown to be
sensitive to some pesticides (Edwards
and Bohlen 1996, pp. 283–285), and the
toxicity varies depending on the type of
pesticide used. Generally, carbamates
(organic compounds derived from
carbamic acid and frequently used in
insecticides) are the most toxic
(Edwards and Bohlen 1996, pp. 283–
285). In addition, although chemicals
may not result in direct toxicity, they
may have indirect effects such as
reduction in organic matter, which is a
food source for earthworms.
Contaminant exposure and toxicity
depends on a wide range of chemical,
physical, and biological factors, and the
rate of application. Specific knowledge
of the fate and transport of the chemical
within the environment,
physicochemical attributes of the
exposure media, and biological
characteristics of the organism are
required to determine if a species may
be impacted by environmental
contaminants. Although pesticide
application is widespread within the
Palouse, information on GPE
distribution, biology, and life history is
limited. There is significant uncertainty
with regard to determining the potential
impact pesticides might present to this
species, and what application rate(s)
would be required for those impacts to
rise to a level of being a threat to the
species. Exposure could also vary,
depending on the GPE’s life-history
strategy. Anecic species (which we
believe the GPE to be based on the best
available scientific information) may
have less exposure than other forms. For
example, the black-headed worm
(Aporrectodea longa), an anecic species,
was determined to be less susceptible to
pesticides because of its ability to
burrow deep into the soil. This species
also undergoes an obligatory diapause
in the summer months, which may limit
pesticide exposure (Wheatley and
Hardman 1968, as referenced in
Edwards and Bohlen 1996, p. 280;
Gerard 1967, as referenced in Edwards
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
44557
and Bohlen 1996, p. 280). It is unknown
whether the GPE undergoes a diapause.
In addition, in a midwestern United
States study on agriculture and
earthworms, Simonson et al. (2010, p.
147) found the most commonly applied
pesticides and increased crop diversity
did not have a significant effect on
either the endogeic or anecic earthworm
groups.
From 1992 through 1995, pesticides
were assessed as part of the National
Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA)
Program, and at least one pesticide was
detected within 97 percent of surface
water samples collected within the
Palouse bioregion. No pesticides were
found in groundwater (the only source
of drinking water in the area) at
concentrations that exceeded drinking
water standards or guidelines (Roberts
and Wagner 1996, p. 15). Although
some data are available for pesticide
presence in surface and groundwater,
there is little information on pesticide
presence or concentrations in soils
within documented GPE habitat. Many
currently used pesticides are water
soluble and are much less persistent in
soils than the organochlorine pesticides
used in the past.
Approximately 700,000 pounds of
commonly used pesticides are applied
in the Palouse bioregion annually
(Roberts and Wagner 1996, p. 2), and
agricultural interests in the Palouse
region apply many herbicides to control
invasive and noxious plants (Hall et al.
1999, p. 12, Table 3.08; Kellogg et al.
2000, p. 2). Wagner et al. (1995, pp. 21–
22) identified several pesticides used in
an area within the Palouse bioregion,
several of which were detected in water
samples, including Triazine (Atrazine)
(pp. 15–16, Table 4), although several
comments (e.g., McGregor in litt., p. 4)
stated that Triazine family herbicides
are not used commercially for
agriculture in the Palouse. The petition
claims no-till farming uses herbicides
rather than tilling for weed control,
resulting in higher herbicide use in notill fields than in tilled fields (Veseth
1986a, p. 1; Petition, p. 12); however,
no-till farming was estimated in 1989 to
be used on only 5 percent of the fields
in the Palouse region (Hall 1999, p. 15).
Several individuals from the Palouse
bioregion commented that no-till
farming uses glyphosate herbicides
(Jensen 2010, in litt., p. 5; McGregor
2010, in litt., p. 2; Mick 2010, in litt., p.
2), which studies show have no toxicity
for earthworms when properly applied
(Edwards and Bohlen 1996, p. 304).
Individuals also commented that
agricultural users apply fertilizers and
pesticides sparingly and with precision
because of the costs involved (Barstow
E:\FR\FM\26JYP1.SGM
26JYP1
wreier-aviles on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with PROPOSALS
44558
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 143 / Tuesday, July 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules
2010 in litt., p. 2; Jensen 2010 in litt.,
p. 5).
There is limited information available
on pesticide use outside of the Palouse
bioregion in the vicinity of documented
GPE locations. One study detected such
chemicals in irrigation canal monitoring
sites in the Yakima watershed (Johnson
2007, p. 1). However, the monitoring
sites used for the Johnson (2007) study
appear to be lower in the watershed
than the Ellensburg GPE location
(Fender and McKey-Fender 1990, pp.
358, 366). Although groundwater and
surface water pesticide monitoring
studies provide an indication of
pesticide use in the general area, the
data are not informative on whether
pesticides are present in GPEdocumented habitats. We are also
unaware of any pesticide monitoring
studies in the vicinity of the GPE
location near Leavenworth, Washington.
In summary, agricultural lands have
been the primary focus areas for
pesticide and herbicide monitoring
studies; however, the GPE has not been
documented to date in these types of
areas. Although we have some
information on pesticide applications in
the Palouse area, and some generalized
information regarding pesticide toxicity
to earthworms, the available
information is inadequate to determine
how and whether those pesticides
impact soils or habitats occupied by the
GPE. We have some limited pesticide
application information for the
Ellensburg, Washington, vicinity,
although the data are not particularly
enlightening with regard to proximity to
the GPE location, and we have no
pesticide information related to the GPE
location documented near Leavenworth,
Washington. However, information on
another anecic species (Wheatley and
Hardman 1968, as referenced in
Edwards and Bohlen 1996, p. 280;
Gerard 1967, as referenced in Edwards
and Bohlen 1996, p. 280) indicates
deep-burrowing anecic species are less
susceptible to pesticides. In addition,
the prevailing information indicates the
GPE is an anecic species, and anecic
species have less exposure to pesticides
than other earthworm life-history forms.
We do not have information on GPE
pesticide exposure in areas outside of
the Palouse region, and the exposure
will vary with the distribution, habitat
types, and pesticide uses in those areas.
The GPE has a wider range and occurs
in more diverse habitats than previously
known, and we have little information
on pesticide applications occurring in
those areas. Accordingly, the best
available scientific information does not
indicate the application of pesticides or
herbicides is a threat to the GPE.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:37 Jul 25, 2011
Jkt 223001
Urbanization and Rural Development
The petitioners claim that urban
sprawl and rural development
negatively impact GPE habitat in the
Palouse and Ellensburg areas. The
Ellensburg, Washington; Pullman,
Washington; and Moscow, Idaho human
populations increased by approximately
76, 88, and 73 percent, respectively
since 1980 (Petition, p. 12; https://
www.census.gov, figure 4). The petition
states that urban development compacts
soil, removes topsoil, and favors
nonnative, invasive earthworms
(Petition, pp. 12–13), and road
construction affects remaining prairie
remnants (Petition, p. 13). If urban or
rural development were to occur on
remnant prairie habitats in the Palouse,
there may potentially be an impact to
the GPE. However, the Palouse prairie is
not the only habitat type used by the
GPE, as the species has also been
located in Douglas-fir forest in the
Palouse and in ponderosa pine forest
near Leavenworth, Washington (see
Table 1 above).
The petitioners (Petition p. 13)
expressed concern about a potential
rerouting of U.S. 95 through a large
prairie remnant in the Palouse bioregion
south of Moscow, Idaho. The planning
for this project is ongoing (Idaho
Department of Transportation (IDOT)
2011a, p. 1). There were three action
alternatives under consideration (IDOT
2011c, p. 1), one of which (the eastern
alternative) would impact Paradise
Ridge, an area where the GPE has been
documented. However, the IDOT
forwarded only alternatives that would
have no direct impact on rare plant
communities (including remnant prairie
habitat) for further analysis (IDOT
2011b, p. 21, 25), and as a result, the
Paradise Ridge GPE site will not be
affected by the IDOT project. Urban and
rural development in prairie remnants is
still possible, given that Latah County,
Idaho, and Whitman County,
Washington, do not prohibit this type of
development (Latah County Board of
Commissioners 2010; Whitman County
2010); however, there are significant
scientific uncertainties regarding the
full extent of habitat types used by the
GPE, as well as the species’ distribution,
range, and population trends. In
summary, the best available scientific
information does not indicate that
urbanization and rural development are
threats to the GPE.
Forest Management
The impact of forest management
actions on soils varies, and uneven-aged
management (i.e., selective harvest) can
result in machinery-induced soil
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
compaction over a larger area than evenaged management (i.e., clearcut harvest)
(Harvey et al. 1994, p. 44). However,
while selective timber harvest practices
may result in soil disturbance or
compaction from heavy equipment,
there will be less loss of surface or soil
organic matter than when clearcut
timber harvest methods are used (James
2000, p. 10). Forest management
operations can alter the cycling of
above-ground organic materials and
their incorporation into soil (Harvey et
al. 1994, p. 11), which may result in not
only impacts to soil nutrients, but also
changes to soil characteristics such as
water-holding capacity, aeration,
drainage, and cation exchange.
The GPE has been documented in
Douglas-fir forest at Moscow Mountain
in the Palouse, and recently confirmed
in dry ponderosa pine forest near
Leavenworth, Washington (see Table 1
above), although information regarding
details on the forest stand at the GPE
locations, and the extent of habitats the
GPE occupies in forested environments,
is incomplete. Forest types have
changed in the Columbia Basin since
historical times, although the numbers
of forested acres are not substantially
different (Quigley et al. 1996, p. 54). The
potential impacts to the GPE from forest
management activities would likely
depend on whether the species requires
certain forest types or ages, and if so, the
specific nature of the management
prescription being applied in those
areas. There are uncertainties with
regard to whether the GPE is restricted
to certain types of forests, certain ages
of forest, or certain elevations or other
site characteristics, or whether surface
vegetation is relevant to the species. If
the GPE occurs in multiple types and
ages of forest, the availability of a
particular forested habitat type may not
be a limiting factor, and forest
management may have little impact.
James stated in 1995, that he can
‘‘confidently state that nothing is known
of the impact of any management
practice on any Columbia River Basin
native earthworm species’’ (James 1995,
p. 12). However, in 2000, James stated
that logging: (1) Degrades earthworm
habitat, potentially to the point of
causing extirpation and changes in plant
communities, and (2) may degrade
habitat through changing soil type, soil
temperature, moisture regime, or food
resources (James 2000, p. 10). In his
2000 study, James also related the
primary effect of tree removal on
endogeic earthworms to soil climate and
the availability of surface and soil
organic matter sufficient to support
earthworms until second-growth plants
become established. James also stated
E:\FR\FM\26JYP1.SGM
26JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 143 / Tuesday, July 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules
wreier-aviles on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with PROPOSALS
that epigeic species would be expected
to suffer most from the loss of tree cover
because the preferred microhabitat
would be less hospitable and ultimately
less abundant, with the loss of annual
leaf input, and indicated that
disturbance caused from heavy
equipment use may be the most
deleterious to earthworms (Shaefer and
others 1990, in James 2000, p. 10).
