Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List 29 Mollusk Species as Threatened or Endangered With Critical Habitat, 61826-61853 [2011-25538]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
61826
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2011–0076; MO–
92210–0–0008]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a
Petition To List 29 Mollusk Species as
Threatened or Endangered With
Critical Habitat
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of petition finding and
initiation of status review.
AGENCY:
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service announce a 90-day
finding on a petition to list 29 mollusk
species and subspecies as threatened or
endangered, under the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act).
Based on our review, we find that the
petition presents substantial scientific
or commercial information indicating
that listing 26 of the 29 species and
subspecies may be warranted.
Therefore, with the publication of this
notice, we are initiating a review of the
status of the 26 species and subspecies
to determine if listing any of them is
warranted. To ensure that the status
review is comprehensive, we are
requesting scientific and commercial
data and other information regarding
these 26 species and subspecies. Based
on the status review, we will issue a
12-month finding on the petition, which
will address whether the petitioned
action is warranted, as provided in the
Act.
DATES: To allow us adequate time to
conduct this review, we request that we
receive information on or before
December 5, 2011. After this date, you
must submit information directly to the
Field Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section below).
Please note that we may not be able to
address or incorporate information that
we receive after the above requested
date.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
by one of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Search for docket
[Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2011–0076]
and then follow the instructions for
submitting comments.
• U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public
Comments Processing, Attn: [Docket No.
FWS–R8–ES–2011–0076]; Division of
Policy and Directives Management; U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N.
Fairfax Drive, MS 2042–PDM;
Arlington, VA 22203.
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:18 Oct 04, 2011
Jkt 226001
We will post all information received
on https://www.regulations.gov. This
generally means that we will post any
personal information you provide us
(see the Information Solicited section
below for more details).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Listing Coordinator, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Sacramento Fish and
Wildlife Office, 2800 Cottage Way,
Room W–2605, Sacramento, CA 95825;
telephone 916–414–6600; or facsimile
916–414–6712. If you use a
telecommunications device for the deaf
(TDD), please call the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at
800–877–8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Information Solicited
When we make a finding that a
petition presents substantial
information indicating that listing a
species or subspecies may be warranted,
we are required to promptly review the
status of the species or subspecies
(status review). For the status review to
be complete and based on the best
available scientific and commercial
information, we request information on
the 26 petitioned species and subspecies
of mollusk for which we find substantial
information herein to indicate that
listing as threatened or endangered may
be warranted. We request such
information from governmental
agencies, Native American Tribes, the
scientific community, industry, and any
other interested parties. We seek
information on:
(1) The species’ or subspecies’
biology, range, and population trends,
including:
(a) Habitat requirements for feeding,
breeding, and sheltering;
(b) Genetics and taxonomy (especially
reasons why they should or should not
be considered listable entities under
section 4(a) of the Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended (Act) (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) (see Listable Entity
Evaluation, below);
(c) Historical and current range
including distribution patterns;
(d) Historical and current population
levels, and current and projected trends;
and
(e) Past and ongoing conservation
measures for the species, its habitat, or
both.
(2) The factors that are the basis for
making a listing determination for a
species or subspecies under section 4(a)
of the Act, which are:
(a) The present or threatened
destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range;
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(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.
Please include sufficient information
with your submission (such as full
references) to allow us to verify any
scientific or commercial information
you include.
If, after the status review, we
determine that listing any of the 26
species and subspecies of mollusk is
warranted, we will propose critical
habitat (see definition in section 3(5)(A)
of the Act), as per section 4 of the Act,
to the maximum extent prudent and
determinable at the time we propose to
list the species or subspecies. Therefore,
within each of the geographical ranges
currently occupied by the 26 species
and subspecies of mollusk, we also
request data and information on:
(1) What may constitute ‘‘physical or
biological features essential to the
conservation of the species;’’
(2) Where these features are currently
found; and
(3) Whether any of these features may
require special management
considerations or protection.
In addition, we request data and
information on ‘‘specific areas outside
the geographical area occupied by the
species’’ that are ‘‘essential to the
conservation of the species.’’ Please
provide specific comments and
information as to what, if any, critical
habitat you think we should propose for
designation if the species is proposed
for listing, and why such habitat meets
the requirements of section 4 of the Act.
Submissions merely stating support
for or opposition to the action under
consideration without providing
supporting information, although noted,
will not be considered in making a
determination. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the
Act directs that determinations as to
whether any species is an endangered or
a threatened species must be made
‘‘solely on the basis of the best scientific
and commercial data available.’’
You may submit your information
concerning this status review by one of
the methods listed in the ADDRESSES
section. If you submit information via
https://www.regulations.gov, your entire
submission—including any personal
identifying information—will be posted
on the Web site. If your submission is
made via a hardcopy that includes
personal identifying information, you
may request at the top of your document
that we withhold this personal
identifying information from public
E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM
05OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
review. However, we cannot guarantee
that we will be able to do so. We will
post all hardcopy submissions on https://
www.regulations.gov.
Information and supporting
documentation that we received and
used in preparing this finding is
available for you to review at https://
www.regulations.gov, or by
appointment, during normal business
hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife
Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Background
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires
that we make a finding on whether a
petition to list, delist, or reclassify a
species presents substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating that
the petitioned action may be warranted.
We are to base this finding on
information provided in the petition,
supporting information submitted with
the petition, and information otherwise
available in our files. To the maximum
extent practicable, we are to make this
finding within 90 days of our receipt of
the petition and publish our notice of
the finding promptly in the Federal
Register.
Our standard for substantial scientific
or commercial information within the
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) with
regard to a 90-day petition finding is
‘‘that amount of information that would
lead a reasonable person to believe that
the measure proposed in the petition
may be warranted’’ (50 CFR 424.14(b)).
If we find that substantial scientific or
commercial information was presented,
we are required to promptly conduct a
species status review, which we
subsequently summarize in our 12month finding.
Petition History
On March 17, 2008, we received a
petition (dated March 13, 2008) from
five conservation organizations: The
Center for Biological Diversity (CBD),
Conservation Northwest, the
Environmental Protection Information
Center, the Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands
Center, and Oregon Wild. The petition
asked us to list 32 species and
subspecies of snails and slugs
(mollusks) in the Pacific Northwest as
threatened or endangered under the Act.
Additionally, the petition requested that
we designate critical habitat concurrent
with listing. The petition clearly
identified itself as a petition and
included the requisite identification
information for the petitioners, as
required by 50 CFR 424.14(a). In a June
27, 2008, letter to the petitioners, we
responded that we had reviewed the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:18 Oct 04, 2011
Jkt 226001
information presented in the petition
and determined that issuing an
emergency regulation temporarily
listing the species as per section 4(b)(7)
of the Act was not warranted. We also
stated that we could not address their
petition at that time due to court orders
and judicially approved settlement
agreements for other listing and critical
habitat determinations under the Act
that required nearly all of our listing
and critical habitat funding for fiscal
year 2008.
On April 13, 2009, we received a
signed e-mail from CBD providing
updated taxonomic information
regarding some of the 32 petitioned
mollusk species (Curry 2009, pp. 1–2).
The e-mail indicated that two of those
species had been formally described
(see Listable Entity Evaluation, below),
two others had been combined into a
single species that had been formally
described, and that three additional
petitioned species had been combined
into a single species that had been
formally described. The e-mail provided
a citation to the article making these
taxonomic changes, and asked us to
consider the revised species for listing
as threatened or endangered under the
Act. We treated this e-mail as an
amendment to the original petition.
Therefore, the amended petition asks us
to list 29 species and subspecies of
mollusks.
Overview of the 29 Mollusk Species and
Subspecies
The 29 species and subspecies of
mollusk included in the petition are
endemic (native and restricted) to the
Pacific Northwest, occurring in western
Washington, Oregon, and Northern
California. Fourteen of the petitioned
species and subspecies are aquatic and
15 are terrestrial (13 land snails and 2
slugs). They exist primarily in small,
isolated populations, all of which are
protected under the Northwest Forest
Plan’s Survey and Manage Program.
Fourteen of the species and subspecies
are known from 10 or fewer sites.
Listable Entity Evaluation
Section 3(16) of the Act defines the
term ‘‘species’’ to include ‘‘any
subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants,
and any distinct population segment of
any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife
which interbreeds when mature.’’
Entities that meet the Act’s definition of
a ‘‘species’’ can be considered for listing
under the Act and are, therefore,
referred to as ‘‘listable entities.’’ Listable
entities can then be listed if they are
determined to meet the definition of an
endangered species or a threatened
species. The petitioner requested that
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
61827
we list 29 species and subspecies of
mollusk (the ‘‘petitioned mollusks’’); 15
of which have been formally described
as species, 4 formally described as
subspecies, and 10 that have not been
formally described.
Prior to making a determination of
whether the petition presents
substantial information to indicate
whether listing may be warranted, we
must address the question of whether
the petition presents substantial
information to indicate whether the
petitioned mollusks are listable entities.
Nineteen of the 29 petitioned mollusks
are listable entities because they are
formally described as species or
subspecies in recognized scientific
journals. We may also consider some or
all of the remaining 10 petitioned
mollusks to be listable entities if
information submitted with the petition
or in our files indicates that treatment
of these mollusks as listable entities
may be warranted.
The petition cited several documents
from Federal agencies demonstrating a
long history of treating these 10
petitioned mollusks as species (Burke et
al. 1999, Sect. 12, pp. 1–16; Burke et al.
1999, Sect. 15, pp. 1–10; Furnish and
Monthey 1999, Sect. 2, pp. 2–10;
Furnish and Monthey 1999, Sect. 4, pp.
3–15; Furnish and Monthey 1999, Sect.
5, pp. 1–8; Duncan 2005b, pp. 3–15;
Duncan 2005c, pp. 1–19; Duncan 2005e,
pp. 3–9; USDA and USDI 2007, pp. 92–
94, 250, 251, 257–259, 263, 264, 266–
269). The documents describe each of
these 10 mollusks and their habitats.
The documents also include formal
reviews of management actions taken by
the agencies, and their impacts on these
10 mollusks (as well as on the 19
formally described mollusks). Based on
our review of the information in the
petition, we conclude the reports
present a clear indication that each of
these 10 petitioned mollusks has been
treated as a species by Federal land
management agencies, even without
formal description and recognition as a
species. Accordingly, we find that the
petition presents substantial
information indicating that the 10
petitioned mollusks that have not yet
been formally described may be species
as defined by the Act and may thus be
listable entities. Therefore, in addition
to the 19 formally described species and
subspecies, we consider whether the
petition presents scientific or
commercial information to indicate
whether listing any of the 10 petitioned
mollusks that have not yet been
formally described may be warranted.
This finding addresses 29 mollusk
species and subspecies, as identified in
the table below.
E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM
05OCP3
61828
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
LIST OF 29 SPECIES AND SUBSPECIES INCLUDED IN THIS FINDING
Scientific name
Formally described?
Basalt juga ...................................................
Big Bar hesperian ........................................
Canary duskysnail .......................................
Chelan mountainsnail ..................................
Cinnamon juga ............................................
Columbia duskysnail ...................................
Columbia Oregonian ...................................
Crater Lake tightcoil ....................................
Dalles sideband ...........................................
Diminutive pebblesnail ................................
Evening fieldslug .........................................
Goose Valley pebblesnail ............................
Hat Creek pebblesnail .................................
Hoko vertigo ................................................
Keeled jumping-slug ....................................
Knobby rams-horn .......................................
Masked duskysnail ......................................
Nerite pebblesnail ........................................
Nugget pebblesnail ......................................
Potem Creek pebblesnail ............................
Puget Oregonian .........................................
Shasta chaparral .........................................
Shasta hesperian ........................................
Shasta pebblesnail ......................................
Shasta sideband ..........................................
Siskiyou sideband .......................................
Tall pebblesnail ...........................................
Tehama chaparral .......................................
Wintu sideband ............................................
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Common name
Juga n. sp. 2 ...............................................
Vespericola pressleyi ..................................
Colligyrus convexus ....................................
Oreohelix n. sp. 1 .......................................
Juga n. sp. 3 ...............................................
Lyogyrus n. sp. 1 ........................................
Cryptomastix hendersoni ............................
Pristiloma arcticum crateris ........................
Monadenia fidelis minor .............................
Fluminicola n. sp. 3 ....................................
Deroceras hesperium .................................
Fluminicola anserinus .................................
Fluminicola umbilicatus ..............................
Vertigo n. sp. 1 ...........................................
Hemphillia burringtoni .................................
Vorticifex n. sp. 1 ........................................
Lyogyrus n. sp. 2 ........................................
Fluminicola n. sp. 11 ..................................
Fluminicola seminalis .................................
Fluminicola potemicus ................................
Cryptomastix devia .....................................
Trilobopsis roperi ........................................
Vespericola shasta .....................................
Flumenicola multifarius ...............................