However, James did not discuss how
these types of activities would affect an
earthworm species with a deepburrowing, anecic, life-history strategy
(James 2000, p. 10), such as the GPE.
The Service recognizes that forest
management activities can affect soils,
temperatures, and vegetation, and the
impacts would vary with types of forest
management, types of forest, and habitat
needs of the GPE. However, we were
unable to determine how much forested
habitat the GPE occupies or where it
occurs in forested habitat (other than the
above confirmed localities). Additional
surveys will be needed to determine the
extent of forested habitat occupied by
the species. In addition, we have no
information to indicate how GPE would
respond to different types of forest
management activities. Therefore, the
best available information does not
indicate that forest management
activities represent a threat to the GPE.
Summary of Factor A
The GPE is known to occur in both
grassland habitats and forested habitats
in the Palouse. Native grassland habitats
in the Palouse have declined to very low
levels; information on changes to
forested habitats in the Palouse is less
well understood. The species’ range
outside of the Palouse region is
substantially greater than was
previously known, and includes
portions of the eastern slope of the
Cascade Mountains. Survey efforts have
been limited, it is difficult to survey for
the species, and effective survey
methods remain to be developed. In
addition, there are significant scientific
uncertainties regarding the GPE’s
distribution, habitat diversity, biology,
and population trends, which need to be
resolved to be able to conduct a credible
scientific assessment of potential threats
to the species. The best available
information is inconclusive with regard
to whether soil pH is a limiting factor,
or whether there are certain types of
management activities that affect soil
pH in a manner that presents a threat to
the GPE. The literature suggests that
compacting soils may result in impacts
to earthworms, depending on their lifehistory strategy. However, there is no
information with which to determine
with reasonable confidence whether soil
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:37 Jul 25, 2011
Jkt 223001
compaction is occurring in GPE habitat,
and if so, whether it would result in a
negative response in the species.
While there may have been historical
impacts to the GPE from agricultural
conversion in the Palouse, most
agriculture conversion activities were
completed by 1910 (McGregor, 1982, p.
109). The extent to which agricultural
activities currently present a threat to
the GPE is undeterminable, given the
limited information available on the
species’ life history, its range, and the
diversity of habitat types where it
occurs. However, the species has not
been collected in agricultural areas to
date. The extent of the GPE’s range and
habitat types used beyond the Palouse is
also unknown. While there may
potentially be impacts from grazing
activities, we have an incomplete
understanding of the species’ occupied
habitat, whether grazing occurs therein,
the magnitude and intensity of grazing
activities in those areas, and the GPE’s
exposure to grazing impacts. We have
some information on pesticides used in
the Palouse area, and we have
generalized information on pesticide
toxicity to earthworms. However, we are
unable to correlate that information to
soils or habitats used by the GPE in the
Palouse or elsewhere, and whether the
GPE is exposed to those chemicals. The
limited information on pesticide
applications in the Ellensburg,
Washington, vicinity is not instructive
with regard to whether or not those
activities might threaten the GPE, and
there is no information related to
pesticide application in the
Leavenworth, Washington, GPE locality.
Because of our limited knowledge of the
species’ range and occupied habitat, we
cannot credibly evaluate the threat of
urban or rural development to the
species. We recognize that forest
management activities can affect soils,
temperatures, and vegetation, but there
is no information correlating these
activities to a possible negative response
by the GPE. In summary, there is very
little information available, and the best
available scientific information does not
indicate the present or threatened
destruction, modification, or
curtailment of the GPE’s habitat or range
from any of the above activities
constitutes a threat to the species such
that listing under the Act is warranted.
Factor B. Overutilization for
Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
The petition did not identify
overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational
purposes as a potential threat to the
GPE. Unlike butterflies, for example,
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
44559
earthworms are not likely targets for
collection by hobbyists. Recent records
of the GPE are based on the few
individuals that were killed during or
after their collection (fewer than 10).
While we anticipate some additional
GPE mortality due to scientific
collection as we learn more about the
species, we have no reason to believe
the loss of a few individuals for
scientific purposes would present a
threat to the continued existence of the
species. Therefore, we conclude that
overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational
purposes is not a threat to the species
such that listing under the Act is
warranted.
Factor C. Disease or Predation
The petition did not identify any
threats to the GPE related to disease or
predation. Hendrix and Bohlen (2002,
p. 802) stated that imported nonnative
earthworms may be vectors for plant or
animal pathogens or viruses, but the
authors do not correlate this potential
threat to the GPE. Although James
(1995, p. 11) stated that predation on
earthworms can be accentuated by
tilling the soil and exposing earthworms
to bird predators, the correlation to the
GPE is uncertain as the GPE is believed
to be an anecic species and therefore
may be less likely to be exposed by
tilling. Also, surveys to date have not
found the GPE in agricultural fields,
although we acknowledge the extent of
those surveys has been limited.
However, the species would not be
exposed to increased predation caused
by ongoing tillage if it does not occupy
agricultural areas. In summary, we do
not have any evidence indicating that
disease or predation is a threat to the
GPE such that listing under the Act is
warranted.
Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing
Regulatory Mechanisms
In our 2010 90-day finding (75 FR
42064; July 20, 2010), we determined
the existing regulatory mechanisms may
be inadequate to address potential
threats to the GPE. The petitioners claim
Federal, State, or local regulations do
not specifically protect the GPE or its
habitat. The Washington Department of
Fish and Wildlife identifies the GPE as
a species of concern (WDFW 2009, p. 1),
although this status does not provide
regulatory protection for the species.
The petition states the Palouse Subbasin
Management Plan (Gilmore 2004)
includes objectives to protect and
restore native grassland habitat within
the Palouse subbasin, and increase
wildlife habitat value on agricultural
land, but is voluntary in nature and
E:\FR\FM\26JYP1.SGM
26JYP1
wreier-aviles on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with PROPOSALS
44560
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 143 / Tuesday, July 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules
does not provide regulatory mechanisms
that protect the GPE or its habitat.
Habitat conversion in the Palouse may
still occur, as neither Latah County,
Idaho, nor Whitman County,
Washington, have ordinances or
regulations to prevent native habitat
conversion (Latah County Board of
Commissioners 2010, pp. 1–27;
Whitman County 2010, pp. 1–76).
However, we do not have evidence that
habitat loss is a threat (see Factor A
discussion). The petition also
acknowledges the existence of the U.S.
Forest Service, Bureau of Land
Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Environmental Protection
Agency, and National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
Fisheries Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU, USDA Forest
Service et al. 2003), in which the
agencies agreed to voluntarily utilize the
scientific findings of the Interior
Columbia Basin Strategy (CBS) to guide
project implementation and to revise
resource management plans. The
petitioners state the MOU and CBS do
not address the GPE or provide
regulatory mechanisms for its protection
(Petition, p. 15), and claim existing
regulations are ineffective in reducing
the importation of nonnative earthworm
species, which present a threat to the
GPE. However, the best available
information does not indicate that
exotic earthworms represent a threat to
the GPE (see Factor E discussion).
The U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) Office of Pesticide
Programs evaluates which ingredients
and which pesticide products can be
used (registered) in the United States.
The EPA evaluates the potential effects
of pesticides on human health and the
environment, conducts risk
assessments, and works with companies
to develop label instructions that ensure
safety (see the National Pesticide
Information Center at https://
www.npic.orst.edu/reg.htm). One study
found the use of pesticides at
recommended rates had no detectable
negative effects on earthworms in anecic
or endogeic species (Simonsen et al.,
2010, cited in Johnson-Maynard, 2010,
in litt., p. 2). Therefore, the best
available information indicates that the
species is not threatened by the
inadequacy of pesticide management.
Surveys for the GPE have been
limited, and there are significant
uncertainties regarding the species’
distribution and life history, as well as
the diversity of habitat types where it
may be found. This type of information
is essential to credibly assess whether or
not existing regulatory mechanisms are
adequate to address potential threats to
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:37 Jul 25, 2011
Jkt 223001
concludes that the GPE is anecic based
on the best available information, there
is some expert disagreement on the
GPE’s life-history strategy. However, it
is unclear whether this matters in
relation to invasion by nonnative
earthworms, and James (2009 in litt. p.
2) did not present a scientific basis for
using an Illinois species as a surrogate
for the GPE.
We agree that a correlation of decline
and extirpation of some native
Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade
earthworm species with the arrival of
Factors Affecting the Species’ Continued introduced earthworm species is well
Existence
documented (Hendrix and Bohlen 2002,
The petitioners claim that the GPE is
´
´
pp. 805–806; Sanchez-de Leon and
threatened by invasive, nonnative
Johnson-Maynard 2009, pp. 1393–1394),
earthworms (Petition, p. 1). In a 3-year
although the cause may not always be
study of earthworms in the Palouse
direct. The causes of the declines of
region of eastern Washington and Idaho, native species of earthworms are not
´
´
Sanchez-de Leon and Johnson-Maynard documented, but theories center on
(2009, p. 1393) found a dominance of
ecosystem disturbance (Hendrix and
invasive, nonnative earthworms in both Bohlen 2002, pp. 805–806) and
native and nonnative grasslands.
competitive exclusion (James 2000, p. 8;
Nonnative earthworms can invade new
Hendrix and Bohlen 2002, pp. 805–806).
habitats, change the ecological soil
In addition, James (2009, in litt., p. 2)
functions, and displace native species
noted that invasive earthworms do not
(Hendrix and Bohlen 2002, p. 805;
always reduce or eliminate populations
Petition, p. 16). Earthworm populations of indigenous earthworms. Depending
are dominated by nonnative earthworms on ecological requirements, some
in agricultural sites and native prairie
species may be highly competitive with
remnants in the Palouse region (Fauci
a deeper-dwelling species like the GPE,
´
and Bezdicek 2002, p. 257; Sanchez-de
and some not competitive, or there may
´
Leon and Johnson-Maynard 2009, pp.
be a combination of effects coupled with
1396, 1399–1400; Petition, p. 16).
habitat modification. Co-occurrence of
Habitat conversion favors invasion of
native and nonnative earthworm species
nonnative earthworm species that are
is common both in disturbed and
better adapted to a disturbed or
undisturbed ecosystems; however, it is
degraded environment (Petition, p. 16;
not known if this is a transient or
James 1995, p. 5). James (1995, p. 5)
permanent state (Hendrix 2006, p.
stated that many exotic species occur in 1203). Ecosystem disturbance sufficient
the Columbia Basin, possibly altering
to degrade or destroy habitat for native
previously worm-free soils and nutrient species may be caused by the arrival of
cycling pathways, competing with
introduced worm species, or the arrival
native species, and generally modifying of introduced species may follow
any processes linked to soil physical or
habitat degradation caused by other
chemical properties. He also stated that
factors (Hendrix and Bohlen 2002, pp.
invasive earthworm species present a
805–806). Nonnative earthworm
potential threat to the GPE, and
invasions may depend on the degree of
described the loss of a deep-dwelling
disturbance, competition with natives,
Illinois earthworm species as an
and adaptability to site conditions
example of this threat, although the
(Hendrix and Bohlen 2002, p. 1203;
particular study was not cited (James
´
´
Sanchez-de Leon and Johnson-Maynard
2009, in litt., p. 2). Based on the limited 2009, p. 1394).
information that was provided, we were
In a 2003–2005 research effort in the
unable to locate the study. James stated
Palouse region of southeastern
that although invasive earthworms do
Washington and northern Idaho,
´
´
not always reduce or eliminate
Sanchez-de Leon and Johnson-Maynard
populations of indigenous worms, the
(2009, pp. 1394–1395) compared four
invasion cannot help, and some species paired study sites representing native
may be highly competitive with, a
prairie remnants and CRP set-aside
deeper-dwelling species like the GPE,
lands. The study objective was to
while others may not (James 2009, in
characterize and compare native and
litt., p. 2). There are substantial
nonnative earthworm populations in
weaknesses in extrapolating data from
two important grassland ecosystems
an Illinois earthworm species to the
within the Palouse region. Their results
found that one invasive earthworm
GPE, because we have no information
species, the southern worm
that would indicate the responses
(Aporrectodea trapezoides) comprised
would be similar. While the Service
the species. While we acknowledge the
regulations and plans described above
do not provide specific protections for
the GPE, we have no information to
indicate this lack of specific protections
is resulting in threats to the species.