Monadenia troglodytes troglodytes ............
Monadenia chaceana .................................
Fluminicola n. sp. 2 ....................................
Trilobopsis tehamana .................................
Monadenia troglodytes wintu ......................
No ...................................
Yes ..................................
Yes ..................................
No ...................................
No ...................................
No ...................................
Yes ..................................
Yes ..................................
Yes ..................................
No ...................................
Yes ..................................
Yes ..................................
Yes ..................................
No ...................................
Yes ..................................
No ...................................
No ...................................
No ...................................
Yes ..................................
Yes ..................................
Yes ..................................
Yes ..................................
Yes ..................................
Yes ..................................
Yes ..................................
Yes ..................................
No ...................................
Yes ..................................
Yes ..................................
The Survey and Manage Program and
Special Status Species Programs
All of the petitioned mollusks are
protected on Federal lands by the
Northwest Forest Plan’s (NWFP’s)
Survey and Manage Program (U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) and
U.S. Department of the Interior (USDI)
2007, pp. 92–94, 249–269). The Survey
and Manage Program was developed
because of concerns that the NWFP
would not adequately protect many
species that were rare, isolated, or rare
and isolated, and that could be
impacted by forest management
practices. The program was also
developed to address concerns that
additional management measures would
be required to conserve the species
(USDA and USDI 2001, p. 7). The
program requires pre-disturbance
surveys and mitigation, strategic
surveys, management, and an annual
species review (USDA and USDI 1994,
p. 9; Olson et al. 2007, pp. iii, 1, 2). The
Survey and Manage Program has not
been managed continuously since 2001
due to a number of lawsuits and a 2007
decision to discontinue the program
(USDA and USDI 2007, pp. xi, xii, xx).
However, as result of a challenge to the
2007 decision, a settlement agreement
was finalized in July 2011 that
reinstated the Survey and Manage
Program as it had been implemented in
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:18 Oct 04, 2011
Jkt 226001
2001 (Conservation Northwest v. Rey,
2009, Case No. C–08–1067–JCC (W.D.
Wash.)). Many of the petition’s claims,
particularly as they relate to Factor D
(existing regulatory mechanisms), are
related to the status of the Survey and
Management Program, which had been
discontinued at the time of the petition.
Many of the petitioned species are
recognized as sensitive species or as
special status species by the U.S. Forest
Service (USFS) and Bureau of Land
Management (BLM), respectively (USDA
and USDI 2007, pp. 25, 92–94). We refer
to these programs collectively as special
status species programs. The goal of
these programs is to avoid the need to
list a given species under the
Endangered Species Act, but we do not
have information in our files to show
exactly what this may entail with regard
to any of the petitioned mollusks
addressed by a special status species
program. Inclusion or removal of
individual species and subspecies in the
special status species program is left to
the discretion of the agency’s regional
decision makers (USDA and USDI 2007,
pp. 25, 65).
The Aquatic Conservation Strategy
(ACS) is a habitat management program
established under the Northwest Forest
Plan for protecting aquatic and riparian
habitat on Federal land (USDA and
USDI 1994, pp. 9, 10; CBD et al. 2008,
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Finding: substantial
information?
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
No.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
No.
Yes.
No.
Yes.
p. 32). The ACS includes four
components: Riparian reserves, key
watersheds, watershed analysis, and
watershed restoration. Riparian reserves
are comprised of aquatic features and
their protected riparian buffers. Buffers
differ in size, dependent on the type of
aquatic habitat. Under the ACS, Federal
land managers establish requirements
for timber management, road building,
grazing, and recreation management
within established riparian reserves.
The strategy identifies key watersheds
to be managed for at risk salmonids, or
where high water quality is considered
important. Information for managing
reserves and key watersheds is obtained
and updated through systematic
procedures of watershed analysis, and
that information may also be used for
watershed restoration (USDA and USDI
1994, pp. 9, 10).
Evaluation of Information for This
Finding
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533)
and its implementing regulations at 50
CFR 424 set forth the procedures for
adding a species to, or removing a
species from, the Federal Lists of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants. A species may be
determined to be an endangered or a
threatened species due to one or more
of the five factors described in section
E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM
05OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
4(a)(1) of the Act: (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 90-day finding, we
evaluated whether information
regarding threats to each of the
petitioned mollusks, as presented in the
petition and other information available
in our files, is substantial, thereby
indicating that the petitioned action
may be warranted. With one exception,
all potential threats addressed in our
analyses were alleged in the petition.
The exception is the potential impact of
plans to raise the Shasta Dam on the
Shasta sideband, Shasta chaparral and
Wintu sideband; we addressed this
potential threat based on information in
our files. All supporting documents
used were either cited in the petition or
in our files. Substantial information
need only be found for one of the five
factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the
Act to reach a ‘‘substantial’’ finding for
a given petitioned mollusk. As
discussed above, we will conduct a 12month review of petitioned mollusks for
which a ‘‘substantial’’ finding is
reached, and during that review we will
consider all available information
relating to all five factors. We ask that
information relating to any of the five
factors be submitted per the instructions
listed above in the Information Solicited
section, regardless of whether a
substantial finding was determined for
that factor.
Basalt juga (Juga (Oreobasis) n. sp. 2)
The basalt juga is believed to be
limited to springs in the central and
eastern Columbia River Gorge in Oregon
and Washington (Duncan 2005b, pp. 9–
10). It has 28 known occurrences and
has been documented on the GiffordPinchot and Mount Hood National
Forests, in the Columbia River Gorge
National Scenic Area, and on private
land. Duncan (2005b, p. 8) reported it to
be sensitive to water pollution, low
oxygen, increased water temperatures,
and sedimentation. Population numbers
are declining according to Frest and
Johannes (1995a, p. 179).
Factor A: The petition asserts that the
basalt juga is threatened by highway and
railway development, logging, grazing,
and water diversions (CBD et al. 2008,
p. 55). Information cited by the petition
supports these claims with regard to
water diversions, and notes that some of
those diversions are for purposes of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:18 Oct 04, 2011
Jkt 226001
grazing and logging (Oregon Natural
Heritage Information Center (ORNHIC)
2004a, p. 2). The immediacy of the
primary threat (water diversions) is
considered ‘‘moderate,’’ which means
the threat is likely to be operating
within 2 to 5 years of the ORNHIC
publication in 2004 (Master et al. 2002,
pp. 14, 15, ORNHIC 2004a, p. 2). The
cited source also mentions past impacts
from road construction, logging and
grazing, but does not indicate the extent
to which these pose present threats. The
petition notes, however, that documents
obtained through the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) indicate that the
species was detected at four timber sales
and three road maintenance projects
(CBD et al. 2008, p. 55). Impacts to
springs in the Columbia Gorge due to
diversions, highway construction, and
logging are common on both private and
public lands, and likely to continue
(Frest and Johannes 1995a, p. 185).
Consequently, based on our
evaluation of the information presented
in the petition and in our files, we
determined the petition presents
substantial information to indicate that
listing the basalt juga may be warranted
due to the present or threatened
destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range.
Factors B and C: The petition did not
present any information, nor do we have
any information in our files, to indicate
that these factors may pose a threat to
the species.
Factor D: The petition asserts that
basalt juga is threatened by inadequate
regulatory mechanisms associated with
the Survey and Manage program, the
Special Status Species Program, and the
Aquatic Conservation Strategy. The
basalt juga is currently considered a
special status species (USDA and USDI
2007, p. 93). As a special status species,
the basalt juga should receive special
management consideration on Federal
lands; however, maintenance of special
species status is left to the discretion of
the Federal land managers. As discussed
above under ‘‘The Survey and Manage
Program and Special Status Species
Programs,’’ the claims raised under the
petition relative to the discontinuation
of the Survey and Management Program
no longer apply, because that program is
once again being implemented.
Factor E: The petition asserts that
basalt juga is threatened by climate
change (CDB et al. 2008, pp. 26, 27). The
petition and our files contain
information indicating that climate
change is expected to cause significant
reductions in both the volume and
persistence of winter snowpack
throughout the western United States
(Knowles et al. 2006, p. 4545). Such
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
61829
reductions have already been
documented in the Columbia Gorge
(Knowles et al. 2006, pp. 4545, 4546;
ISAB 2007, p. 12). This trend is
expected to continue, thereby further
reducing summer water availability
(Field et al. 2007, pp. 620, 627; ISAB
2007, p. 15). Such a reduction in
available surface water may result in
increased water diversions from
groundwater and springs, but the extent
to which springs supporting the basalt
juga may be affected by potential
increased water diversions is unclear.
Reduced snow runoff and lower flow
levels may result in water temperature
increases (Field et al. 2007, p. 620; ISAB
2007, p. 16). Potential water
temperature increases may be
deleterious to the basalt juga, but the
extent to which springs supporting the
basalt juga may be affected by
temperature increases is unclear, and
this will likely depend on the size and
depth of groundwater reservoirs, and on
the flow rates of both groundwater and
surface water into spring pools.
However, watersheds fed by very large
and deep groundwater systems are
relatively uncommon in the Columbia
Basin (ISAB 2007, p. 32). The basalt juga
is dependent on cold, highly oxygenated
water (Duncan 2005b, p. 11), so
temperature increases could be
deleterious.
The petition and our files also contain
information indicating that climate
change is also expected to further
increase the frequency and intensity of
wildfires in the Columbia Basin (ISAB
2007, p. 22; CDB et al. 2008, pp. 27, 28).
Wildfire affected much of the basalt
juga’s range in 1993 (Frest and Johannes
1995a, p. 179; Duncan 2005b, p. 12;
CDB et al. 2008, p. 55). The removal of
cover plants by wildfires can reduce
shading and increase soil erosion,
thereby increasing water temperatures
and sedimentation in springs occupied
by the species.
Basalt juga Summary: Based on our
evaluation of the information presented
in the petition and in our files, we have
determined that substantial information
exists to indicate that listing the basalt
juga may be warranted due to the
present or threatened destruction,
modification or curtailment of its
habitat or range (Factor A) resulting
from water pollution and diversions.
Because we have found that the petition
presents substantial information
indicating that listing the basalt juga
may be warranted, we are initiating a
status review to determine whether
listing under the Act is warranted.
E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM
05OCP3
61830
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Big Bar Hesperian (Vespericola
pressleyi)
The Big Bar hesperian is a terrestrial
snail known from 27 locations in the
Trinity National Forest, in Trinity
County, California (Burke et al. 1999,
Sect. 16 p. 1; USDA and USDI 2007, p.
93). It is an old-growth and riparian
associate according to Frest and
Johannes (1993, p. 40) and it is known
to inhabit forests of conifer and
hardwood trees in permanently damp or
moist areas within 200 meters (m) (656
feet (ft)) of seeps, springs, and stable
streams (Kelley et al. 1999, p. 73).
Factor A: The petition asserts that the
Big Bar hesperian is threatened by
habitat alteration due to grazing and
logging (CBD et al. 2008, p. 69).
Information cited in the petition (Burke
et al. 1999, Sect. 16, pp. 1, 6) indicates
that overgrazing may adversely impact
the species due to the potential for
trampling and the removal of vegetation
necessary for food, shade, and
subsurface dampness. However, neither
the petition nor our files contained any
information about the presence of
grazing activities within the species’
habitat that would allow us to assess the
likelihood of these types of impacts
occurring. Burke et al. (1999, p. 6) also
indicate that removal of trees or downed
wood, such as through logging
activities, may adversely affect the
species due to increased sun and wind
exposure with resulting soil moisture
losses. Information cited in the petition
indicated that habitat loss is occurring
now and affecting the majority of the
species (Master et al. 2002, pp. 14, 15;
ORNHIC 2004b, p. 2).
Therefore, based on our evaluation of
the information presented in the
petition and in our files, we have
determined the petition presents
substantial information to indicate that
listing the Big Bar hesperian may be
warranted due to the present or
threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range.
Factors B and C: The petition did not
present any information, nor do we have
any information in our files, to indicate
that these factors may pose a threat to
the species.
Factor D: The petition asserts that Big
Bar hesperian is threatened by
inadequate regulatory mechanisms
associated with the Survey and Manage
program, the Special Status Species
Program, and the Aquatic Conservation
Strategy. The Big Bar hesparian is
currently considered a special status
species (USDA and USDI 2007, p. 93).
As a special status species, the Big Bar
hesperian should receive special
management consideration on Federal
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:18 Oct 04, 2011
Jkt 226001
lands; however, maintenance of special
species status is left to the discretion of
the Federal land managers. As discussed
above under ‘‘The Survey and Manage
Program and Special Status Species
Programs,’’ the claims raised under the
petition relative to the discontinuation
of the Survey and Management Program
no longer apply, because that program is
once again being implemented.
Factor E: The petition asserts that Big
Bar hesperian is threatened by fire,
pesticide application, recreation, and
invasive species (CBD et al. 2008, pp.
26, 69). The petition notes that part of
the snail’s habitat was destroyed by fire
in 2001 (CBD et al. 2008, p. 69; USFWS
2001, p. 2). Additional information cited
by the petition indicates that pesticides,
recreational activities involving motor
vehicles, and invasive species may
negatively impact some populations, but
the source does not provide clear
information regarding the extent of
these activities in the species’ range
(Burke et al. 1999, Sect. 16, pp. 1, 6).
The petition asserts that climate
change could adversely affect the Big
Bar hesperian (CBD et al. 2008, p. 26).
Information in our files indicates that
climate change is causing earlier
melting and significant reductions in
snowpack throughout the western
United States, including northern
California (Kapnick and Hall 2010, pp.
3446, 3448). The consequent
lengthening of summer drought and
associated increases in mean annual air
temperature are positively correlated
with increased tree mortality rates in
old-growth forests, including forests in
northern California (Van Mantgem et al.
2009, pp. 522, 523). Continuation of
these trends could potentially result in
loss of the damp forest conditions
required by the Big Bar hesperian
(Burke et al. 1999, Sect. 16, pp. 5, 6);
however, the exact extent of these
potential changes upon the species is
unknown.
Big Bar hesperian Summary: Based on
our evaluation of the information
presented in the petition and in our
files, we have determined the petition
presents substantial information to
indicate that listing the Big Bar
hesperian may be warranted due to the
present or threatened destruction,
modification or curtailment of its
habitat or range (Factor A) resulting
from grazing and logging activities.
Because we have found that the petition
presents substantial information
indicating that listing the Big Bar
hesparian may be warranted, we are
initiating a status review to determine
whether listing under the Act is
warranted.
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Canary Duskysnail (Colligyrus
convexus) (previously referred to as
Lyogyrus n. sp. 3)
The canary duskysnail is an aquatic
snail known from one (USDA and USDI
2007, p. 260) to seven sites (Hershler et
al. 2003, p. 284) in the Pit River
drainage in Shasta County, California.
Of five population sites listed in the
California Natural Diversity Database
(CNDDB), one is located in the Lassen
National Forest and another is in
McArthur-Burney Falls State Park
(CNDDB 2008, pp. 2, 5). Others are on
private land. Because the CNDDB (2008,
pp. 2, 5) and Hershler et al. (2008, p.
284) provide maps of known sites, and
because Hershler et al. (2008) is
published by a peer-reviewed journal,
we consider these sources to more
accurately reflect the actual number of
sites occupied by the canary duskysnail.
The canary duskysnail is known to
inhabit cold, clear, well-oxygenated,
unpolluted water (Frest and Johannes
1995b, p. 3; Furnish and Monthey 1999,
Sect. 4, p. 8).
Factor A: The petition asserts that the
canary duskysnail’s habitat has been
severely degraded by human activities,
including mining, logging, grazing,
chemical pollution, road and railroad
construction, and water diversions (CBD
et al. 2008, p. 38). The petition also
asserts that dams, diversions, and spring
developments have caused historical
habitat loss and these activities continue
to threaten the species. The petition
cites the BLM’s management
recommendations for this species,
which indicate that the species is
directly threatened by grazing and road
and railroad construction (both of which
cause water pollution and excessive
sedimentation), and water diversions,
which lower water levels and decrease
available habitat (Furnish and Monthey
1999, Sect. 4, p. 14). The Pit River is
listed on the State of California’s list of
water quality limited segments because
of organic enrichment and high nutrient
levels from grazing and agriculture
(California Environmental Protection
Agency (CEPA) 2002, p. 143), so water
pollution may constitute a threat. In
their 2004 publication, the Oregon
Natural Heritage Information Center
concluded that threats to the canary
duskysnail are moderate to severe, and
imminent (ORNHIC 2004a, p. 2).
The petition also alleges that the
canary duskysnail faces threats from
mining, logging, chemical pollution,
dams, spring and recreational
development activities (CBD et al. 2008,
p. 38). Many of these are mentioned in
the BLM’s management
recommendations (Furnish and
E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM
05OCP3
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
Monthey 1999, Sect. 4, p. 13), but that
document implies that these are
practices that have negatively impacted
habitats of several mollusk species in
the Pit River in the past, and does not
identify the activities as current threats.
The document lists threats specifically
applicable to the canary duskysnail as
grazing, spring diversions, and road and
railroad construction (Furnish and
Monthey 1999, Sect. 4, p. 14).
Additionally, the petition claims that
recent proposals for relicensing
hydroelectric developments on the Pit
River pose imminent threats to existing
populations, but we were unable to
confirm that claim based on a review of
the Final Environmental Impact
Statement (FERC 2004a, pp. xvi–xviii).
Based on our evaluation of the
information presented in the petition
and in our files, we have determined the
petition presents substantial
information to indicate that listing the
canary duskysnail may be warranted
due to the present or threatened
destruction, modification or curtailment
of its habitat or range.
Factors B and C: The petition did not
present any information, nor do we have
any information in our files, to indicate
that these factors may pose a threat to
the species.
Factor D: The petition asserts that
Canary duskysnail is threatened by
inadequate regulatory mechanisms
associated with the Survey and Manage
program, the Special Status Species
Program, and the Aquatic Conservation
Strategy. The Canary duskysnail is not
currently considered a special status
species (USDA and USDI 2007, p. 93).
As discussed above under ‘‘The Survey
and Manage Program and Special Status
Species Programs,’’ the claims raised
under the petition relative to the
discontinuation of the Survey and
Management Program no longer apply,
because that program is once again
being implemented.
Factor E: The petition asserts that
climate change is a threat to the canary
duskysnail (CBD et al. 2008, pp. 26, 27).
Information in our files indicates that
climate change is causing significant
reductions in both the volume and
persistence of winter snowpack
throughout the western United States,
including northern California (Knowles
et al. 2006, pp. 4545, 4546; Kapnick and
Hall 2010, pp. 3446, 3454). The
reduction and earlier melting of the
snowpack is likely to continue, and this
may result in a reduction in the amount
of water that is available during summer
months (Kapnick and Hall 2010, pp.
3446, 3454). Such a reduction in
available surface water may result in
increased water diversions from
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:18 Oct 04, 2011
Jkt 226001
groundwater and springs, but the extent
to which springs supporting the canary
duskysnail may be affected by potential
increased water diversions is unclear.
Reduced snow runoff and lower flow
levels may also result in water
temperature increases (Field et al. 2007,
pp. 620, 629). Although potential water
temperature increases could negatively
impact the canary duskysnail, this
species occurs in large, cold, perennial
springs, and the extent to which the
springs that support the canary
duskysnail may be affected by this
potential threat is unclear.
The petition also states that those
petitioned species existing only in
small, isolated colonies are threatened
by increased vulnerabilities of small,
isolated populations to extinction from
limited gene flow and stochastic
(chance) events (CBD et al. 2008, pp. 28,
29). The petition provided no
information, and we do not have
information in our files regarding the
size of most local populations of this
species, which would affect their
susceptibility to inbreeding depression.
We also do not have information
regarding the likelihood of damaging
stochastic events capable of threatening
the species. The petition does not
provide any information regarding the
potential threat from isolation and
limited distribution, and we do not
consider isolation and limited
distribution, in and of itself, to be a
threat to the canary duskysnail.
Canary duskysnail Summary: Based
on our evaluation of the information
presented in the petition and in our
files, we have determined the petition
presents substantial information to
indicate that listing the canary
duskysnail may be warranted due to the
present or threatened destruction,
modification or curtailment of its
habitat or range (Factor A) resulting
from railroad and road construction,
grazing, water diversions and water
pollution. Because we have found that
the petition presents substantial
information indicating that listing the
canary duskysnail may be warranted,
we are initiating a status review to
determine whether listing under the Act
is warranted.
Chelan Mountainsnail (Oreohelix n. sp.
1)
The Chelan mountainsnail is a
terrestrial snail known from at least 104
sites in or near the Wenatchee National
Forest in Chelan County, Washington
(USDA and USDI 2007, pp. 93, 263,
264). Eighty-six of those known sites are
on Federal land. The Chelan
mountainsnail is known to inhabit
grassy underbrush in, or adjacent to,
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
61831
arid transition forests of Douglas-fir or
ponderosa pine, often in depressions
that allow slightly more moisture
accumulation than surrounding areas
(Burke et al. 1999, Sect. 12, pp. 8, 9;
Duncan 2005c, pp. 1, 9). The species is
sometimes found in association with
schist talus (broken rock), according to
Frest and Johannes (1995a, p. 113).
The number of known occupied sites
for this species has increased
significantly in recent years. In 1995 the
species was known from only a single
location (Frest and Johannes 1995a, p.
113). In 1999, 14 sites were known, 7 of
which had been destroyed by fire (Burke
et al. 1999, Sect. 12, p. 6; ORNHIC
2004b, p. 1). By 2005, 97 sites had been
identified (Duncan 2005c, p. 9), and by
2007 104 sites were known (USDA and
USDI 2007, p. 93). Information in our
files indicates that approximately 150
occupied sites were found during Forest
Service surveys in 1999 and 2000
(Murphy 2000, p. 2), but it is not clear
how many of these new sites, if any, are
accounted for in the 104 sites that were
generally known in 2007 (USDA and
USDI 2007, p. 93). It also is not clear
how many of the sites found by Murphy
were occupied at the time by live snails
(Murphy 2000, p. 2; Tarr 2010, p. 2).
In sites containing live snails, the
number of individuals appears to be
low. Duncan (2005c, p. 12) reported that
most sites known in 2005 contained
only 1 individual, although a survey of
18 plots in the vicinity of an unreported
number of previously documented sites
found a total of 186 snails, thereby
‘‘suggesting that local populations may
be somewhat more numerous than
previously expected.’’
Factor A: The petition asserts that
timber harvest is a threat to this species
(CBD et al. 2008, p. 64). Logging may
negatively impact this species by
causing soil compaction and
microhabitat alteration and large
machinery used for logging can also
directly crush individual snails (Duncan
2005c, p. 10). Frest and Johannes
(1995a, p. 113) indicate that logging has
occurred and is likely to continue
throughout most of this species’
potential range. According to the
petition, National Forest Survey and
Manage documents indicate that the
Chelan mountainsnail was detected at a
timber sale and at a thinning and
prescribed burning project (CBD et al.
2008, p. 64). The prescribed burn
presumably occurred on the Wenatchee
National Forest in 2005 (Duncan 2005c,
p. 12). The species appears to prefer
areas with a somewhat more open
canopy, thereby allowing for a more
lush grass understory (Duncan 2005c, p.
E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM
05OCP3
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
61832
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
11), so it is not clear that tree removal,
in and of itself, would pose a threat.
The petition also states that ingrowth
of understory vegetation may constitute
a threat by reducing habitat quality and
increasing the risk of wildfire (CBD et
al. 2008, p. 63). Although Duncan
(2005c, p. 14) supports this claim, she
does not explain how such ingrowth
would reduce habitat quality, nor does
the author indicate whether such
ingrowth is currently occurring or is
likely to occur across the snail’s range.
We address the risk of fire below under
Factor E.
Information in our files supports
claims by the petitioner that heavy
grazing may negatively impact the
species by compacting soils and
removing the snail’s grassy underbrush
habitat (Duncan 2005c, p. 14).
According to Frest and Johannes (1995a,
p. 113) grazing has occurred and is
likely to continue to occur throughout
most of the species’ range. Road
building and talus removal associated
with road building and maintenance
have impacted at least one occupied site
by removing suitable habitat. These
activities had been ongoing for several
years in the early 1990s (Frest and
Johannes 1995a, p. 113), and may
reasonably be expected to continue in
the future (Duncan 2005c, p. 10). We
therefore determine there is substantial
information in the petition and in our
files to indicate that grazing and road
building and maintenance activities
may be threats to the Chelan
mountainsnail, such that listing may be
warranted.
Factors B and C: The petition did not
present any information, nor do we have
any information in our files, to indicate
that these factors may pose a threat to
the species.
Factor D: The petition asserts that
Chelan mountainsnail is threatened by
inadequate regulatory mechanisms
associated with the Survey and Manage
program, the Special Status Species
Program, and the Aquatic Conservation
Strategy. The Chelan mountainsnail is
currently considered a special status
species (USDA and USDI 2007, p. 93).
As a special status species, the Chelan
mountainsnail should receive special
management consideration on Federal
lands; however, maintenance of special
species status is left to the discretion of
the Federal land managers. As discussed
above under ‘‘The Survey and Manage
Program and Special Status Species
Programs,’’ the claims raised under the
petition relative to the discontinuation
of the Survey and Management Program
no longer apply, because that program is
once again being implemented.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:18 Oct 04, 2011
Jkt 226001
Factor E: The petition asserts that
high-intensity fire is a threat to this
species, because the species is adapted
to the historical low-intensity seasonal
fire regime, but not to modern fires
(CBD et al. 2008, p. 63). The likelihood
of high-intensity fire in the future may
be heightened by climate change
(Westerling et al. 2006, pp. 940, 941).