Therefore, we find that the available
information does not support a
conclusion that the inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms is a
threat to the GPE.
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\26JYP1.SGM
26JYP1
wreier-aviles on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 143 / Tuesday, July 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules
90 percent of the total earthworm
´
density in their study areas (Sanchez-de
´
Leon and Johnson-Maynard 2009, p.
1396). One GPE was collected at one of
the four prairie remnant study sites. The
authors suggested that because native
earthworms are found in fragmented
native habitats along with exotic
earthworms, the GPE may be able to
coexist with exotic species in Palouse
prairie remnants. They indicated that
further study would be required to
determine whether the GPE is a resilient
species based on its deep-burrowing
behavior, or whether the results of their
study demonstrate a species
´
´
replacement process (Sanchez-de Leon
and Johnson-Maynard 2009, pp. 1398).
The rarity of native earthworms in
their native prairie remnant study areas
lends support to the researchers’ theory
that native earthworms are being
replaced by nonnative earthworms, even
in visibly intact remnants of fragmented
´
´
habitats (Sanchez-de Leon and JohnsonMaynard 2009, pp. 1398–1399). The
researchers suggested Apporectodea
trapezoides may compete with the GPE
for food in upper layers of soil
´
´
(Sanchez-de Leon and Johnson-Maynard
2009, pp. 1398–1399), but could not
exclude the possibility that the GPE did
not historically occur in high densities
within these prairie remnants because of
their steep slope or high rock content,
the very factors that prevented these
areas from being plowed and preserved
´
them as remnant prairie (Sanchez-de
´
Leon and Johnson-Maynard 2009, p.
1398). They acknowledged that these
findings are inconsistent with other
studies showing that native earthworms
predominate in undisturbed or
minimally disturbed grasslands (James
1991, pp. 2101–2109; Callaham et al.
2003, pp. 1079–1093; Winsome et al.
´
´
2006, pp. 38–53; in Sanchez-de Leon
and Johnson-Maynard 2009, pp. 1397–
1398).
The researchers suggested that a
combination of extensive habitat
fragmentation in the Palouse region, low
habitat quality of remaining prairie
remnants, and possible competitive
interactions with nonnative earthworms
could have decimated GPE populations
´
´
at their study sites (Sanchez-de Leon
and Johnson-Maynard 2009, p. 1398).
They acknowledged that no information
is available on GPE pre-agricultural
density or distribution, but the
description of the species as being
abundant by Smith (1897) contrasts
with the rarity of finding the earthworm
today. They stated that this suggests a
significant reduction in population size
´
´
(Sanchez-de Leon and Johnson-Maynard
2009, pp. 1394, 1399), but acknowledge
their sampling methodology could have
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:37 Jul 25, 2011
Jkt 223001
influenced the results. The hand-sorting
sampling method is regarded as the best
method to estimate abundance of most
earthworm species, but is also known to
underestimate the abundance of deepburrowing species. The researchers
recommend the use of a combination of
methods for future studies, including
non-destructive alternatives such as
electrical methods or extraction
methods with chemicals of low toxicity
that are more suited for deep-burrowing
´
´
earthworm species (Sanchez-de Leon
and Johnson-Maynard 2009, p. 1399).
The GPE’s range is more extensive
than previously known, survey efforts
for this species have been limited, and
effective survey protocols remain to be
developed. We acknowledge conflicting
opinions by earthworm researchers
regarding the GPE’s life-history strategy,
which could influence how it interacts
with exotic earthworms. However, we
believe the prevailing evidence points to
the GPE being a deep-burrowing anecic
species, based on observations in the
field by scientists who appear to be
most familiar with this particular
species, and the report by Smith (1897,
pp. 202–203) describing burrows
extending to a depth of over 15 feet in
new road cuts. Endogeic worms (which
the petitioners believe the GPE to be)
live in the upper layers of mineral soil,
whereas anecic earthworms live in
deep, semi-permanent burrows. The
´
´
researchers Sanchez-de Leon and
Johnson-Maynard also acknowledge that
the hand-sorting sampling method
(which has apparently been applied in
most earthworm surveys)
underestimates the abundance of deepburrowing species. In addition, the
limited evidence available does not lead
to a reasoned scientific conclusion
regarding competitive interactions
between exotic earthworms and the
GPE. In summary, we do not have
evidence to support a conclusion that
competition with exotic earthworms is a
threat to the GPE.
Nonnative Plants
The petitioners describe the existence
of introduced annual grasses and
noxious weeds in the Palouse region,
including Poa pratensis (Kentucky
bluegrass), crops, Bromus tectorum
(cheatgrass), and Centaurea solstitialis
(yellowstar-thistle) (Gilmore 2004, pp.
1–87), and state that it is likely these
species do not provide the same quality
and quantity of earthworm forage as
native vegetation (Petition, p. 17).
However, they did not provide any
evidence to support this statement.
There may be differences in nutritive
value between weeds and native plants,
and there may be differences in
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
44561
phenology (e.g., nonnative plants
emerging at a different time than native
plants), but it is unknown if this is
important to the GPE. Invasive weed
control in the Palouse is difficult
(Jensen, 2010, in litt., p. 3; Nyamai 2009,
pp. 6–7, 21–22). Native plant
communities in the Palouse are
susceptible to invasion by nonnative
plants (Gilmore 2004, pp. 1–26; James
2000, p. 8); domination of deep-soil
sites by Kentucky bluegrass is common,
and in shallow soils cheatgrass and
yellowstar-thistle weeds compete with
native grasslands. McGregor (1982, pp.
124–125) commented that nonnative
weeds, including cheatgrass, have been
present in the Palouse region since the
1890s. The Draft Palouse Subbasin
Management Plan (Gilmore 2004, pp. 1–
86) states that exotic weed invasions are
possibly the greatest threat facing the
grasslands and shrublands of the arid
and semiarid West today, and speciesrich ecosystems are being converted to
monotonous weedlands as aggressive
weeds replace native plants and degrade
habitat for wildlife.
There are significant scientific
uncertainties regarding the distribution
and life history of the GPE, and the
range of habitat types it occupies is
unknown. Although there have been
some studies relevant to nonnative plant
invasion and conversion of native
habitats and ecosystems, we are
unaware of any scientific studies or
other data that would allow an
extrapolation of these observations to
the GPE. Accordingly, we have no
information to indicate that the
introduction of nonnative plants
represents a threat to the species.
Climate Change
The petitioners noted that, because
Fender and McKey-Fender (1990, p.
366) describe annual precipitation as a
parameter of GPE habitat, it is likely that
changing weather patterns caused by
global warming will impact this species’
habitat and distribution (Petition, p. 17).
This citation in fact defines the lower
limit of precipitation tolerated by
argilophilini worm species to be about
15 in (38 cm) annually, which the
authors characterize as being ‘‘about the
edge of moist forests in our area,
although the range of Driloleirus
americanus extends into treeless areas.’’
Although the petition expresses a
concern about future climate change
and its effects on the GPE, it did not
present information or data in this
regard.
The Service evaluated information
available in our files and queried other
available information related to this
potential threat. Lawler and Mathias
E:\FR\FM\26JYP1.SGM
26JYP1
wreier-aviles on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with PROPOSALS
44562
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 143 / Tuesday, July 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules
(2007, pp. 19–20) investigated possible
climate change impacts to vascular
plants, stating that plants may mature
earlier, creating potential mismatches
between pollinators and plants,
parasites and hosts, and herbivores and
food sources; increased summer
temperatures and decreased summer
precipitation may lead to changes in
distribution of some plant species;
sagebrush steppe and grasslands may
contract, while dry forests and
woodlands expand; and plant
distribution changes will depend in part
on plant water-use efficiencies.
According to the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate
Change (2010, p. 1), plant growth may
benefit from fewer freezes and chills,
but some crops may be damaged by
higher temperatures, particularly if
combined with water shortages. Certain
weeds may expand their range into
higher-latitude habitats. Higher levels of
carbon dioxide should stimulate
photosynthesis in certain plants, in
principle. This is particularly true for
C3 plants (named for their carbon
fixation pathway) because increased
carbon dioxide tends to suppress their
photo-respiration. C3 plants make up
the majority of species globally,
especially in cooler and wetter habitats,
and include most crop species, such as
wheat, rice, barley, cassava, and potato.
It is difficult to predict how or if
future changes in growth or distribution
of vegetation resulting from climate
change will affect local conditions for
weeds, native vegetation, or both, or to
predict how such changes would affect
earthworms. Earthworm mortality can
result from extreme temperatures, and
the upper lethal temperature for
different earthworm species is lower
than for other invertebrates ((Edwards
and Bohlen 1996, p. 146) (e.g., 28 °C (82
°F) for Lumbricus terrestris; 37 to 37.75
°C (98.6 to 100 °F) for Pheretima
californica (Schread 1952, as referenced
in Edwards and Lofty 1977, pp. 156–
157)). Earthworms tolerate higher
temperatures by migrating, or burrowing
deeper, but must still be able to feed on
the surface or the top layers of the soil.