High-intensity fire may negatively
impact this species by removing habitat,
directly killing individual snails, and
isolating remaining populations
(Duncan 2005c, p. 14). The Tyee Fire of
1994 destroyed seven occupied sites,
which as of 2005, were still not known
to have been recolonized (Duncan
2005c, p. 9).
We do not have information in our
files to indicate that the effects of
climate change may pose a threat to the
Chelan mountainsnail in other ways,
since it is already adapted to relatively
arid habitats (Duncan 2005c, p. 11).
The petition lists recreational
activities such as off-road vehicle use as
a threat (CBD et al. 2008, p. 64), but we
have no information in our files to
indicate that such activities are
occurring or are likely to occur within
the range of the Chelan mountainsnail
to an extent that they may pose a threat
to the species.
The petition also indicates that the
Chelan mountainsnail may be
threatened by limited gene flow
(inbreeding depression) and stochastic
(chance) events (CBD et al. 2008, pp. 28,
29). We consider the potential threat
from chance events to be low because
the Chelan mountainsnail is now known
from approximately 100 sites (USDA
and USDI 2007, p. 93), and
approximately 150 additional sites may
have been located (Murphy 2000, p. 2).
Although population numbers at each
site appear to be low (Duncan 2005c, p.
12) (which would tend to increase the
possibility of inbreeding depression)
(Lande 1999, pp. 11, 12), the petition
does not provide any information
regarding the potential threat from
isolation and limited distribution, and
we do not consider isolation and limited
distribution, in and of itself, to
constitute a threat to the Chelan
mountainsnail.
Chelan mountainsnail Summary:
Based on our evaluation of the
information presented in the petition
and in our files, we have determined the
petition presents substantial
information to indicate that listing the
Chelan mountainsnail may be warranted
due to the present or threatened
destruction, modification or curtailment
of its habitat or range (Factor A)
resulting from logging, grazing, and road
building and maintenance activities. We
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
are initiating a status review to
determine whether listing under the Act
is warranted.
Cinnamon Juga (Juga n. sp. 3)
The cinnamon juga is an aquatic snail
known from four (USDA and USDI
2007, p. 93) to eight sites (Frest and
Johannes 1999, p. 90) in the Shasta
Springs complex (a network of
hydrologically connected springs), on
the upper Sacramento River, Siskiyou
County, California. None of the sites are
on Federal land (USDA and USDI 2007,
p. 258). It is believed to be restricted to
large, cold, perennial springs with sandcobble or basalt bedrock substrate
(Furnish and Monthey 1999, Sect. 2, p.
5). There is one record of an occurrence
in the Sacramento River itself, but this
apparently involved a subaqueous
spring (Frest and Johannes 1999, p. 90).
The species is dependent on high levels
of dissolved oxygen, and is sensitive to
pollution, elevated temperatures, and
sedimentation, according to Furnish and
Monthey (1999, Sect. 2, p. 5).
Factor A: The petition asserts that the
species may be threatened by water
diversions, grazing, and water pollution
(CBD et al. 2008, p. 55). Information
cited by the petition and in our files
indicates that diversions may adversely
impact the species by removing habitat
and reducing water flow (Frest and
Johannes 1999, p. 90; Furnish and
Monthey 1999, Sect. 2, p. 7; USDA and
USDI 2007, p. 258). Our information
also indicates that grazing may pose a
threat by polluting water, increasing
siltation, and raising water temperatures
(Furnish and Monthey 1999, Sect. 2, p.
7; USDA and USDI 2007, p. 258).
Additionally, logging may pose a threat
to the species by increasing siltation in
occupied habitat (Furnish and Monthey
1999, Sect. 2, p. 7), and groundwater
withdrawal has caused the extinction or
local extirpation of ecologically similar
species by lowering water tables (USDA
and USDI 2007, p. 258).
The petition also asserts that
development may be a threat to the
cinnamon juga, and notes that occupied
springs have been negatively impacted
by railroad construction (CBD et al.
2008, p. 56). The petition did not
provide information and we did not find
information in our files indicating that
development is likely to impact the
cinnamon juga. We did not find
information to indicate how past
impacts from railroad development
represent a present or continuing threat,
except as discussed below under Factor
E with regard to road and trackside
spraying, and catastrophic chance
events.
E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM
05OCP3
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
Based on our evaluation of the
information presented in the petition
and in our files, we have determined the
petition presents substantial
information to indicate that listing the
cinnamon juga may be warranted due to
the present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of its
habitat or range.
Factors B and C: The petition did not
present any information, nor do we have
any information in our files, to indicate
that these factors may pose a threat to
the species.
Factor D: The petition asserts that
cinnamon juga is threatened by
inadequate regulatory mechanisms
associated with the Survey and Manage
program, the Special Status Species
Program, and the Aquatic Conservation
Strategy (CBD et al. 2008 p. 29). The
cinnamon juga is not currently
considered by the USFS or BLM to be
a special status species (USDA and
USDI 2007, pp. 93, 258). It is also
unlikely to receive significant protection
from the Aquatic Conservation Strategy
(ACS), since the ACS only applies to
Federal lands (USDA and USDI 1994, p.
9; CBD et al. 2008, p. 32), and the
cinnamon juga is not known to occur on
such lands (USDA and USDI 2007, p.
258). As discussed above under ‘‘The
Survey and Manage Program and
Special Status Species Programs,’’ the
claims raised under the petition relative
to the discontinuation of the Survey and
Management Program no longer apply,
because that program is once again
being implemented.
Factor E: The petition asserts that
climate change is a threat to the
cinnamon juga (CBD et al. 2008, p. 26).
Climate change is causing significant
reductions in both the volume and
persistence of winter snowpack
throughout the western United States,
including northern California (Knowles
et al. 2006, pp. 4545, 4546; Kapnick and
Hall 2010, pp. 3446, 3454). The
reduction and earlier melting of
snowpack is likely to continue, and this
may result in a reduction in the amount
of water that is available during summer
months (Kapnick and Hall 2010, pp.
3446, 3454). Such a reduction in
available surface water may also result
in increased water diversions from
groundwater and springs, but the extent
to which springs supporting the
cinnamon juga may be affected by
potential increased water diversions is
unclear. Reduced snow runoff and
lower flow levels may also result in
water temperature increases (Field et al.
2007, pp. 620, 629). Although potential
water temperature increases could
negatively impact the cinnamon juga,
this species occurs in large, cold,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:18 Oct 04, 2011
Jkt 226001
perennial springs, and the extent to
which the springs that support the
cinnamon juga may be affected by this
potential threat is unclear.
The restriction of the cinnamon juga
to only eight known sites in the same
general area leaves it potentially
susceptible to catastrophic chance
events, such as the 1991 train
derailment and subsequent spill of the
herbicide metam sodium into the nearby
upper Sacramento River at Cantara Bend
(Furnish and Monthey 1999, Sect. 2, p.
8). Runoff from normally scheduled
road and trackside herbicide spraying
may also impact the species (Frest and
Johannes 1999, p. 90).
Although the petition states that
‘‘recreation’’ may also constitute a threat
(CBD et al. 2008, p. 56) we found no
supporting information in the petition
or our files to indicate which
recreational activities might be
involved, or how they might pose a
threat to the species.
Cinnamon juga Summary: Based on
our evaluation of the information
presented in the petition and in our
files, we have determined the petition
presents substantial information to
indicate that listing the cinnamon juga
may be warranted due to the present or
threatened destruction, modification or
curtailment of its habitat or range
(Factor A) resulting from water
diversion and groundwater withdrawal,
grazing, and logging activities. We are
initiating a status review to determine
whether listing under the Act is
warranted.
Columbia Duskysnail (Lyogyrus n. sp. 1)
The Columbia duskysnail is an
aquatic snail known from 64 sites in the
central and eastern Columbia Gorge in
Multnomah, Clackamas and Hood River
Counties, Oregon, and Klickitat and
Skamania Counties, Washington (Frest
and Johannes 1999, p. 70; Duncan
2005b, p. 9; USDA and USDI 2007, p.
93). Fifty-two of the sites are on Federal
land (USDA and USDI 2007, p. 93). It is
believed to be restricted to softbottomed, slow-flowing areas of cold,
well oxygenated springs and springinfluenced streams tributary to the
Columbia River (Duncan 2005b, p. 10).
The Columbia duskysnail often occurs
in very small springs, according to Frest
and Johannes (1995a, p. 185). All
Lyogyrus species are believed to be
intolerant of oxygen deficits, elevated
water temperatures, and sedimentation
(Duncan 2005b, pp. 10, 11).
Factor A: The petition asserts that this
species may be threatened by water
diversions, road and railroad
construction, and logging (CBD et al.
2008, p. 57). Information cited by the
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
61833
petition and in our files indicates that
diversions may adversely affect the
species by removing and disturbing
habitat; road construction and
maintenance may disrupt flows and
produce sediment; and logging may
increase soil erosion and decrease
shading (Frest and Johannes 1995a, p.
185; Furnish and Monthey 1999, Sect. 4,
pp. 13, 14; Duncan 2005b, pp. 11, 12).
Such modifications are relatively
common in the Columbia Gorge, and
because they leave less undisturbed
habitat in small springs (such as those
preferred by the Columbia duskysnail)
their relative ecological impacts tend to
be larger (Frest and Johannes 1995a, p.
185). The petitioners state that this snail
was detected at 15 timber sales and 7
road maintenance projects (CBD et al.
2008, p. 57). Three of the timber sales
included specified mitigation measures
to protect the species.
The petition also alleges that there are
threats from dams and grazing (CBD et
al. 2008, p. 57), but we did not find
information in the petition or our files
to indicate that these activities
constitute continuing threats.
Based on our evaluation of the
information presented in the petition
and in our files, we determined the
petition presents substantial
information to indicate that listing the
Columbia duskysnail may be warranted
due to the present or threatened
destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range.
Factors B and C: The petition did not
present any information, nor do we have
any information in our files, to indicate
that these factors may pose a threat to
the species.
Factor D: The petition asserts that
Columbia duskysnail is threatened by
inadequate regulatory mechanisms
associated with the Survey and Manage
program, the Special Status Species
Program, and the Aquatic Conservation
Strategy. The Columbia duskysnail is
currently considered a special status
species (USDA and USDI 2007, p. 93).
As a special status species, the
Columbia duskysnail should receive
special management consideration on
Federal lands; however, maintenance of
special species status is left to the
discretion of the Federal land managers.
As discussed above under ‘‘The Survey
and Manage Program and Special Status
Species Programs,’’ the claims raised
under the petition relative to the
discontinuation of the Survey and
Management Program no longer apply,
because that program is once again
being implemented.
Factor E: The petition asserts that
climate change is a threat to the
Columbia duskysnail (CBD et al. 2008,
E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM
05OCP3
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
61834
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
p. 26). Climate change is causing
significant reductions in both the
volume and persistence of winter
snowpack throughout the western
United States, including northern
California (Knowles et al. 2006, pp.
4545, 4546; Kapnick and Hall 2010, pp.
3446, 3454). The reduction and earlier
melting of the snowpack is likely to
continue, and this may result in a
reduction in the amount of water that is
available during summer months
(Kapnick and Hall 2010, pp. 3446,
3454). Such a reduction in available
surface water may result in increased
water diversions from groundwater and
springs, but the extent to which springs
supporting the Columbia duskysnail
may be affected by potential increased
water diversions is unclear. Reduced
snow runoff and lower flow levels may
also result in water temperature
increases (Field et al. 2007, pp. 620,
629). Although potential water
temperature increases could negatively
impact the Columbia duskysnail, the
extent to which the springs that support
the Columbia duskysnail may be
affected by this potential threat is
unclear.
Climate change is also expected to
further increase the frequency and
intensity of wildfires in the Columbia
Basin (ISAB 2007, p. 22). Removal of
cover plants by a wildfire could threaten
the Columbia duskysnail by reducing
shading and increasing soil erosion,
thereby increasing water temperatures
and sedimentation in springs occupied
by the species. A conservation
assessment for the Columbia duskysnail
commissioned by the USFS and BLM
lists ‘‘fires’’ as a threat (Duncan 2005b,
p. 12).
The same conservation assessment
lists ‘‘recreation’’ as a threat (Duncan
2005b, p. 12), but does not elaborate on
the specific activities referred to or how
they may threaten the species. The
petition also states that recreation is a
threat, and claims that the Columbia
duskysnail was detected at two
recreational projects (CBD et al. 2008, p.
57).
The petition also states generally that
the species is threatened by ‘‘spraying’’
(presumably of pesticides) and by the
vulnerability of small isolated
populations to inbreeding depression
and deleterious chance events (CBD et
al. 2008, pp. 28, 29, 57). We did not find
information to indicate that pesticide
spraying occurs in the vicinity of the
Columbia duskysnail at levels that may
threaten the species. We also did not
find information to indicate that
Columbia duskysnail populations are so
small and isolated that inbreeding
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:18 Oct 04, 2011
Jkt 226001
depression or stochastic events may
threaten the species.
Columbia duskysnail Summary:
Based on our evaluation of the
information presented in the petition
and in our files, we have determined the
petition presents substantial
information to indicate that listing the
Columbia duskysnail may be warranted
due to the present or threatened
destruction, modification or curtailment
of its habitat or range (Factor A)
resulting from water diversions, road
construction and maintenance, and
logging activities. We are initiating a
status review to determine whether
listing under the Act is warranted.
Columbia Oregonian (Cryptomastix
hendersoni)
The Columbia Oregonian is a
terrestrial snail known from 22 to 45
sites (Duncan 2005d, pp. 6, 7; USDA
and USDI 2007, p. 92). Seventeen or 18
locations are on Federal land, in the
Mount Hood National Forest, Clackamas
County, Oregon (Duncan 2005d, p. 7;
USDA and USDI 2007, p. 92). The
remaining locations are in the vicinity
of the Columbia River in Wasco and
Sherman Counties, Oregon, and in
Klickitat County, Washington (Duncan
2005d, p. 6). The snail is believed to
inhabit the semiarid habitat along the
Columbia River by inhabiting moist
microclimates along the margins of
streams, seeps, and springs (Kelley et al.
1999, p. 9; Duncan 2005d, p. 7). In the
Mount Hood National Forest, the
Columbia Oregonian is known to occur
in moist areas under closed canopy
forests of western hemlock (Burke et al.
1999, Sect. 2, p. 7). Its population trends
(numbers of both sites and individuals)
are downward, according to ORNHC
(2004c, p. 2).
Factor A: The petition asserts that the
Columbia Oregonian is threatened by
habitat loss due to development,
logging, grazing, and agriculture, as well
as by water pollution, diversions, and
impoundments (CBD et al. 2008, p. 41).
Information cited by the petition and in
our files indicates that Columbia
Oregonian populations near the
Columbia River may be threatened by
loss of habitat and groundwater
withdrawals due to urban development,
and by loss of perennial flow of nearby
springs and streams due to agricultural
diversions and impoundments (Frest
and Johannes 1995a, p. 89; Duncan
2005d, p. 9). Information presented in
the petition also indicates that grazing
may threaten these populations, due to
impacts from trampling and pollution
(Frest and Johannes 1995a, p. 89;
Duncan 2005d, p. 9). Additionally,
information presented in the petition
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
indicates that populations on Mount
Hood may be threatened by loss of
woody debris and removal of tree
canopy due to logging (Duncan 2005d,
p. 9), which may reduce the suitability
of microclimate habitat. Therefore, we
have determined that the petition
presents substantial information to
indicate that listing the Columbia
Oregonian may be warranted due to the
present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of its
habitat or range.
Factors B and C: The petition did not
present any information, nor do we have
any information in our files, to indicate
that these factors may pose a threat to
the species.
Factor D: The petition asserts that
Columbia Oregonian is threatened by
inadequate regulatory mechanisms
associated with the Survey and Manage
program, the Special Status Species
Program, and the Aquatic Conservation
Strategy (CBD et al. 2008, p. 26). The
Columbia Oregonian is currently
considered a special status species
(USDA and USDI 2007, p. 93). As a
special status species, the Columbian
Oregonian should receive special
management consideration on Federal
lands; however, maintenance of special
species status is left to the discretion of
the Federal land managers. As discussed
above under ‘‘The Survey and Manage
Program and Special Status Species
Programs,’’ the claims raised under the
petition relative to the discontinuation
of the Survey and Management Program
no longer apply, because that program is
once again being implemented.
Factor E: The petition asserts that the
Columbia Oregonian is threatened by
climate change, fire, roadside spraying
of pesticides, invasive species, and
recreation (CBD et al. 2008, pp. 26, 41).
The petition and our files contain
information indicating that climate
change could cause significant
reductions in both the volume and
persistence of winter snowpack
throughout the western United States
(Knowles et al. 2006, p. 4545). Such
reductions have already been
documented in the Columbia Gorge and
in the vicinity of Mt. Hood (Knowles et
al. 2006, pp. 4545, 4546). The reduction
and earlier melting of the snowpack is
likely to continue, and this may result
in earlier and more severe drying of
soils (Westerling et al. 2006, p. 942).
Because this species requires moist
microclimates (Duncan 2005d, p. 7), a
reduction in soil moisture could
threaten the species.
Climate change is also expected to
further increase the frequency and
intensity of wildfires in the Columbia
Basin (ISAB 2007, p. 22). Large fires
E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM
05OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
may pose a threat to the species by
directly killing snails and degrading
useable habitat (Duncan 2005d, p. 9).
Modern fires can effectively sterilize
large areas of snails (Frest and Johannes
1995a, p. 55). For example, major brush
fires impacted known occupied sites in
1994 (Frest and Johannes 1995a, p. 89).
Water pollution from roadside
herbicide spraying may also threaten the
species, which is dependent on clean
water from seeps, springs, and streams
to maintain moist microhabitats (Frest
and Johannes 1995a, p. 89; Duncan
2005d, pp. 3, 7, 9).
The petition states that ‘‘recreation’’
threatens the species, but does not
specify the type of recreation or the
nature of the threat (CBD et al. 2008, p.
41). Two documents cited by the
petition are used to support the
petition’s claim, but they fail to specify
the nature of the recreation or threat
(Frest and Johannes 1995a, p. 89;
Duncan 2005d, p. 9). We do not have
information in our files to indicate that
recreational activities pose a threat to
the species.
The petition also states that the
Columbia Oregonian is threatened by
nonnative species (CBD et al. 2008, p.
41). Burke et al. (1999, Sect. 2, p. 8)
notes that ‘‘[n]onnative plants and
animals may be a threat and should be
managed when a need is identified,’’ but
does not otherwise indicate that
nonnative plants or animals are
currently affecting the persistence or
survival of the Columbia Oregonian in
any of its known locations. We do not
have information in our files to indicate
that nonnative species may be a threat
to the Columbia Oregonian.
Columbia Oregonian Summary: Based
on our evaluation of the information
presented in the petition and in our
files, we have determined the petition
presents substantial information to
indicate that listing the Columbia
Oregonian may be warranted due to the
present or threatened destruction,
modification or curtailment of its
habitat or range (Factor A) resulting
from water diversions and
impoundments, as well as to
groundwater withdrawals, grazing and
logging activities. We are initiating a
status review to determine whether
listing under the Act is warranted.
Crater Lake Tightcoil (Pristiloma
arcticum crateris)
The Crater Lake tightcoil is small
terrestrial snail known from 209 sites in
the Oregon Cascades (USDA and USDI
2007, p. 93). All occupied sites occur on
Federal land, including Crater Lake
National Park, and the Umpqua,
Winema, Deschutes, and Mount Hood
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:18 Oct 04, 2011
Jkt 226001
National Forests (Kelley et al. 1999, p.
57; Duncan 2004, pp. 7, 9). The Crater
Lake tightcoil has been found in
wetland areas in perennially moist
forested areas; often in non-acidic fens
or sedge habitats near open water
(Duncan 2004, pp. 7, 8). This subspecies
has been found at elevations ranging
from 838 to 1,950 m (2,750 to 6,400 ft)
(Duncan 2004, p. 8). Sites are generally
in areas that experience snow cover for
long periods (Duncan 2004, p. 8).
Factor A: The petition states that
habitat-based threats to the Crater Lake
tightcoil include water diversions from
meadow habitats, logging, grazing,
heavy equipment operation, and
‘‘construction’’ (presumably of roads)
(CBD et al. 2008, p. 65). The petition
cites three supporting documents, but
two of them (Frest and Johannes 2000,
p. 226; and Burke et al. 1999, Sect. 13,
p. 1) were written when the subspecies
was only known from three to eight
sites. The third document cited by the
petition, a conservation assessment
(Duncan 2004, pp. 9), indicates that 160
occupied sites were known at the time,
but its summary of threats is nearly
identical (with minor changes) to the
threats description of Burke et al. (1999,
Sect. 13, p. 1). The preface of Duncan
2004 (p. 3) indicates that the purpose of
that document was to convert
management recommendations
originally made for the Survey and
Manage Program (such as those
produced by Burke et al. (1999)) into
conservation assessments fitted to the
Special Status/Sensitive Species
Program (SSSP). There is no indication
that the hundreds of newly documented
occupied locations of the subspecies
were taken into account when repeating
the threats assessment of Burke et al.
(1999, Sect. 13, p. 1) in the 2004
conservation assessment (Duncan 2004,
p. 4).
Two years after the completion of
Duncan’s (2004) report, 49 additional
occupied sites were identified (USDA
and USDI 2007, p. 264). The new
occurrences increased the known
number of occupied sites by 25 percent,
and also expanded the known
distribution, indicating that the
subspecies straddles the Cascade
Mountains with a relatively continuous
distribution. The following year (2007),
the environmental impact statement for
the removal of the Survey and Manage
program concluded that there is
sufficient habitat to support stable
populations of this species in the area
covered by the Northwest Forest Plan,
in the absence of both Survey and
Manage and Special Species Status
programs (USDA and USDI 2007, pp.
xiv, 93, 264) (see Factor D, below). We
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
61835
have no additional information to
indicate that there may be habitatrelated threats across the now-larger
known range of this species.
Factors B and C: The petition did not
present any information, nor do we have
any information in our files, to indicate
that these factors may pose a threat to
the species.
Factor D: The petition asserts that
Crater Lake tightcoil is threatened by
inadequate regulatory mechanisms
associated with the Survey and Manage
program, the Special Status Species
Program, and the Aquatic Conservation
Strategy. This mollusk is currently
considered a special status species
(USDA and USDI 2007, p. 93). As a
special status species, the Crater Lake
tightcoil should receive special
management consideration on Federal
lands; however, maintenance of special
species status is left to the discretion of
the Federal land managers. As discussed
above under ‘‘The Survey and Manage
Program and Special Status Species
Programs,’’ the claims raised under the
petition relative to the discontinuation
of the Survey and Management Program
no longer apply, because that program is
once again being implemented.
The petition also states that this
mollusk is threatened by the Western
Oregon Plan Revision (WOPR), a set of
revisions to the Northwest Forest Plan
proposed for BLM lands in western
Oregon (CBD et al. 2008, p. 34).
However, the BLM withdrew this
proposal in 2009 (USDA 2009, p. 1). We
are unaware of any plans to reinstate the
WOPR, therefore we do not have
information to assess if or how the
WOPR may impact the species.
Factor E: The petition asserts that
climate change is a threat to the Crater
Lake tightcoil (CBD et al. 2008, p. 26).
The petition and our files contain
information indicating that climate
change is expected to cause significant
reductions in both the volume and
persistence of winter snowpack
throughout the western United States
(Knowles et al. 2006, p. 4545). Such
reductions have already been
documented in the Oregon Cascades
(Knowles et al. 2006, pp. 4545, 4546). If
reduced snowpack results in a reduction
of soil moisture, the Crater Lake
tightcoil, which requires perennially
moist habitat (Duncan 2004, p. 8), could
be impacted. However, neither the
petition nor our files contain any
information about the extent soil drying
could occur within the Crater Lake
tighcoil’s habitat or what impact that
drying would have to the species.
The petition states that the Crater
Lake tightcoil may be threatened by fire
and recreational activities that compact
E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM
05OCP3
61836
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
the substrate, such as snowmobiling and
off-road vehicles (CBD et al. 2008, pp.
26, 27, 65). However, the subspecies
appears well distributed on both sides
of the Cascade Mountains (USDA and
USDI 2007, p. 264), and is known from
over 200 sites. And, any potential threat
from recreational activities would likely
be dispersed relative to the species’
range. While fire and recreational
activities could impact individual areas
(Burke et al. 1999, Sect. 13, p. 1; Duncan
2004, p. 11), we do not have information
in our files to indicate that they may
pose threats to the subspecies given the
high number and wide distribution of
known occurrences.
Crater Lake Tightcoil Summary: The
reinstatement of the Survey and Manage
Program, the withdrawal of the WOPR
proposal, and the discovery of over 200
well-distributed additional occupied
sites since 2000 (when several of the
petition’s cited sources were written),
have addressed the concerns raised by
the petition. Based on our evaluation of
the information presented in the
petition and in our files, we have
determined the petition does not
present substantial information to
indicate that listing the Crater Lake
tightcoil may be warranted.