The petition did not present any
specific information, and we are
unaware of any studies, that would
facilitate an evaluation of the extent to
which the GPE may be affected by: (1)
Increased air temperatures or soil
changes; (2) earlier seasonality of plant
production; or (3) changes in plant
distribution. Climate change models
used in the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change Fourth Assessment
Report project increased air annual
temperatures in the Pacific Northwest
of, on average, 1.1 °C (2.0 °F) by the
2020s, 1.8 °C (3.2 °F) by the 2040s, and
2.9 °C (5.3 °F) by the 2080s, compared
to 1970 and 1999 (averaged across all
climate models); however, increased air
temperature does not necessarily
correlate with increased surface or soil
temperatures. Projected changes in
annual precipitation averaged over all
models are small (+1 to +2 percent), but
some models project an enhanced
seasonal precipitation cycle with
changes toward wetter autumns and
winters, and drier summers (Littell et
al., 2009, p. 1). In the Pullman,
Washington, area, baseline annual
precipitation is estimated at 21.1 in
(53.6 cm); models projecting to 2080 do
not project annual precipitation below
15 in (38.1 cm) under any scenarios
(Climate Impacts Group 2009, pp. 197–
198). Fifteen inches (38.1 cm) of annual
precipitation has been suggested as the
lower limit of precipitation tolerated by
argilophilini worm species, such as the
GPE (Fender and McKey-Fender 1990,
p. 366).
The impact of climate change on
selected but economically significant
crops in eastern Washington was
predicted to be generally mild in the
short term (i.e., the next two decades),
but increasingly detrimental with time
(potential yield losses reaching 25
percent for some crops by the end of the
century). The projected elevated carbon
dioxide (CO2) was expected to provide
significant mitigation of climate change
and its effects, and in fact result in
important yield gains for some crops
(Littell et al. 2009, p. 212), and it is
likely that some native or nonnative
plants would be similarly increased,
potentially increasing the forage base for
GPE.
Existing climate change projections
are inadequate to allow a prediction
regarding whether or how future climate
change will impact the GPE or its
habitat. This is further complicated by
the significant uncertainties that exist
regarding the species’ distribution,
biology, and habitat needs. However,
given that the prevailing evidence
indicates the species is anecic based on
the results of survey efforts and the
description of deep burrows associated
with the species (Smith 1897, pp. 202–
203), it is reasonable to conclude the
species’ deep-burrowing behavior will
limit its exposure and increase its
adaptability to increased soil
temperatures. It is unclear how or
whether drier summers would impact
the GPE, or whether vegetation changes
would impact the GPE. Therefore, based
on the best available information, we
conclude that climate change does not
constitute a threat to the species.
Summary of Factor E
Although the decline and extirpation
of some native earthworm species with
the arrival of introduced earthworm
species has been well documented,
survey efforts for this species have been
limited and effective survey protocols
remain to be developed. In addition,
there are conflicting opinions by
earthworm researchers regarding the
GPE’s life history strategy, which could
influence how it interacts with exotic
earthworm species. Native plant
communities in the Palouse bioregion
are susceptible to invasion by nonnative
plants, although we are unaware of any
studies that correlate nonnative plant
invasion and conversion of GPE habitat.
The petition stated that future climate
change could affect the GPE, although
no supporting information or data was
presented. Our examination of this
concern has determined that existing
climate change projections are
inadequate to predict how future
climate change may impact the GPE,
which is further complicated because of
the significant uncertainties regarding
the species’ distribution, life history,
and the range of habitat types it
occupies. In summary, there is no
scientific evidence to support a
conclusion that the GPE is threatened by
competitive interactions with exotic
earthworms, the conversion of habitat
by nonnative plants, or future climate
change.
Summary of Factors
A summary of our conclusions for
each of the five factors is found in Table
2. More specific information for each
threat considered under the five factors
is available in the Summary of
Information Pertaining to the Five
Factors section above.
TABLE 2—SECTION 4(A)(1) LISTING FACTORS SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL THREATS CONSIDERED
Factor A ..........................................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:37 Jul 25, 2011
Habitat loss and fragmentation: The current or historical population, distribution, and range of the GPE is
unknown; the habitats used by the GPE are more diverse than suggested by petitioners; survey efforts
have been limited and sampling protocols remain to be developed to improve detection capabilities;
there is no evidence with which to correlate current or future habitat loss with GPE abundance or status.
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\26JYP1.SGM
26JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 143 / Tuesday, July 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules
44563
TABLE 2—SECTION 4(A)(1) LISTING FACTORS SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL THREATS CONSIDERED—Continued
Factor B ..........................................
Factor C ..........................................
Factor D ..........................................
Factor E ..........................................
Soil characteristics: There is no information with which to link soil disturbance with GPE presence or absence.
Soil compaction: There is no evidence that compaction is occurring in GPE habitat or that compaction
would trigger a negative response.
Soil chemistry: Earthworm responses to soil pH vary depending on the species, location, and life history
strategy; there is insufficient information with which to establish cause-effect relationship that might be
limiting to GPE; and there is no information that Palouse region soils are acidic enough to negatively affect earthworms.
Tillage and agriculture: There is no information indicating the GPE is exposed to these activities, and no
GPEs have been documented in agricultural areas.
Grazing: There is no information with which to correlate GPE distribution and grazing areas; the species’
range is unknown and surveys have been limited; grazing can sometimes benefit earthworms; and larger
species like the GPE may be less impacted than smaller species.
Chemical applications: Chemicals are applied in agricultural areas—the GPE has not been documented in
agricultural areas; the available information is inadequate to determine how and whether pesticides impact soils occupied by the GPE; some studies indicate anecic species are less susceptible to pesticides;
the GPE has wider range and occurs in more diverse habitats than previously known; and there is limited information on pesticide applications in known GPE areas.
Urbanization and rural development: There are significant uncertainties regarding GPE distribution, range,
population trends and extent of habitat types used; and there is no evidence that correlates urbanization
and rural development with threats to the GPE.
Forest management: Information is insufficient to determine the extent of forested habitat occupied by the
GPE or where it occurs in forested habitat; and there is no information available regarding how the GPE
would respond to differing types of forest management activities.
Mortality resulting from scientific collections: Earthworms are not targets for collection by hobbyists; some
mortality is expected from scientific collection, but we have no basis to conclude that removal of a few
individuals for this purpose would have population-level impacts.
Disease: We do not have any evidence indicating disease is a threat to the GPE.
Predation resulting from exposure during tilling operations: GPEs have not been observed in agricultural
areas; the GPE is believed to be an anecic species, which would be less likely to be exposed by tilling,
even if it were to occupy agricultural areas.
Non-regulatory programs and measures: Although the WDFW considers the GPE to be a species of concern and the USFS, FWS, NOAA, BLM, EPA developed a MOU agreeing to use scientific findings of the
CBS to guide management plans, these are voluntary measures and have no regulatory affect;
EPA pesticide regulations: The EPA regulates use of pesticide in the U.S.; one study found the use of pesticides at recommended rates had no detectable negative effects on anecic or endogeic earthworms;
and having a better understanding of GPE distribution, life history, and diversity of habitat used is essential to credibly assess whether existing regulatory mechanisms are inadequate.
Nonnative invasive earthworms: The co-occurrence of native and nonnative earthworms is common in both
disturbed and undisturbed ecosystems, and the limited evidence available does not lead to a reasoned
scientific conclusion regarding competitive interactions between the GPE and exotic earthworms;
Nonnative plants: Significant scientific uncertainties exist regarding GPE distribution, life history, and range;
the best available information does not allow an extrapolation of nonnative plant invasion to GPE
threats.
Climate change: The best available information is insufficient to determine the extent to which the GPE
might be affected by increased air temperatures or soil changes, earlier seasonality of plant production,
or changes in plant distribution; fifteen inches of annual precipitation was suggested as lower limit of
precipitation tolerated by species such as the GPE, although models projecting out to 2080 do not show
annual precipitation in the Pullman, WA vicinity falling below 15 inches under any scenarios; and significant uncertainties regarding the GPE’s distribution, biology, and habitat needs frustrate efforts to draw
parallels between climate change and the species’ response.
A: Present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat or range;
B: Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;
C: Disease or predation;
D: Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms;
E: Other natural or manmade factors.
wreier-aviles on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with PROPOSALS
Finding
As required by the Act, we considered
the five factors in assessing whether the
GPE is endangered or threatened
throughout all or a significant portion of
its range. We examined the best
scientific and commercial information
available regarding the past, present,
and future threats faced by the GPE. We
reviewed the petition, information
available in our files, and other
available published and unpublished
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:37 Jul 25, 2011
Jkt 223001
information, and we consulted with the
most qualified GPE experts and queried
universities, State agencies,
conservation districts, and other
entities. In considering what factors
might constitute threats, we must look
beyond the mere exposure of the species
to the factor to determine whether the
species responds to the factor in a way
that causes actual impacts to the
species. If there is exposure to a factor,
but no response, or only a positive
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
response, that factor is not a threat. If
there is exposure and the species
responds negatively, the factor may be
a threat and we then attempt to
determine how significant a threat it is.
If the threat is significant, it may drive
or contribute to the risk of extinction of
the species such that the species
warrants listing as endangered or
threatened as those terms are defined by
the Act. This does not necessarily
require empirical proof of a threat. The
E:\FR\FM\26JYP1.SGM
26JYP1
44564
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 143 / Tuesday, July 26, 2011 / Proposed Rules
wreier-aviles on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with PROPOSALS
combination of exposure and some
corroborating evidence of how the
species is likely impacted could suffice.
The mere identification of factors that
could impact a species negatively is not
sufficient to compel a finding that
listing is appropriate; we require
evidence that these factors are operative
threats that act on the species to the
point that the species meets the
definition of endangered or threatened
under the Act.
The analysis of threats (the five
factors) to determine if the status of GPE
meets the definition of endangered or
threatened was particularly challenging,
because the range of the species appears
to be greater than it was originally
thought to be. In addition to the Palouse
area prairie, the species has been
documented in dry forest habitat on the
east slope of the Cascades. Survey effort
for this species has been low, especially
outside of the Palouse grasslands, and
appropriate survey methods remain to
be developed. In addition, the life
history of the GPE is not completely
understood. There is still some
scientific debate regarding whether the
GPE is an anecic or endogeic species,
although the most recent field
observations and prevailing scientific
evidence indicates it is a deepburrowing anecic species (JohnsonMaynard 2010, p. 2), which would
result in a different exposure to threats
than if it were an endogeic species.
There is no scientific basis to conclude
that any of the activities identified as
threats by the petitioners are, in fact,
threats to the GPE.
Based on our review of the best
available scientific and commercial
information pertaining to the five
factors, we find that the threats are not
of sufficient imminence, intensity, or
magnitude to indicate that the GPE is in
danger of extinction (endangered), or
likely to become endangered within the
foreseeable future (threatened),
throughout all of its range. Therefore,
we find that the GPE does not meet the
definition of an endangered or
threatened species throughout its range.
Distinct Vertebrate Population Segment
and Significant Portion of the Range
Analysis
After assessing whether the species is
endangered or threatened throughout its
range, we next consider whether a
distinct vertebrate population segment
(DPS) or whether any significant portion
of the GPE range meets the definition of
endangered or is likely to become
endangered in the foreseeable future
(threatened), in accordance with the
Service’s Policy Regarding the
Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:37 Jul 25, 2011
Jkt 223001
Population Segments under the
Endangered Species Act (61 FR 4722,
February 7, 1996). Because the GPE is
not a vertebrate species, the Distinct
Vertebrate Population Segment policy is
not applicable to this finding.