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Dalles Sideband (Monadenia fidelis
minor)
The Dalles sideband is a small,
terrestrial snail known from 98
occupied sites distributed along the
Columbia Gorge and Deschutes River in
Wasco County, Oregon, and Klickitat
County, Washington (Kelly et al. 1999,
p. 37). Ninety-seven of the occupied
sites are on Federal land (USDA and
USDI 2007, p. 93). During the summer
months, the Dalles sideband is usually
found in moist rock talus a short
distance from streams or springs, and
during the wet seasons it is usually
found in moist woody debris or other
litter, according to Burke et al. (1999,
Sect. 9, p. 3).
Factor A: The petition states that the
Dalles sideband was detected at six
timber sales, a road maintenance
project, and a grazing allotment (CBD et
al. 2008, p. 61). The subspecies is likely
to be negatively impacted by activities
that decrease moisture within the
microhabitats it occupies (Burke et al.
1999, Sect. 9, p. 1). Timber, road
maintenance, and grazing activities
could result in reduced soil moisture
due to compaction of soil and removal
of vegetation (Burke et al. 1999, Sect. 9,
pp. 1, 5). We determined the petition
presents substantial information to
indicate that listing the Dalles sideband
may be warranted due to the present or
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:18 Oct 04, 2011
Jkt 226001
threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range.
Factor B: The petition states that the
Dalles sideband is threatened by
overcollection (CBD et al. 2008, p. 61).
Although Burke et al. (1999, Sect. 9, p.
1) does mention overcollection as a
potential threat, they do not provide
information explaining the nature or
extent of collection activities. Currently,
98 occupied sites are known (USDA and
USDI 2007, p. 93), as compared to the
15 occupied sites known when the
Burke et al. (1999, Sect. 9, p. 1) report
was published. We do not have
information in our files to indicate
whether the level of collection activities
referenced by Burke et al. (1999, Sect. 9,
p. 1) may be a threat to the species,
given the increased number of known
occupied sites.
Factor C: The petition did not present
any information, nor do we have any
information in our files, to indicate that
this factor may pose a threat to the
species.
Factor D: The petition asserts that
Dalles sideband is threatened by
inadequate regulatory mechanisms
associated with the Survey and Manage
program, the Special Status Species
Program, and the Aquatic Conservation
Strategy. The Dalles sideband is
currently considered a special status
species (USDA and USDI 2007, p. 93).
As a special status species, this mollusk
should receive special management
consideration on Federal lands;
however, maintenance of special species
status is left to the discretion of the
Federal land managers. As discussed
above under ‘‘The Survey and Manage
Program and Special Status Species
Programs,’’ the claims raised under the
petition relative to the discontinuation
of the Survey and Management Program
no longer apply, because that program is
once again being implemented.
Factor E: The petition asserts that
climate change is a threat to the Dalles
sideband (CBD et al. 2008, p. 26).
Information cited by the petition and in
our files indicates that climate change is
expected to cause significant reductions
in both the volume and persistence of
winter snowpack throughout the
western United States (Knowles et al.
2006, p. 4545). Such reductions have
already been documented in the Oregon
Cascades (Knowles et al. 2006, pp. 4545,
4546). If reduced snowpack resulted in
a reduction of soil moisture, the Dalles
sideband could be impacted. However,
neither the petition nor our files contain
any information about the extent soil
drying could occur within the Dalles
sideband habitat or what impact that
drying would have to the species.
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
The petition also asserts that the
Dalles sideband may be threatened by
fire (CBD et al. 2008, p. 61). Climate
change is expected to further increase
the frequency and intensity of wildfires
in Oregon, particularly in the Oregon
Cascades (Westerling et al. 2006, pp.
940, 942). Large fires may pose a threat
to the species by directly killing snails
and degrading occupied habitat (Duncan
2005a, p. 4).
The petition indicates that the Dalles
sideband may be threatened by limited
gene flow (inbreeding depression) and
stochastic (chance) events (CBD et al.
2008, pp. 28, 29). We consider the threat
from chance events to be very low
because the species is known from 98
locations. The petition does not present
any information regarding the level of
gene flow, nor do we have any
information in our files regarding the
level of gene flow between those sites,
or the species’ susceptibility to
inbreeding depression.
The petition also states that the Dalles
sideband is threatened by pesticide
application and recreation activities
(CBD et al. 2008, p. 61). Although Burke
et al. (1999, Sect. 9, p. 1) do mention
these activities as potential threats, they
do so based on the conclusion that such
activities often constitute threats for
land snails in general, rather than based
on information specific to the Dalles
sideband.
Dalles Sideband Summary: Based on
our evaluation of the information
presented in the petition and in our
files, we have determined the petition
presents substantial information to
indicate that listing the Dalles sideband
may be warranted due to the present or
threatened destruction, modification or
curtailment of its habitat or range
(Factor A) resulting from timber, road
maintenance and grazing activities that
may result in reduced soil moisture due
to compaction of soil and removal of
vegetation. We are initiating a status
review to determine whether listing
under the Act is warranted.
Diminutive Pebblesnail (Fluminicola n.
sp. 3)
The diminutive pebblesnail
(sometimes referred to as the Klamath
Rim pebblesnail (Frest and Johannes
1999, p. 25)) is a small aquatic snail
known from six sites in two large spring
complexes (Fall Creek and Jenny Creek
watersheds) in the middle Klamath
River Drainage, in Jackson County,
Oregon (Frest and Johannes 2000, p.
267). Three of the six known sites for
the diminutive pebblesnail occur on
Federal land (USDA and USDI 2007, p.
93). This species is found only in areas
of gravel-boulder substrate with very
E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM
05OCP3
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
cold, unpolluted water, according to
Frest and Johannes (2000, p. 267).
Factor A: The petition asserts that the
diminutive pebblesnail is threatened by
logging, grazing, water diversions, water
pollution, development, and road
construction (CBD et al. 2008, p. 44).
Information cited by the petition and in
our files indicates that the species may
be threatened by logging (which can
lead to siltation and increased water
temperatures), water diversions (which
reduce available water and habitat),
grazing (which can increase water
temperatures, pollute water, and
increase siltation), water pollution from
agricultural runoff, and road building
(which can also produce siltation) (Frest
and Johannes 2000, p. 268; ORNHIC
2004d, p. 2; Banish 2010, p. 1). Part of
the flow from the spring complexes
supporting the diminutive pebblesnail
is diverted for the City of Yreka,
California, municipal water supply
(Frest and Johannes 2000, p. 268).
Irrigation diversions are also common,
as is grazing on much of the larger Fall
Creek and Jenny Creek system. The
petition also claims ‘‘development’’ is a
threat (CBD et al. 2008, p. 44), but we
do not have information in our files to
indicate that development may pose a
threat to the species.
We have determined the petition
presents substantial information to
indicate that listing the diminutive
pebblesnail may be warranted due to the
present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of its
habitat or range.
Factors B and C: The petition did not
present any information, nor do we have
any information in our files, to indicate
that these factors may pose a threat to
the species.
Factor D: The petition asserts that the
diminutive pebblesnail is threatened by
inadequate regulatory mechanisms
associated with the Survey and Manage
program, the Special Status Species
Program, and the Aquatic Conservation
Strategy. This mollusk currently
considered a special status species
(USDA and USDI 2007, p. 93). As a
special status species, the diminutive
pebblesnail should receive special
management consideration on Federal
lands; however, maintenance of special
species status is left to the discretion of
the Federal land managers. As discussed
above under ‘‘The Survey and Manage
Program and Special Status Species
Programs,’’ the claims raised under the
petition relative to the discontinuation
of the Survey and Management Program
no longer apply, because that program is
once again being implemented.
The petition also states that this
mollusk is threatened by the WOPR, a
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:18 Oct 04, 2011
Jkt 226001
set of revisions to the Northwest Forest
Plan proposed for BLM lands in western
Oregon (CBD et al. 2008, p. 34).
However, the BLM withdrew this
proposal in 2009 (USDA 2009, p. 1). We
are unaware of any plans to reinstate the
WOPR, therefore we do not have
information to assess if or how the
WOPR may impact the species.
Factor E: The petition asserts that
climate change is a threat to the
diminutive pebblesnail (CBD et al. 2008,
p. 26). Climate change is causing
significant reductions in both the
volume and persistence of winter
snowpack throughout the western
United States, including northern
California (Knowles et al. 2006, pp.
4545, 4546; Kapnick and Hall 2010, pp.
3446, 3454). The reduction and earlier
melting of the snowpack is likely to
continue, and this may result in a
reduction in the amount of water that is
available during summer months
(Kapnick and Hall 2010, pp. 3446,
3454). Reduced snow runoff and lower
flow levels may also result in water
temperature increases (Field et al. 2007,
pp. 620, 629). Although potential
change in water availability and
temperatures could negatively impact
mollusks, the extent to which the
diminutive pebblesnail may be affected
by this potential threat is unclear.
The petition also indicates the
diminutive pebblesnail may be
threatened by limited gene flow
(inbreeding depression) and stochastic
(chance) events (CBD et al. 2008, pp. 28,
29). Although the petition and our files
do not have information regarding the
number of diminutive pebblesnail
individuals at each occupied site (which
would affect the threat of inbreeding
depression), the clustering of all known
populations in only two spring
complexes may leave them vulnerable
to any catastrophic events that might
affect one or both of those complexes,
such as the 1991 herbicide spill at
Cantara Bend resulting in the near
complete removal of aquatic mollusk
populations throughout the upper
Sacramento River (Frest and Johannes
1995b, pp. 72, 73).
Diminutive pebblesnail Summary:
Based on our evaluation of the
information presented in the petition
and in our files, we have determined the
petition presents substantial
information to indicate that listing the
diminutive pebblesnail may be
warranted due to the present or
threatened destruction, modification or
curtailment of its habitat or range
(Factor A) resulting from logging, water
diversions, grazing, water pollution
from agricultural runoff, and road
building. We are initiating a status
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
61837
review to determine whether listing
under the Act is warranted.
Evening Fieldslug (Deroceras
hesperium)
The evening fieldslug is a terrestrial
slug (with a small, thin shell) known
from 20 sites, 4 of which are believed
to be locally extinct, and 14 of which
occur on Federal land (Duncan 2005a, p.
9; USDA and USDI 2007, p. 92).
Occupied sites are scattered across the
Oregon Cascades and northern Coast
Range, extending north through western
Washington and into Vancouver Island,
British Columbia (Duncan 2005a, p. 4,
8). The evening fieldslug typically
inhabits low elevation, perennially wet
meadows in forested habitats, according
to Duncan (2005a, p. 4).
Factor A: The petition asserts that
habitat loss is the greatest threat to this
species (CBD et al. 2008, p. 42).
Information cited by the petition and in
our files indicates that this species may
be threatened by activities that lower
the water table or reduce soil moisture,
including spring diversions, grazing,
and logging (Duncan 2005a, p. 10).
Reduced soil moisture can lead to
desiccation, which is the primary cause
of land snail mortality (Frest and
Johannes 1993, p. 3). The petition also
claims that natural hydrological changes
and ingrowth of woody plants into
meadow habitats may threaten the
species. Although Duncan (2005c, p. 10)
supports this claim, the author does not
provide information to indicate how the
loss of habitat due to such natural
processes may or may not be balanced
by creation of new wet-meadow habitat.
Based on our evaluation of the
information presented in the petition
and in our files, we have determined the
petition presents substantial
information to indicate that listing the
evening fieldslug may be warranted due
to the present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of its
habitat or range.
Factor B: The petition did not present
any information, nor do we have any
information in our files, to indicate that
this factor may pose a threat to the
species.
Factor C: The petition presents
information to indicate that predation
may be a threat (CBD et al. 2008, p. 43).
While Duncan (2005a, p. 4) does state
that natural threats may include
exposure to predators, the author did
not characterize predation as a primary
threat, nor did the author provide
information to indicate the specific
predators involved or the extent of their
impact to the species.
Factor D: The petition asserts that
evening fieldslug is threatened by
E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM
05OCP3
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
61838
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
inadequate regulatory mechanisms
associated with the Survey and Manage
program, the Special Status Species
Program, and the Aquatic Conservation
Strategy. The mollusk is currently
considered a special status species
(USDA and USDI 2007, p. 93). As a
special status species, the evening
fieldslug should receive special
management consideration on Federal
lands; however, maintenance of special
species status is left to the discretion of
the Federal land managers. As discussed
above under ‘‘The Survey and Manage
Program and Special Status Species
Programs,’’ the claims raised under the
petition relative to the discontinuation
of the Survey and Management Program
no longer apply, because that program is
once again being implemented.
The Aquatic Conservation Strategy is
unlikely to provide significant
protections, because the evening
fieldslug is not an aquatic or riparian
species (Duncan 2005a, p. 4).
The petition also states that this
mollusk is threatened by the WOPR, a
set of revisions to the Northwest Forest
Plan proposed for BLM lands in western
Oregon (CBD et al. 2008, p. 34).
However, the BLM withdrew this
proposal in 2009 (USDA 2009, p. 1). We
are unaware of any plans to reinstate the
WOPR, therefore we do not have
information to assess if or how the
WOPR may impact the species.
Factor E: The petition asserts that
climate change is a threat to the evening
fieldslug (CBD et al. 2008, p. 26).
Information cited by the petition and in
our files indicates that climate change is
expected to cause significant reductions
in both the volume and persistence of
winter snowpack throughout the
western United States (Knowles et al.
2006, p. 4545). Such reductions have
already been documented in the Oregon
Cascades (Knowles et al. 2006, pp. 4545,
4546). If reduced snowpack resulted in
a reduction of soil moisture, the evening
fieldslug could be impacted. However,
neither the petition nor our files contain
any information about the extent soil
drying could occur within the evening
fieldslug habitat or what impact that
drying would have to the species.
The petition states that the evening
fieldslug may be threatened by
recreation such as off-road vehicle use
(CBD et al. 2008, p. 43). Although
Duncan (2005a, p. 10) supports this
claim, we do not have any information
in our files to indicate whether off-road
vehicle use is occurring at or near
enough to occupied sites to pose a
threat.
The petition indicates that the
evening fieldslug may be threatened by
limited gene flow (inbreeding
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:18 Oct 04, 2011
Jkt 226001
depression) and stochastic (chance)
events (CBD et al. 2008, pp. 28, 29). We
consider the threat from chance events
to be low because the occupied
locations are so widely scattered.
Population size would be a contributing
factor to susceptibility of inbreeding
depression; however, we do not have
any information regarding the size of
most local populations.
Evening fieldslug Summary: Based on
our evaluation of the information
presented in the petition and in our
files, we have determined the petition
presents substantial information to
indicate that listing the evening
fieldslug may be warranted due to the
present or threatened destruction,
modification or curtailment of its
habitat or range (Factor A) resulting
from activities that lower the water table
or reduce soil moisture, including
spring diversions, grazing, and logging.
We are initiating a status review to
determine whether listing under the Act
is warranted.
Goose Valley Pebblesnail (Fluminicola
anserinus, Previously Fluminicola n. sp.
18)
The Goose Valley pebblesnail is a
small aquatic snail known from four
sites (three springs and a section of
creek) in the lower Pit River drainage,
Shasta County, California (Hershler et
al. 2007, pp. 376, 409, 410; USDA and
USDI 2007, p. 92). Two of the four sites
appear to be located on Federal land
(Shasta National Forest) (Hershler et al.
2007, pp. 376, 409), although the
environmental impact statement for the
removal of the Survey and Manage
Program indicates that only one site is
on Federal land (USDA and USDI 2007,
p. 92). The Goose Valley pebblesnail is
believed to be limited to small perennial
springs and spring headwaters, and
require cold, unpolluted, highly
oxygenated water (Furnish and Monthey
1999, Sect. 2, pp. 2, 3, 5, 6).
Factor A: The petition asserts that the
Goose Valley pebblesnail is threatened
by water diversions, impoundments,
spring developments, grazing, and water
pollution (CBD et al. 2008, p. 50).
Information cited by the petition and in
our files indicates that water diversions
(conducted for irrigation, fish
hatcheries, and livestock) pose a
potential threat by removing flowing
water and thus habitat; whereas
impoundments can slow current,
thereby increasing water temperature
and sedimentation (Hershler et al. 2003,
p. 277; ORNHIC 2004e, p. 2).
Information in our files also indicates
that grazing may pose a threat as a result
of increased sedimentation, pollution
and temperatures caused by livestock
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
use of springs (ORNHIC 2004e, p. 2).
Based on our evaluation of the
information presented in the petition
and in our files, we have determined the
petition presents substantial
information to indicate that listing the
Goose Valley pebblesnail may be
warranted due to the present or
threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range.
Factors B and C: The petition did not
present any information, nor do we have
any information in our files, to indicate
that these factors may pose a threat to
the species.
Factor D: The petition asserts that
Goose Valley pebblesnail is threatened
by inadequate regulatory mechanisms
associated with the Survey and Manage
program, the Special Status Species
Program, and the Aquatic Conservation
Strategy. The mollusk is currently
considered a special status species
(USDA and USDI 2007, p. 93). As a
special status species, the Goose Valley
pebblesnail should receive special
management consideration on Federal
lands; however, maintenance of special
species status is left to the discretion of
the Federal land managers. As discussed
above under ‘‘The Survey and Manage
Program and Special Status Species
Programs,’’ the claims raised under the
petition relative to the discontinuation
of the Survey and Management Program
no longer apply, because that program is
once again being implemented.
The Aquatic Conservation Strategy
(ACS) is a set of standards established
under the Northwest Forest Plan for
protecting aquatic and riparian habitat
on Federal land (USDA and USDI 1994,
p. 9; CBD et al. 2008, p. 32). The ACS
includes four components: Riparian
reserves, key watersheds, watershed
analysis, and watershed restoration.
Since the Goose Valley pebblesnail is an
aquatic mollusk occurring in part on
Federal lands, the ACS may provide
some protection from potential threats.
Those protections would likely be
limited for populations of the Goose
Valley pebblesnail occupying private
lands, however.
Factor E: The petition asserts that
climate change is a threat to the Goose
Valley pebblesnail (CBD et al. 2008, p.
26). Climate change is causing
significant reductions in both the
volume and persistence of winter
snowpack throughout the western
United States, including northern
California (Knowles et al. 2006, pp.
4545, 4546; Kapnick and Hall 2010, pp.
3446, 3454). The reduction and earlier
melting of the snowpack is likely to
continue, and this may result in a
reduction in the amount of water that is
available during summer months
E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM
05OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
(Kapnick and Hall 2010, pp. 3446,
3454). Such a reduction in available
surface water may to result in increased
water diversions from groundwater and
springs, but the extent to which the
Goose Valley pebblesnail may be
affected by potential increased water
diversions is unclear. Reduced snow
runoff and lower flow levels may also
result in water temperature increases
(Field et al. 2007, pp. 620, 629).
Although potential water temperature
increases could negatively impact the
Goose Valley pebblesnail, how the
status of the Goose Valley pebblesnail
may be affected by this potential threat
is unknown.
Because the Goose Valley pebblesnail
is known from only four locations, the
species may also be threatened by
deleterious stochastic (chance) events
such as the 1991 spill of the herbicide
metam sodium into the nearby upper
Sacramento River at Cantara Bend due
to a train derailment (Furnish and
Monthey 1999, Sect. 2, p. 8). An
occupied location on the upper
Sacramento River (Frest and Johannes
1995b, pp. 45, D19) was apparently
extirpated by the 1991 Cantara Spill
(Frest and Johannes 1995b, pp. 72, 73;
ORNHIC 2004e, p. 2; Hershler et al.
2007, p. 410).
Goose Valley pebblesnail Summary:
Based on our evaluation of the
information presented in the petition
and in our files, we have determined the
petition presents substantial
information to indicate that listing the
Goose Valley pebblesnail may be
warranted due to the present or
threatened destruction, modification or
curtailment of its habitat or range
(Factor A) resulting from water
diversions, impoundments, and grazing
activity that can increase water
temperatures and sedimentation. We are
initiating a status review to determine
whether listing under the Act is
warranted.
Hat Creek Pebblesnail (Fluminicola
umbilicatus)
The Hat Creek pebblesnail is a small
aquatic snail that was formally named
and described in 2007 (Hershler et al.
2007, p. 407). This species combines
two taxa (groups) of snails that had
often previously been treated as separate
species, but had never been formally
described. Those taxa were the
umbilicate pebblesnail (Fluminicola n.
sp. 19) and the Lost Creek pebblesnail
(Fluminicola n. sp. 20) (Frest and
Johannes 1999, pp. 55, 59), both of
which were petitioned for listing (CBD
et al. 2008, pp. 50, 51). The Hat Creek
pebblesnail occurs at three sites near
Lost Creek and Hat Creek, in Shasta
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:18 Oct 04, 2011
Jkt 226001
County, California (ORNHIC 2004f, p. 1;
ORNHIC 2004g, p. 1; Hershler et al.
2007, p. 410). All three sites appear to
be within the Lassen National Forest
(ORNHIC 2004f, p. 1; ORNHIC 2004g, p.
1; Hershler et al. 2007, p. 407), although
a table in the environmental impact
statement for the removal of the Survey
and Manage Program indicates that
none of the locations are on Federal
land (USDA and USDI 2007, p. 92). The
Hat Creek pebblesnail is believed to
occur in cold water springs and spring
runs (Frest and Johannes 1995, pp. 56,
60). Fluminicola species in general
require cold, unpolluted, welloxygenated water with little
sedimentation, according to Furnish and
Monthey (1999, Sect. 2, pp. 5, 7).
Factor A: The petition asserts that the
Hat Creek pebblesnail may be
threatened by water pollution, water
diversions, impoundments, spring
developments, grazing, logging, mining,
and road construction (CBD et al. 2008,
pp. 50, 51). Information cited by the
petition and in our files indicates that
water diversions (conducted for
irrigation, fish hatcheries, and livestock)
may pose a potential threat to the
mollusk by removing flowing water, and
thus habitat; and that impoundments
may pose a threat by increasing water
temperature and sedimentation
(Hershler et al. 2003, p. 277; ORNHIC
2004f, p. 2; ORNHIC 2004g, p. 2).
Information in our files also indicates
that grazing may pose a threat due to
increased sedimentation, pollution, and
temperatures caused by livestock use of
springs (ORNHIC 2004f, p. 2; ORNHIC
2004g, p. 2). Based on our evaluation of
the information presented in the
petition and in our files, we have
determined the petition presents
substantial information to indicate that
listing the Hat Creek pebblesnail may be
warranted due to the present or
threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range.
Factors B and C: The petition did not
present any information, nor do we have
any information in our files, to indicate
that these factors may pose a threat to
the species.
Factor D: The petition asserts that the
Hat Creek pebblesnail is threatened by
inadequate regulatory mechanisms
associated with the Survey and Manage
program, the Special Status Species
Program, and the Aquatic Conservation
Strategy. The Hat Creek pebblesnail is
not currently considered a special status
species (USDA and USDI 2007, p. 93)
and would not receive any special
management consideration on Federal
lands. As discussed above under ‘‘The
Survey and Manage Program and
Special Status Species Programs,’’ the
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
61839
claims raised under the petition relative
to the discontinuation of the Survey and
Management Program no longer apply,
because that program is once again
being implemented.
The Aquatic Conservation Strategy
(ACS) is a set of standards established
under the Northwest Forest Plan for
protecting aquatic and riparian habitat
on Federal land (USDA and USDI 1994,
p. 9; CBD et al. 2008, p. 32). The ACS
includes four components: Riparian
reserves, key watersheds, watershed
analysis, and watershed restoration.
Since the Hat Creek pebblesnail is an
aquatic mollusk occurring in part on
Federal lands, the ACS may provide
some protection from potential threats.
Those protections would likely be
limited for any populations of the Hat
Creek pebblesnail occupying private
lands, however.
Factor E: The petition asserts that
climate change is a threat to the Hat
Creek pebblesnail (CBD et al. 2008, p.
26). Climate Change is causing
significant reductions in both the
volume and persistence of winter
snowpack throughout the western
United States, including northern
California (Knowles et al. 2006, pp.
4545, 4546; Kapnick and Hall 2010, pp.
3446, 3454). The reduction and earlier
melting of the snowpack is likely to
continue, and this may result in a
reduction in the amount of water that is
available during summer months
(Kapnick and Hall 2010, pp. 3446,
3454). Such a reduction in available
surface water may result in increased
water diversions from groundwater and
springs, but the extent to which springs
supporting the Hat Creek pebblesnail
may be affected by potential increased
water diversions is unclear. Reduced
snow runoff and lower flow levels may
also result in water temperature
increases (Field et al. 2007, pp. 620,
629). Although potential water
temperature increases could negatively
impact the Hat Creek pebblesnail, the
extent to which the springs that support
the mollusk may be affected by this
potential threat is unclear.
Because only three locations are
known to be occupied by the Hat Creek
pebblesnail, the species may also be
susceptible to stochastic (chance) events
such as the 1991 spill of the herbicide
metam sodium into the nearby upper
Sacramento River at Cantara Bend due
to a train derailment (Furnish and
Monthey 1999, Sect. 2, p. 8).
Hat Creek pebblesnail Summary:
Based on our evaluation of the
information presented in the petition
and in our files, we have determined the
petition presents substantial
information to indicate that listing the
E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM
05OCP3
61840
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Hat Creek pebblesnail may be warranted
due to the present or threatened
destruction, modification or curtailment
of its habitat or range (Factor A)
resulting from water diversions and
impoundments, and grazing. We are
initiating a status review to determine
whether listing under the Act is
warranted.