Significant Portion of the Range
Having determined that the GPE does
not meet the definition of an
endangered or threatened species, we
must next consider whether there are
any significant portions of the range
where the GPE is in danger of extinction
or is likely to become endangered in the
foreseeable future. Because of
significant uncertainties regarding the
range of the GPE, the limited survey
efforts, and the paucity of information
regarding its life history, there is
nothing to suggest that threats are
disproportionately acting on any portion
of the species’ range, such that the
species is at risk of extinction now or in
the foreseeable future. Therefore, we
find that listing the GPE as an
endangered or threatened species is not
warranted throughout all or a significant
portion of its range. The designation of
critical habitat for this species as
requested by the petitioner is not
appropriate, based on our determination
that the species does not warrant listing
under the Act.
The Service continues to be interested
in the status of this unique species. We
request that you submit any new
information concerning the status of, or
threats to, the GPE to our Washington
Fish and Wildlife Office (see
ADDRESSES) whenever it becomes
available. New information will help us
monitor the GPE and encourage its
conservation.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited is
available on the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov and upon request
from the Washington Fish and Wildlife
Office (see ADDRESSES).
Author(s)
The primary authors of this notice are
the staff members of the Washington
Fish and Wildlife Office.
Authority
The authority for this section is
section 4 of the Endangered Species Act
of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.).
Dated: July 12, 2011.
David Cottingham,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.
[FR Doc. 2011–18645 Filed 7–25–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[FWS–R3–ES–2011–N107; 30120–1113–
0000–C4]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; 5-Year Status Reviews of
Seven Listed Species
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of initiation of reviews;
request for information.
AGENCY:
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, are initiating 5-year
status reviews under the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act),
of seven animal and plant species. We
conduct these reviews to ensure that our
classification of each species on the
Lists of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife and Plants as threatened or
endangered is accurate. A 5-year review
assesses the best scientific and
commercial data available at the time of
the review. We are requesting the public
to send us any information that has
become available since the most recent
status reviews on each of these species.
Based on review results, we will
determine whether we should change
the listing status of any of these species.
DATES: To ensure consideration, please
send your written information by
September 26, 2011. However, we will
continue to accept new information
about any listed species at any time.
ADDRESSES: For how and where to send
comments or information, see ‘‘VIII.
Contacts’’ under SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION.
SUMMARY:
To
request information, see ‘‘VIII. Contacts’’
under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
Individuals who are hearing impaired or
speech impaired may call the Federal
Relay Service at 800–877–8337 for TTY
(telephone typewriter or teletypewriter)
assistance.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
I. Why do we conduct a 5-year review?
Under the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.),
we maintain Lists of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife and Plants (which
we collectively refer to as the List) in
the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at
50 CFR 17.11 (for animals) and 17.12
(for plants). Section 4(c)(2)(A) of the Act
requires us to review each listed
species’ status at least once every 5
years. Then, under section 4(c)(2)(B), we
determine whether to remove any
species from the List (delist), to
E:\FR\FM\26JYP1.SGM
26JYP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 143 (Tuesday, July 26, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 44547-44564]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-18645]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2010-0023; MO 92210-0-008-B2]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding
on a Petition To List the Giant Palouse Earthworm (Drilolerius
americanus) as Threatened or Endangered
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition finding.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a
12-month finding on a petition to list the giant Palouse earthworm
(Driloleirus americanus) as threatened or endangered as petitioned, and
to designate critical habitat under the Endangered Species Act of 1973,
as amended (Act). After review of all available scientific and
commercial information, we find that listing the giant Palouse
earthworm is not warranted at this time. However, we ask the public to
submit to us any new information that becomes available concerning the
threats to the giant Palouse earthworm or its habitat at any time.
DATES: The finding announced in this document was made on July 26,
2011.
ADDRESSES: This finding is available on the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket Number FWS-R1-ES-2010-0023. 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, Washington Fish and Wildlife Office, 510
Desmond Drive SE., Suite 102, Lacey, WA 98503-1263; telephone 360-753-
9440; facsimile 360-753-9008. Please submit any new information,
materials, comments, or questions concerning this finding to the above
street address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ken Berg, Manager, Washington Fish and
Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES). If you use a telecommunications device
for the deaf (TDD), please call the Federal
[[Page 44548]]
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires that, for any petition
to revise the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and
Plants that contains substantial scientific or commercial information
that listing the species may be warranted, we make a finding within 12
months of the date of receipt of the petition. In this finding, we will
determine that the petitioned action is: (1) Not warranted, (2)
warranted, or (3) warranted, but the immediate proposal of a regulation
implementing the petitioned action is precluded by other pending
proposals to determine whether species are endangered or threatened,
and expeditious progress is being made to add or remove qualified
species from the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants. Section 4(b)(3)(C) of the Act requires that we treat a
petition for which the requested action is found to be warranted but
precluded as though resubmitted on the date of such finding, that is,
requiring a subsequent finding to be made within 12 months. We must
publish these 12-month findings in the Federal Register.
Previous Federal Actions
On August 30, 2006, we received a petition dated August 18, 2006,
from three private citizens and three other parties (the Palouse
Prairie Foundation, the Palouse Audubon Society, and Friends of the
Clearwater) requesting that the giant Palouse earthworm (Driloleirus
americanus) (GPE) be listed as an endangered or threatened species
under the Act, and critical habitat be designated. The petition
included supporting information regarding the species' taxonomy and
ecology, distribution, present status, and causes of decline. On
October 9, 2007, we published a 90-day finding stating that the August
30, 2006, petition did not provide substantial scientific or commercial
information to indicate that listing the GPE may be warranted (72 FR
57273). On January 24, 2008, the petitioners filed a lawsuit in the
U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Washington against the U.S.
Department of the Interior and the Service challenging the ``not
substantial'' decision (Palouse Prairie Foundation et al. v. Dirk
Kempthorne, et al., No. 2:08-cv-0032-FVS). On February 12, 2009, the
District Court denied the Appellants' motion for summary judgment and
granted summary judgment in favor of the Service, upholding the October
9, 2007, determination. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
affirmed the District Court ruling on June 14, 2010 (D.C. no. 2:08-cv-
00032-FVS).
History of the Current Petition
On July 1, 2009, we received a new petition dated June 30, 2009,
from Friends of the Clearwater, Center for Biological Diversity,
Palouse Audubon, Palouse Prairie Foundation, and Palouse Group of the
Sierra Club (petitioners) requesting that the GPE be listed as an
endangered or threatened species either in the entirety of its range,
or in the Palouse bioregion as a significant portion of its range, and
that critical habitat be designated under the Act. The petition clearly
identified itself as such and included the requisite identification
information for the petitioners, as required by 50 CFR 424.14(a). The
petition included information on the GPE's taxonomy, species
description, distribution, habitat, status, and potential threats. The
petition was accompanied by a letter from Samuel W. James, who stated
that he is ``the only earthworm taxonomist operating in the U.S.A.''
and has ``extensive experience in biodiversity of earthworms'' (2009 in
litt.), and included additional information about the GPE and potential
threats to the species. In an August 5, 2009, letter to the
petitioners, we acknowledged receipt of the petition and determined
that issuing an emergency regulation temporarily listing the species
under section 4(b)(7) of the Act was not warranted. We also stated
that, due to funding constraints in fiscal year 2009, we would not be
able to further address the petition at that time but that we would
further evaluate the petition when funding became available in fiscal
year 2010.
On July 20, 2010, the Service announced a 90-day finding on the
2009 petition to list the GPE as endangered or threatened under the
Act, and to designate critical habitat (75 FR 42059). Based on our
review, we found the petition presented substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating that listing the GPE as endangered or
threatened may be warranted. We initiated a review of the status of the
species to determine whether listing the GPE was warranted, and
requested scientific and commercial data, and other information,
regarding the species. This notice constitutes the 12-month finding on
the July 1, 2009, petition to list the GPE as endangered or threatened,
as petitioned.
Species Information
The GPE is one of about 100 native and at least 45 nonnative
earthworms described in the United States (Hendrix and Bohlen 2002, p.
802). However, very little is known about the species. The GPE was
first described by Smith in 1897, based on a collection near Pullman,
Washington. At the time of this collection, Smith stated: ``This
species is very abundant in that region of the country and their
burrows are sometimes seen extending to a depth of over 15 feet''
(Smith 1897, pp. 202-203). His writing is based on second-hand
information provided by R.W. Doane of Washington State Agricultural
School (now Washington State University) in Pullman, Washington, which
does not offer numerical or geographical context for his use of the
terms ``very abundant'' or ``that region of the country.'' This burrow
depth characterization has not been confirmed or contradicted by any
subsequent field work.
Early descriptions indicate the GPE can be as long as 3 feet (ft)
(0.9 meters (m); Smith 1897, p. 203). Reports in the popular literature
of GPEs up to 3.3 ft (1 m) in length (Science Daily 2006, p. 1; Science
Daily 2008, p. 1) have not been confirmed, and collections suggest that
specimens are more moderate in size (approximately 6 to 8 inches (in)
(15.2 to 20.3 centimeters (cm)) in length) (Smith 1937, p. 161; Science
Daily 2006, p. 1; Science Daily 2008, p. 1).
Taxonomy and Species Description
The Service accepts the current taxonomic classification of the GPE
(Subclass--Lumbricina; Superfamily--Megascolecoidea; Family--
Megascolecidae; Genus--Driloleirus; Species--americanus) (Smith 1897,
p. 203; Fender and McKey-Fender 1990, p. 372; Fender 1995, pp. 53-54).
While the naming conventions of the GPE have changed over time
(Megascolides americanus in 1897 (Smith 1897, p. 203) changed to
Driloleirus americanus by 1990 (Fender and McKey-Fender 1990, p. 372),
there is no information provided in the petition or in our files that
would indicate scientific disagreement about its taxonomic
classification as a species. Adult specimens in the Driloleirus genus
are generally distinctive, but identifying to the species level
requires expert morphological analysis, including dissection or DNA
evidence. Both methods take time, and there are few species experts. It
is difficult to identify juvenile earthworm species, because they have
no clitellum (a glandular section in the body wall, similar in shape to
a saddle). The clitellum is a
[[Page 44549]]
key morphological difference for determining many species, and juvenile
earthworm coloration can also vary, depending on soil type. Newly
hatched earthworms are even more difficult to identify, and until DNA
analysis becomes a more available tool, earthworm identification
requires the examination of sexually mature individuals. Depending on
site conditions and growth, an earthworm would need to be 3 to 6 months
of age before being recognizable as being in the genus Driloleirus
(Johnson-Maynard 2011, pers. com.).
Distribution
Distribution of native earthworm species in the Pacific Northwest
is limited by several factors. Pleistocene glaciation covered nearly
the whole of Canada and the northern edge of the United States,
eliminating earthworms from the area covered with ice (Fender 1995, p.
54). Since the retreat of the glaciers, earthworms in the Lumbricidae
family have been able to colonize the ice-free areas in a few
centuries, although earthworm distribution in the Megascolecidae family
(to which the GPE belongs) stops near the terminal moraines (ridges of
rock, gravel and soil across valleys at the end glaciers or ice fields)
of the ice sheet. This may be because the megascolecids prefer fine-
textured soils, which are largely absent at the edge of Pleistocene
glaciation (Fender 1995, p. 55). Other barriers, including mountain
ranges and arid areas (Bailey et al. 2002, p. 26), have slowed
recolonization of the Columbia Basin.
At the time of the original description, in 1897, this taxon was
known only from the area around Pullman, Washington (Smith 1937, p.
157). The GPE was originally considered to be an endemic species (a
species native to a particular region), that uses grassland sites with
deep soil and native vegetation of the Palouse bioregion (Wells 1983,
p. 213; James 1995, p. 1; Niwa et al. 2001, p. 34). The Palouse
bioregion is an area of rolling hills and deep soil in southeastern
Washington and adjacent northwestern Idaho. More recently, this species
has also been found in Douglas-fir forests in the Palouse region
(Johnson-Maynard, September 21, 2010, in litt. p. 1; November 30, 2010,
in litt. p. 1), and on the eastern slope of the North Cascades
Mountains (Cascades) west of Ellensburg, Washington (Fender and McKey-
Fender 1990, p. 358). In 2010, the GPE was also documented in dry pine
forest habitat near Leavenworth, Washington (Johnson-Maynard 2010, p.
3, in litt.). This broader distribution, which is now known to include
Latah County (Idaho), Whitman County (Washington), Kittitas County
(Washington), and Chelan County (Washington), provides evidence that
the species may not be endemic to Palouse grasslands.
Confirmed GPE locations, and other potential GPE locations (DNA is
currently being analyzed for these specimens), are identified in Table
1. Two of the potential GPE collections are of particular interest: one
in shrub/grassland habitat near Chelan, Washington, and one in second-
growth forest habitat east of Moscow, Idaho (Johnson-Maynard 2010, pp.
1-2; November 30, 2010, in litt. p. 2). The DNA or morphology results
for these specimens are not yet available to enable identification to
the species level, but if these specimens are confirmed to be GPE, the
currently known distribution and habitat types documented for the
species will be expanded. One commenter provided a list of possible GPE
locations in the Palouse region (Hall 2010, in litt. pp. 2-3), but
acknowledged that the sites were not confirmed. Although these
anecdotal locality reports may be helpful in identifying areas for
future GPE surveys, they are not relevant to this finding.
Table 1--Locations and Characteristics of Collections of the GPE or Driloleirus Genus
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vegetation and other
Site name/year County/State Positive ID as GPE site characteristics, Collector (sources) Survey methods, if
if known comments known
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pullman, 1897? Latah, ID............. Yes.................. ...................... Collected by Doane. .....................
(Smith 1897, Gates
1967).
Pullman, 1931...................... Whitman, WA........... Yes.................. ...................... Collected by Svilha. .....................
(Smith 1937).
Pullman, 1978...................... Whitman WA?........... Yes.................. Beneath hawthorn Collected by Fender. .....................
thicket. (Wells et al. 1983,
p. 213, credited to
Fender). One mile
east of Pullman.
Hwy 95/195, 1978................... Whitman, WA........... Yes.................. ...................... Collected by Fender. .....................
(Wells et al. 1983,
p. 213; credited to
Fender). Follow-up
visit by Johnson-
Maynard and Fender
in 2006 showed
habitat
significantly
degraded (Johnson-
Maynard November 20,
2010, in litt, p. 1).
Moscow Mountain, 1988.............. Latah, ID............. Yes.................. Douglas fir forest; Collected by Johnson .....................
Under the moss and and Johnson.
litter layer of a (Palouse Prairie
forested site. Foundation 2006;
Johnson-Maynard,
September 21, 2010,
in litt. p. 1).
[[Page 44550]]
Ellensburg, pre-1990............... Kittitas, WA.......... Yes **............... ...................... Collected by Fender. .....................
(Fender 1995; James
2000). ** Specimen
in poor shape, but
reflects properties
of GPE (Fender Sept.
14, 2010, in litt.
p. 1; Fender, Sept.
30, 2010, in litt.
p. 10; Johnson-
Maynard 2011, Pers.
Comm.).
Smoot Hill, 2005................... Whitman, WA........... Yes.................. Native Palouse prairie Collected by Characterized
remnant, some shrubs; S[aacute]nchez-de earthworm
25% slope, Northwest Le[oacute]n. populations in two
aspect, 2,723 feet (S[aacute]nchez-de grassland types
elevation; Soil: silt Le[oacute]n and (native prairie and
loam, gravelly sandy. Johnson-Maynard CRP) in Latah
2009, p.1398; County, ID, and
Johnson-Maynard Whitman County, WA.
November 30, 2010 in Conducted surveys in
litt. p. 2-3 ). May and June of 2003
Found during 2-year through 2005.
survey that included Methods: 5 measured
remnant prairie and pits randomly
Conservation Reserve located and
Program (CRP) excavated at each
grasslands in site and earthworms
Palouse. were sampled by hand
sorting, then
classified to
species.
Paradise Ridge, 2008............... Latah, ID............. Yes.................. Palouse prairie, some Collected by Umiker .....................
shrubs; 30% slope; and Robertson.
Southwest aspect; (Science Daily 2008,
3,527 feet elevation; Johnson-Maynard
blue bunch November 30, 2010,
wheatgrass, Idaho in litt. p. 2-3;
fescue, snowberry, Hill, 2010 in litt.
non-native grasses; pp. 2-3; Johnson-
Soil: Loam, high Maynard, September
content of gravel. 21, 2010, in litt.
p. 1; Johnson-
Maynard 2010 p. 2-
3). Determined to be
GPE based on
location and partial
specimen.
Paradise Ridge, 2010............... Latah, ID............. Yes. Identified by Palouse prairie, same Collected by Xu and 2010 GPE specimens
James. as above. Umiker. (Johnson- were collected with
Maynard, November electroshocker.*
30, 2010, in litt. Handsorting
p. 2). Adult GPE conducted at the
found at a privately same time did not
owned prairie result in the
remnant near Moscow, collection of GPE
Idaho, 2008 and 2010 (Johnson-Maynard
Paradise Ridge sites December 21, 2010 in
less than 50 feet litt. p. 2). *Use of
from each other. electrodes and a
Nearby location generator to direct
surveyed in 2005 electric current
with no GPE found. into the soil.
East of Moscow, ID, 2010........... Latah, ID............. Pending.............. Secondary growth Collected by: ? .....................
forest (Douglas fir). (Johnson-Maynard,
November 30, 2010,
in litt. p. 2).
Sample too degraded
for morphological
description;
currently analyzing
DNA.
Leavenworth, 2007.................. Chelan, WA............ Pending.............. Open forest, savanna; Collected by .....................
Relatively open resident, initially.
Ponderosa pine (Science Daily 2008,
forest. Compacted Johnson-Maynard
area covered with 2010, pp. 3-4
gravel soil. Johnson-Maynard
November 30, 2010,
in litt. p. 2.)
Driloleirus genus;
Currently analyzing
DNA.
[[Page 44551]]
Leavenworth, 2010.................. Chelan, WA............ Yes. Adult examined Ponderosa pine, Collected by Xu and Follow-up surveys
by Fender. Arrowleaf baslamroot/ Umiker. (Johnson- specific to
mule's ear, annual Maynard 2010 p. 2- determining
grasses; South 4). Multiple Driloleirus species
aspect, 27% slope; hatchling specimens-- and soil and site
1,846 feet elevation; will analyze one characteristics.
Soil: sandy loam. injured hatchling Survey conducted in
for DNA. November, 2010. Soil
was excavated from
one large pit
(approximately 60 cm
by 60 cm) at each
site. Soil was hand-
sorted and all
earthworms removed
and counted. One
sample was collected
from each site for
DNA analysis.
Near Camas Meadows (near Chelan, WA............ Pending.............. Arrowleaf balsamroot, Collected by: .....................
Leavenworth), 2010. scattered ponderosa Fleckenstein
pine. (Johnson-Maynard
December 22, 2010 in
litt. p. 2) Smaller
adult, will analyze
DNA.
Chelan, 2010....................... Chelan, WA............ Pending.............. Grasses, Arrowleaf Juvenile found--will Follow-up surveys
balsamroot, analyze for DNA specific to
sagebrush, sparse (Johnson-Maynard determining
ponderosa pine 2010, p. 2-4). Driloleirus species
nearby; ~38% slope, and soil and site
South aspect; 2,057 characteristics.
feet elevation; Soil: Survey conducted in
gravelly sandy loam. November, 2010. Soil
was excavated from
one large pit
(approximately 60 cm
by 60 cm) at each
site. Soil was hand-
sorted and all
earthworms removed
and counted. One
sample was collected
from each site for
DNA analysis.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 1 identifies confirmed GPE and potential GPE locations (at
this time just identified to Driloleirus genus; DNA analysis is
pending), and information on survey methods for each collection where
available. While negative survey data are important to understand the
distribution of any species, the Service found little information on
surveys with negative results in the Palouse, and no information on
negative surveys outside of the Palouse. The available information on
negative survey results is presented in Table 1.
Earthworms are not randomly distributed in the soil (Guild 1952, as
referenced in Edwards and Lofty 1977, p. 127), and some are difficult
to detect. Factors that influence this non-random distribution could
include: (1) Physical and chemical characteristics of the soil; (2)
food availability; (3) the reproductive potential and dispersal
capabilities of the species; or (4) interactions between these factors
(Murchie 1958, as referenced in Edwards and Lofty 1977, p. 127).
Earthworms also occur in patchy distributions, which make it difficult
to determine population demographics (Whalen 2004, pp. 143, 148,
Umicker 2009, p. 187). Edwards and Bohlen (1996, p. 90) stated that
assessments of size, distribution, and structure of earthworm
populations are difficult because numbers change with season,
demography, and vertical distribution in the substrate.
In his letter submitted with the petition, James (2009 in litt. p.
2) states that a reasonable and sufficient effort has been made to find
the GPE in a variety of habitats within its presumed range, and that
these efforts have failed except in very rare instances in natural or
little-disturbed vegetation. James also stated that the Washington
State University team surveyed many locations (most importantly in
agricultural lands), looking for large burrows that may indicate the
presence of large earthworms, but only found Lumbricus terrestris (the
common night crawler), an invasive species (James 2009, in litt. pp. 2-
3). However, recently collected and confirmed specimens that have been
documented in forested habitats and on the eastern slope of the Cascade
Mountains in Washington (Table 1) indicate that survey efforts for the
GPE to date have not been adequate to establish its distribution or the
diversity of habitat types in which it occurs. Therefore, we believe
the petitioners' assumptions regarding the presumed distribution of the
GPE are likely erroneous.
Fauci and Bezdicek's study (2002, pp. 258-259) compared nonnative
lumbricid earthworm distribution in the Palouse region of eastern
Washington and northern Idaho. In the spring of 1999, they surveyed 46
sites in the Palouse, including sites in agricultural fields with a
history of conservation tillage, areas next to waterways, and perennial
vegetation areas along road rights-of-way or on old homesteads. Survey
methods included digging six spades of soil in a 10-square-meter area,
then hand-sorting and examining the soil. Additional samples were taken
if immature worms were found to ensure adults for identification.
Although the results for the GPE were negative, the Fauci and Bezdicek
survey was not designed to specifically find this species. In addition,
survey protocols have not yet been developed for the GPE; therefore, it
is uncertain the protocol used in this study would have found GPE, if
present. If reports that the GPE lives in burrows more than 15 feet
deep are correct, the spade sampling method used by Fauci and Bezdicek
would appear to be inadequate to confirm the species' absence.
[[Page 44552]]
Other negative earthworm surveys in the Palouse area were also not
specifically designed to find the GPE. Umiker et al. (2009, pp. 184-
185, 187) compared soil characteristics, cropping practices, and
earthworm densities in 24 agricultural fields in the Palouse, but did
not identify the earthworms to species level in that study (p. 187).
However, adult Driloleirus earthworms are distinctive enough that they
likely would have been documented, had they been collected. Juvenile
Driloleirus earthworms, on the other hand, are not distinctive
(Johnson-Maynard 2011, pers. com.), and hence could have been missed in
this survey. Johnson-Maynard et al. (2007, p. 338) compared earthworm
dynamics and soil properties in conventionally tilled and no-till
agricultural fields on one research farm in the Palouse, and found only
the nonnative southern worm (Aporrectodea trapezoids) (p. 340). Smetak
et al. (2007, p. 161) investigated earthworm population density in
urban settings in Moscow, Idaho; no native earthworm species were
collected (p. 166). Nevertheless, while the negative survey data are
interesting, in that the GPE has not been detected in agricultural
fields or urban areas to date, coupled with information in Table 1,
these data demonstrate how geographically limited the known survey
efforts have been.
It is apparent that additional GPE surveys are needed to determine
the range, habitat preference, and life history of this species,
particularly in light of the recent confirmation of the species near
Leavenworth, Washington, in forested habitat. James (2000, p. 5)
acknowledges there have been a limited number of earthworms collected
in the Columbia basin, which includes the eastern slope of the Cascade
Mountains and the Palouse area, and only a small portion of potential
habitat has been surveyed. In addition to limited survey efforts, this
species is difficult to detect. Fender (September 14, 2010, in litt. p.
1) noted that Driloleirus species can at times be found near the
surface during suitable survey conditions, but if conditions are dry
they may be undetectable. Johnson-Maynard (September 21, 2010, in litt.
p. 2) noted that one Palouse site had negative survey results for
native earthworms in 2005, but later sampling in 2010 detected one
adult GPE at the same site. The Xerces Society stated that due to the
difficulty in detecting the Oregon giant earthworm (Driloleirus
macelfreshi) (a similar species in the same genus), abundance estimates
have not been made, and the species' status and threats cannot be
determined until an effective survey protocol is developed and tested
(Xerces Society 2009, p. 3).
Due to the difficulty in surveying for the GPE, the Idaho
Department of Fish and Game, the Service, and others have contributed
resources to the University of Idaho to develop appropriate survey
protocols to address the scientific challenges associated with GPE
surveys (Groen 2010, in litt. p. 2; Johnson-Maynard 2010, in litt. p.
2; Science Daily 2008, p. 2). Staff at the University of Idaho,
including Johnson-Maynard and others, are currently working to develop
and refine sampling methods and strategies, including a soil
electroshocking technique that appears to be promising.
In summary, the level of survey effort for the GPE has been low,
the species is difficult to detect, and effective survey methods are
still being developed. There is a lack of survey data, and large
geographic and taxonomic gaps in our knowledge (Fleckenstein 2011, in
litt. p. 1). Researchers have only recently begun to look more broadly
for the species including localities along the eastern slope of the
Cascades. However, the GPE has now been documented in dry forest
habitats, which provides further evidence that the complete range and
distribution of the species is presently unknown, but are likely
broader than the area identified by the petitioners.
Habitat
Habitat requirements for the GPE are not well understood. The
original descriptions by Smith (1897, 1937) do not present any
descriptive information about the habitat where the specimens were
initially collected. The GPE was originally thought to be a Palouse-
region grassland species, and several specimens have been found in
Palouse grassland remnants (Table 1; S[aacute]nchez-de Le[oacute]n and
Johnson-Maynard 2009, p. 1393; Science Daily 2008, p. 1; Johnson-
Maynard September 21, 2010, in litt. pp. 1-2; Johnson-Maynard, November
30, 2010, in litt. p. 2-3; Jensen 2010, in litt. p. 6). Wells et al.
(1983, p. 213) stated that Fender collected specimens under hawthorn
thickets; Johnson-Maynard (September 21, 2010, in litt. p. 1) described
the vegetation type at Johnson and Johnson's Moscow Mountain site as
Douglas-fir forest.
There is limited specific information on the habitat type
associated with the GPE collected near Ellensburg, Washington. Fender
and McKey-Fender (1990) described the location as ``in the hills west
of Ellensburg,'' and they described the GPE range at this locality as
extending into ``treeless areas'' (pp. 358, 366). The GPE was not
collected in recent surveys conducted in agricultural and urban
locations in Latah County, Idaho (Johnson-Maynard et al. 2007, p. 340,
Smetak et al. 2007, p. 166; Umiker et al. 2009, p. 187), and Whitman
County, Washington (Fauci and Bezdicek, 2002 p. 257). Vegetation and
soil characteristics of confirmed and potential GPE sites are described
above in Table 1, where that information was available. S[aacute]nchez-
de Le[oacute]n and Johnson-Maynard (2009, p. 1394; Petition, p. 5)
observed that remaining prairie remnants in the Palouse are often steep
or rocky, or contain shallow soil, and, therefore, may be less suitable
for earthworms (S[aacute]nchez-de Le[oacute]n and Johnson-Maynard 2009,
pp. 1394, 1398; Petition, p. 5). However, Johnson-Maynard (2010, pp. 2-
3) noted that soils at the Paradise Ridge site near Latah, Idaho, had a
high gravel content, suggesting that the GPE may be able to exist in
soil types that would not be expected to be preferred habitat for most
earthworms. She further noted that past Driloleirus samples provided by
a landowner near Leavenworth, Washington, were obtained from a
compacted area covered with gravel. Johnson-Maynard (2010, pp. 3-4)
described the confirmed GPE collection site near Leavenworth,
Washington, as Ponderosa pine forest with an understory of Balsamorhiza
sagittata (arrowleaf balsamroot) and annual grasses. Although the GPE
has also been documented in forests on the eastern slope of the
Cascades and in Douglas-fir forests in the Palouse, significant
uncertainties exist as to whether the species occurs in specific types
or ages of forests, occurs in previously logged forests, or may be
habitat-limited because of elevation or other site characteristics.
Biology
Earthworms are generally divided into three life-history strategies
based on their habitat use: epigeic, endogeic, or anecic (Bouche 1977,
as referenced in James 2000, p. 2; Edwards and Bohlen 1996, pp. 113-
115). Epigeic worms live near the ground's surface and consume organic
litter on and near the surface. Endogeic worms (which the petitioners
currently believe the GPE to be (James 2009, in litt. p. 3)): (1) Live
in the upper layers of mineral soil, (2) consume organic material in
the mineral soil or at the soil-litter interface, and (3) are often
pale in appearance (Edwards and Bohlen 1996, p. 114). Anecic worms,
which the petitioners initially believed the GPE to be (James 2009, in
litt. p. 3), and we believe the GPE to be based on
[[Page 44553]]
the prevailing evidence, live in deep, semi-permanent burrows and move
to the surface to feed on fresh plant litter. Anecic earthworms are the
largest and longest lived of the three earthworm types (James 2000, p.
2; 1995, p. 6), and transport fresh plant material from the soil
surface to subterranean levels. Deep-burrowing anecic earthworms
usually produce castings on the surface near exits to their burrows
(Edwards and Bohlen 1996, p. 198). GPE castings were observed at the
Leavenworth, Washington, study area (Johnson-Maynard 2010, p. 2).
James (2009, in litt. p. 3) concluded that, based on the lack of
pigmentation and information indicating that the species is not
associated with surface castings, the GPE ``is probably an endogeic,
meaning living entirely in the soil, on soil resources consisting of
organic matter in varying stages of decomposition.'' He also states
that deep burrow depths would be useful in avoiding dry soil conditions
common in late summer within the range of the species (September 3,
2010, in litt. p. 1). Fender (September 14, 2010, in litt. p. 1) thinks
deep soils would be helpful to survival and sees no reason to doubt the
earlier descriptions of burrowing depths.
Characterizing earthworm life histories within one of three life-
history strategies may not be entirely instructive, because some
species may exhibit a combination of characteristics (Bouche 1977, as
referenced in Edwards and Bohlen 1996, p. 113). However, understanding
an earthworm species' life history is important for evaluating
potential threats, the pathways that expose them to threats, and how
they might respond.
As stated earlier, James (2009, in litt., p. 3) initially
speculated that the GPE was an anecic species, but now believes the
species is probably an endogeic earthworm. He indicated that this
conclusion is based on seeing a GPE specimen and learning more about
the genus; if the GPE lacks pigmentation in the head and does not
defecate at the surface (i.e., leave castings), it is highly unlikely
to have an anecic life-history strategy. We have no information
indicating whether James has conducted field surveys for this
particular earthworm species; however, his current opinion appears to
be inconsistent with the existing literature, descriptions of GPE
burrowing depths described in the literature, and field observations of
castings by researchers at the Leavenworth, Washington, GPE location
(Smith 1897, pp. 202-203; Fender and McKey-Fender 1990, p. 364; James
2000, p. 5; Johnson-Maynard 2010, p. 2).
In our 2010 90-day finding (75 FR 42059), we solicited scientific
information on the GPE's endogeic or anecic life-history strategy to
inform our status review. Johnson-Maynard (in litt. 2010, p. 2) stated
that the GPE is likely anecic, based on her surveys at locations near
Leavenworth, WA. In those studies, the GPE was associated with pores
leading down into unconsolidated parent material, and surface castings
were observed, which are indicative of a deep-burrowing species.
Johnson-Maynard has conducted or been involved with a number of field
surveys where GPE specimens were collected (see Table 1 above).
Therefore, based on the best available scientific information, field
observations, and the existing literature, we believe the prevailing
evidence indicates the GPE is an anecic earthworm species, although we
acknowledge that there are still significant uncertainties regarding
its biological requirements.
In summary, the current understanding regarding the life cycles of
even quite common earthworms is inadequate and requires more study
(Edwards and Lofty 1977, p. 68), and there are many species about which
little is known (Edwards and Bohlen 1996, p. 46). Accordingly, there
are significant scientific uncertainties regarding the biology,
distribution, habitat, and population trends of the GPE. The GPE's
distribution has been documented to include areas within the Palouse
bioregion, and areas within the eastern slope of the Cascade Mountains
in Washington. We do not know whether there are other occupied sites
between or outside of these locations, as few surveys have been
conducted, the species is difficult to survey for, and survey methods
are still being developed.
Documented habitat types used by the GPE in the Palouse bioregion
include native grasslands and Douglas-fir forest. In addition, the GPE
location near Leavenworth, Washington, is described as dry Ponderosa
pine forest. There is very little specific information on habitat type
at the GPE location west of Ellensburg, Washington. The Driloleirus
earthworm species recently collected near Chelan, Washington, and east
of Moscow, Idaho, are being identified (see Table 1 above). If these
specimens are confirmed to be the GPE through DNA or other analysis,
the species' range and diversity of habitat types used would be
expanded.
Summary of Information Pertaining to the Five Factors
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and implementing regulations
(50 CFR part 424) set forth procedures for adding species to, removing
species from, or reclassifying species on the Federal Lists of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of
the Act, a species may be determined to be endangered or threatened
based on any of the following five factors:
(A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes;
(C) Disease or predation;
(D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence.
In making this finding, information pertaining to the GPE in
relation to the five factors provided in section 4(a)(1) of the Act is
discussed below. In addition, in making this 12-month finding on the
petition we considered and evaluated the best available scientific and
commercial information.
Given the paucity of information on GPE, surrogates may be useful.
The petitioners claim that it is appropriate to use other earthworms as
surrogates to determine effects to the GPE, provided they are
biologically and ecologically similar (Sappington et al. 2001, p. 2869;
Caro et al. 2005, p. 1821; Petition, p. 10). In some instances, the use
of surrogate species (such as other earthworms) may be helpful in
evaluating potential effects to the GPE, provided the appropriate
scientific controls and precautions are taken. Caro et al. (2005, p.
1821) states ``for substitute species to be appropriate, they should
share the same key ecological or behavioral traits that make the target
species sensitive to environmental disturbance and the relationship
between populations' vital rates and disturbance levels should match
that of the target; these conditions are unlikely to pertain in most
circumstances and the use of substitute species to predict endangered
populations' responses to disturbance is questionable.'' The Oregon
giant earthworm (Driloleirus macelfreshi) is in the same genus, and is
believed to construct permanent, deep, subsurface burrows (a
characteristic that indicates an anecic life-history strategy), and
could potentially be an appropriate surrogate. However, the status and
threats of this species cannot be determined until an effective survey
protocol is developed and tested (Foltz 2009, pp. 2-3). Therefore,
using it as a surrogate would provide little to no additional insight
into potential threats to GPE. No other relevant surrogate
[[Page 44554]]
species have been suggested or investigated.
Factor A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range
Habitat Loss and Fragmentation
Historical information regarding potential habitat loss is
presented in the following discussion, for context. However, the focus
for purposes of our analysis and response to the petition is on current
and future habitat conditions, and whether the activities responsible
for those conditions present a threat to the GPE such that listing
under the Act is warranted.
As described in the 2010 90-day finding (75 FR 42061), the
petitioners claim that the GPE is threatened by habitat conversion,
loss, and fragmentation from agriculture and urban sprawl in the
Palouse region (Petition, pp. 1, 7). The petitioners cite
S[aacute]nchez-de Le[oacute]n and Johnson-Maynard (2009, pp. 1393-1394,
1398), who state that combined effects of land-use change, habitat
fragmentation, and competitive interactions have caused native
earthworm declines. James (2009, p. 1) stated that indigenous
earthworms are sensitive to habitat disturbance, and that to find
indigenous earthworms one must work in undisturbed or mildly disturbed
vegetation. Undisturbed vegetation is rare in the Palouse bioregion, as
the native grassland habitat has been reduced to less than 1 percent of
its pre-agricultural extent (Petition, p. 8; James 2009, p. 1; Noss et
al. 1995, p. 74).
Estimates of native habitat conversion in the Palouse bioregion
vary, but several studies indicate the conversion has been high: 99.9
percent of Palouse prairie habitats have been converted to agriculture
(Noss 1995, p. 74); 94 percent of the grasslands and 97 percent of the
wetlands in the Palouse bioregion have been converted to crop, hay, or
pasture (Black et al. 1998, pp. 9-10); 21 percent of previously
forested lands have been converted to agriculture or urban uses
(Gilmore 2004, p. 3); and less than 1 percent of the original
bunchgrass prairie habitat remains (Donovan et al. 2009, p. 1).
However, comments on the 90-day finding noted that habitat loss in the
Palouse due to agriculture happened historically and is not currently
occurring. Much of the prairie was converted to farms by 1910, and much
of the urban growth around the Pullman area occurred on farmland, not
remaining prairie fragments (McGregor 2010, in litt., p. 2; McGregor
1982, p. 109). However, habitat conversion in the Palouse may still
occur, as neither Latah County, Idaho, nor Whitman County, Washington,
have ordinances to prevent native habitat conversion (Latah County
Board of Commissioners 2010, pp. 1-27; Whitman County 2010, pp. 1-76).
The petition identified several locations in the Palouse area that
contain prairie remnants (Petition, p. 5). A study of four prairie
remnants and adjacent Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) fields was
carried out by S[aacute]nchez-de Le[oacute]n and Johnson-Maynard (2009,
pp. 1393, 1395; Petition, p. 4). In that study, the researchers
collected one GPE, and commented that many remaining prairie remnants
are not suitable for tillage because they are often steep or rocky, or
contain shallow soil (2009, p. 6; Petition, p. 5). They also
hypothesized that prairie remnants may not be the preferred habitat for
the GPE due to shallow rocky soil. They described the GPE collection
site at Paradise Ridge near Latah, Idaho, as having a high gravel
content (Johnson-Maynard 2010, pp. 2-3). They acknowledged that
sampling challenges could bias survey information on the GPE, and
cautioned that hand-sampling methods may underestimate abundance of
anecic species (S[aacute]nchez-de Le[oacute]n and Johnson-Maynard 2009,
p. 1399).
There is no baseline (i.e., pre-agriculture) density and
distribution information on the GPE, and there are significant
challenges associated with surveying for this species. These
challenges, coupled with the fact that earthworms have patchy
distributions (Guild 1952, as referenced in Edwards and Lofty 1977, p.
127; Murchie 1958, as referenced in Edwards and Lofty 1977, p. 127;
Whalen 2004, pp. 143, 148; Umicker 2009, p. 187), preclude our ability
to correlate land use impacts with GPE abundance, based on the best
available information. The GPE has been documented in both the Palouse
bioregion and on the eastern slope of the Cascade Mountains, near
Ellensburg and Leavenworth, in central Washington (see Table 1 above).
There is little descriptive information about the habitat associated
with the GPE that was collected near Ellensburg; it isn't clear whether
the location is grassland or a different habitat type, and the specific
location is uncertain. James (2009 in litt., p. 2) speculated the
Ellensburg site collection is a relict of a distribution that must have
been more or less continuous at one time, but due to climate change and
increased aridity has now become fragmented. Fender and McKey-Fender
(1990) described the locality as being ``in the hills west of
Ellensburg,'' and noted that the range of the GPE extends into
``treeless areas'' (pp. 358, 366). A report by Adolfson Associates
(2005, p. 1) was presented as evidence of urban sprawl being a threat
to GPE habitat. However, this report was limited to areas within the
City of Ellensburg, Washington boundary, and is not particularly
instructive in terms of correlating future urban development with loss
of GPE habitat because pre-development density or distribution or both
in that area are unknown. The petitioners also claim the grasslands
around Ellensburg have been extensively modified by agriculture,
similar to the Palouse bioregion (Adolfson Associates 2005, p. 2;
Petition, p. 8; James 2009, in litt., p. 2). However, the best
available information is insufficient to determine or infer how or
whether the GPE has been impacted by habitat loss and fragmentation in
this area, because we have no baseline information with which to
correlate land use modification with GPE abundance.
The best available scientific information is also inconclusive as
to whether the GPE occurs in a certain forest type or age, or whether
the species occurs in a broad variety of habitats. The GPE site near
Moscow, Idaho, is in Douglas-fir forest habitat, and the Leavenworth,
Washington, site is in dry ponderosa pine forest. Quigley et al. (1996,
p. 54) stated that in the Columbia Basin, the total area in forest has
remained relatively constant during the last two centuries, and broad
indicators of sustainability indicate that Basin forest acreage and
inventory volumes are relatively constant. If the GPE is a forested
habitat generalist, it could be stable in forested locations; however,
if it requires a forest of a specific type or age it may or may not be
impacted by habitat loss, depending on the type of development activity
involved. In either case, the available scientific evidence does not
address that uncertainty.
In summary, the GPE's current and historical population size,
distribution, and range of habitat types used are unknown. Based on
recent collections, the GPE's range outside of the Palouse region has
been expanded and now includes portions of the eastern slope of the
Cascade Mountains. The GPE has also been documented in both grassland
and forested habitats in the Palouse. However, survey efforts have been
limited, and sampling protocols are still being developed to improve
researchers' ability to detect the species during field investigations.
While habitat conversion may occur and there may be local impacts, the
GPE range is much wider than previously known and includes more diverse
habitats than previously
[[Page 44555]]
known. Because we cannot identify the full extent of the GPE's range or
the varieties of habitat types it may use, we are unable to correlate
habitat conversion with GPE abundance. Therefore, for the reasons
stated above, the best available scientific information does not
indicate current or future habitat loss or fragmentation represents a
threat to the species.
General Impacts to Soil Characteristics
The petitioners present several claims in their petition, each of
which has been evaluated and addressed below. They claim that
earthworms or their grassland habitats are influenced by soil
disturbance, tillage, traffic, food sources, chemical and pesticide
residues, and soil microclimate (Jennings et al. 1990, p. 75; Edwards
and Bohlen 1996, pp. 283-289; Edwards et al. 1995, pp. 200-201; USDA-
NRCS 2001, p. 2; Petition, p. 10). Moisture, temperature, and food
availability influence earthworm populations in general, and earthworms
need the organic matter found in the topsoil that agriculture removes
(James 2000, pp. 1-2; Petition, p. 11). Bare soil can increase the
effects of flooding, drought, or other weather conditions due to the
lack of vegetation that buffers soil from extreme moisture, dryness,
and temperature fluctuations. These conditions can temporarily or
permanently make soils unusable by earthworms (James 2000, pp. 1-2;
Petition, p. 11). James (2009, in litt., p. 1) stated that earthworms
are highly sensitive to habitat disturbance, such as forest clear
cutting or conversion of any habitat to agriculture, and the native
earthworms are generally destroyed by any type of drastic and sudden
habitat modification. One commenter stated there may have been long
periods of bare soil historically in the Palouse region, but seeding
and fertilizing technology improvements now enable farmers to prepare
seedbeds with minimal disturbance (McGregor 2010, in litt., p. 2).
James also stated, ``when seeking the indigenous earthworms, it is
almost always a complete waste of time to work in anything but
undisturbed or mildly disturbed stands of vegetation'' (James 2009, in
litt., p. 1). GPE have been found in forested locations, but it is
unknown whether these are previously disturbed habitats.
We ackno