Hoko Vertigo (Vertigo n. sp. 1)
The Hoko vertigo is a small terrestrial
snail known from two sites near the
Hoko River in Clallam County,
Washington (Burke et al. 1999, p. 4;
USFWS 2009, pp. 3–5). One site is on
private commercial timber land, and the
other site is on State park land (USFWS
2009, pp. 3–5). The Hoko vertigo
typically occurs on the bark of old
riparian hardwood trees, particularly
alders, according to Burke et al. (1999,
Sect. 15, pp. 1, 5). A table in the
environmental impact statement for the
removal of the Survey and Manage
program indicates that there is one
occupied site for the snail on Federal
land (USDA and USDI 2007, p. 93), but
this was apparently a mistake, as the
discussion of the snail elsewhere in the
document indicates that the single
known location lies on non-Federal land
(USDA and USDI 2007, p. 266).
Factor A: The petition asserts that the
Hoko vertigo may be threatened by
logging (CBD et al. 2008, p. 68).
Information cited by the petition and in
our files indicates that logging may pose
a threat to this species by destroying
forest habitat and increasing the
exposure of remaining habitat to drier
air (Burke et al. 1999, Sect. 15, p. 6).
Much of the area in the vicinity of the
occupied sites has been recently logged
(Burke et al. 1999, Sect. 15, p. 6).
Consequently, based on our evaluation
of the information presented in the
petition and in our files, we have
determined the petition presents
substantial information to indicate that
listing the Hoko vertigo may be
warranted due to the present or
threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range.
Factor B and C: The petition did not
present any information, nor do we have
any information in our files, to indicate
that these factors may pose a threat to
the species.
Factor D: The petition asserts that the
Hoko vertigo is threatened by
inadequate regulatory mechanisms
associated with the Survey and Manage
program, the Special Status Species
Program, and the Aquatic Conservation
Strategy. The Hoko vertigo is currently
considered a special status species
(USDA and USDI 2007, p. 93). As
discussed above under ‘‘The Survey and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:18 Oct 04, 2011
Jkt 226001
Manage Program and Special Status
Species Programs,’’ the claims raised
under the petition relative to the
discontinuation of the Survey and
Management Program no longer apply,
because that program is once again
being implemented. However, the
Survey and Manage Program is unlikely
to provide significant protection to this
species because the Hoko vertigo is not
known to occur on Federal lands.
The Aquatic Conservation Strategy
(ACS) is a set of standards established
under the Northwest Forest Plan for
protecting aquatic and riparian habitat
on Federal land (USDA and USDI 1994,
p. 9; CBD et al. 2008, p. 32). The ACS
is unlikely to provide significant
protections to this species, because the
Hoko vertigo is not known to occur on
Federal lands.
Factor E: The petition asserts that the
Hoko vertigo is threatened by wildfire,
and that wildfires will become more
frequent with climate change (CBD et al.
2008, pp. 27, 68). Information cited by
the petition mentions wildfire as a
presumed threat, but does not provide
information regarding the likelihood of
wildfires within the species’ range
(Burke et al. 1999, Sect. 15, p. 6). As the
petition notes, however, the extremely
limited distribution of the Hoko vertigo
makes it more vulnerable to damaging
events such as wildfires (Burke et al.
1999, Sect. 15, p. 6; CBD et al. 2008, p.
68).
The petition and our files contain
information indicating that global
climate change is producing warmer
summer temperatures, combined with
longer periods of summer drought in the
western U.S., which is increasing the
vulnerability of western U.S. forests to
wildfire (Westerling et al. 2006, p. 940).
Wildfire frequency and total area
burned increased after the mid-1980s to
levels several times those during the
period 1970–1986 (Westerling et al.
2006, p. 941). These changes cannot be
explained solely by land-use history
considerations such as fire suppression
(Westerling et al. 2006, p. 940). The
Olympic Peninsula includes some of the
forests most likely to suffer increased
wildfires in response to climate change
(Westerling et al. 2006, p. 942, fig. 4).
The petition indicates that the Hoko
vertigo may be threatened by limited
gene flow (inbreeding depression) and
stochastic (chance) events (CBD et al.
2008, pp. 28, 29). We do not have any
information in our files to indicate the
size of local populations, which would
affect their susceptibility to inbreeding
depression. We also do not have any
information in our files regarding the
likelihood of damaging stochastic
events, other than for wildfire, which is
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
discussed above. Burke et al. (1999,
Sect. 15, p. 6) mention damaging floods
as a possible threat, but do not indicate
the likelihood of such events.
The petition also states that the
species may be threatened by recreation,
pesticides, invasive species, and the
harvesting of special forest products
such as mosses and lichens (CBD et al.
2008, p. 68). Burke et al. (1999, Sect. 15,
p. 6) mention all these as possible
threats, but provide no indication that
any of these potential threats are, or will
occur, in areas occupied by the species.
Information in our files indicates that
English ivy (Hedera helix), an invasive
species present on the Olympic
Peninsula (Hoh River Trust, 2008, p. 14
and Appendix D, pp. 19–20), can cover
the bark of trees in infested areas (King
County 2002, p. 1), potentially
depriving the Hoko vertigo of its
preferred habitat. Invasive infestation by
H. helix could therefore pose a threat to
the Hoko vertigo.
Hoko vertigo Summary: Based on our
evaluation of the information presented
in the petition and in our files, we have
determined the petition presents
substantial information to indicate that
listing the Hoko vertigo may be
warranted due to the present or
threatened destruction, modification or
curtailment of its habitat or range
(Factor A) resulting from logging. We
are initiating a status review to
determine whether listing under the Act
is warranted.
Keeled Jumping-Slug (Hemphillia
burringtoni)
The keeled jumping-slug (also known
commonly as the Burrington jumpingslug) is a terrestrial slug known from 62
sites in Clallam, Jefferson, Grays Harbor,
Mason, Pacific and Skamania Counties,
Washington, and Clatsop County,
Oregon (Wainwright and Duncan 2005,
pp. 5, 6; USDA and USDI 2007, p. 92).
Twenty-four of the occupied sites are on
Federal land (USDA and USDI 2007, p.
92). According to Wainwright and
Duncan (2005, p. 3), it has a small shell,
visible through a slit in its mantle, and
may avoid predators by using its tail to
flip itself off of objects (hence the name
‘‘jumping-slug’’). The species is believed
to occur in moist to wet forests with
dense canopy cover (heavy shading)
(Wainwright and Duncan 2005, p. 6).
Factor A: The petition asserts that the
keeled jumping-slug may be threatened
by logging (CBD et al. 2008, p. 54).
Information cited by the petition and in
our files indicates that logging may pose
a threat to this species by destroying
forest habitat (Burke et al. 1999, Sect. 6,
p. 9; ORNHIC 2004h, p. 2; Wainwright
and Duncan 2005, p. 9). According to
E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM
05OCP3
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
the petition the keeled jumping-slug
was detected at four timber sales, as
well as three restoration projects and a
road maintenance project (CBD et al.
2008, p. 54).
The petition also claims that
agriculture, urbanization, and
recreational developments may threaten
the species (CBD et al. 2008, p. 54). A
document cited by the petition did
mention agricultural conversion among
threats generally applicable to four
related species of jumping slugs,
including the keeled jumping slug
(Burke et al. 1999, Sect. 6, p. 2) but did
not mention it among threats
specifically applicable to the keeled
jumping-slug alone (Burke et al. 1999,
Sect. 6, pp. 9, 10). Documents cited by
the petition do mention housing
development and recreational
development as a threat to the species
(Burke et al. 1999, Sect. 6, p. 9;
Wainwright and Duncan 2005, p. 9), but
they do not explain the nature of the
recreational developments or provide
information to indicate where
urbanization and recreational
development are occurring in relation to
occupied sites that are vulnerable to
these activities.
Based on our evaluation of the
information presented in the petition
and in our files, we have determined the
petition presents substantial
information to indicate that listing the
keeled jumping-slug may be warranted
due to the present or threatened
destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range.
Factor B: The petition did not present
any information, nor do we have any
information in our files, to indicate that
this factor may pose a threat to the
species.
Factor C: The petition states that the
species may be threatened by predation
(CBD et al. 2008, p. 54), but the
document cited in support of this claim
only indicates that predation might
threaten a related species called the
warty jumping-slug (Hemphillia
glandulosa) (Wainwright and Duncan
2005, p. 15).
Factor D: The petition asserts that
keeled jumping-slug is threatened by
inadequate regulatory mechanisms
associated with the Survey and Manage
program, the Special Status Species
Program, and the Aquatic Conservation
Strategy. The keeled jumping-slug is
currently considered a special status
species (USDA and USDI 2007, p. 93).
As a special status species, this mollusk
should receive special management
consideration on Federal lands;
however, maintenance of special species
status is left to the discretion of the
Federal land managers. As discussed
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:18 Oct 04, 2011
Jkt 226001
above under ‘‘The Survey and Manage
Program and Special Status Species
Programs,’’ the claims raised under the
petition relative to the discontinuation
of the Survey and Management Program
no longer apply, because that program is
once again being implemented.
The ACS is a set of standards
established under the Northwest Forest
Plan for protecting aquatic and riparian
habitat on Federal land (USDA and
USDI 1994, p. 9; CBD et al. 2008, p. 32).
The ACS includes four components:
Riparian reserves, key watersheds,
watershed analysis, and watershed
restoration. Since the keeled jumping
slug is a terrestrial mollusk occurring in
part on Federal riparian lands, the ACS
may provide some protection from
potential threats. Those protections
would likely be limited for populations
of the keeled jumping slug occupying
private lands, however.
Factor E: The petition asserts that the
keeled jumping-slug is threatened by
wildfires, and that these are likely to
become more frequent with climate
change (CBD et al. 2008, pp. 54, 27).
Information cited by the petition or in
our files indicates that global climate
change is producing warmer summer
temperatures, combined with longer
periods of summer drought in the
western United States, which is
increasing the vulnerability of the
western U.S. forests to wildfire
(Westerling et al. 2006,
p. 940). Wildfire frequency and total
area burned increased after the mid1980s to levels several times those
during the period 1970–1986
(Westerling et al. 2006, p. 941). These
changes cannot be explained solely by
land-use history considerations, such as
fire suppression (Westerling et al. 2006,
p. 940). However, sources cited by the
petition and in our files only mention
wildfire among threats generally
applicable to four related species of
jumping slugs, including the keeled
jumping-slug (Burke et al. 1999, Sect. 6,
p. 2; Wainwright and Duncan 2005, p.
2). They do not mention wildfire as a
threat specifically applicable to the
keeled jumping-slug alone (Burke et al.
1999, Sect. 6, pp. 9, 10; ORNHIC 2005h,
p. 2; Wainwright and Duncan 2005, p.
9). While the petition provided general
information about fire frequencies and
climate change in the Pacific Northwest,
it did not include any information about
the effects of fire on the keeled jumpingslug or about predicted changes in fire
frequency within the species range.
The petition indicates that the keeled
jumping-slug may be threatened by
limited gene flow (inbreeding
depression) and stochastic (chance)
events (CBD et al. 2008, pp. 28, 29).
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
61841
Population size would affect
susceptibility to inbreeding depression;
however, we lack information regarding
the size of most local populations. We
also lack information regarding the
likelihood of damaging stochastic
events, other than for wildfire, which is
discussed above. The petition also states
that the keeled jumping-slug may be
threatened by invasive species (CBD et
al. 2008, p. 54). Wainwright and Duncan
(2005, p. 9) mention this as a possibility,
but do not provide information to
indicate which invasive species are
involved, exactly how they may pose a
threat, or the extent to which these
species co-occur with the keeled
jumping-slug.
Keeled Jumping Slug Summary: Based
on our evaluation of the information
presented in the petition and in our
files, we have determined the petition
presents substantial information to
indicate that listing the keeled jumpingslug may be warranted due to the
present or threatened destruction,
modification or curtailment of its
habitat or range (Factor A) resulting
from logging. We are initiating a status
review to determine whether listing
under the Act is warranted.
Knobby Rams-Horn (Vorticifex n. sp. 1)
The knobby rams-horn is an aquatic
snail known from two sites located on
private land in Shasta County,
California (USDA and USDI 2007, pp.
94, 268). Those sites are part of a large,
pristine spring complex in the Pit River
drainage (Frest and Johannes 1995, pp.
58, D38). Knobby rams-horns are
believed to occur on rocky substrates in
cold, clear water with high dissolved
oxygen levels (Frest and Johannes 1999,
p. 99).
Factor A: The petition asserts that the
knobby rams-horn may be threatened by
road building, logging, grazing, mining,
and water diversions (CBD et al. 2008,
p. 71). Information cited by the petition
and in our files indicates that road
building (which can cause
sedimentation that smothers eggs and
covers the rocky substrate on which the
snails’ food grows) and water diversions
(which can remove habitat and reduce
water flow) may pose threats to the
knobby rams-horn (Furnish and
Monthey 1999, Sect. 4, pp. 3, 4, 14). The
petition (CBD et al. 2008, p. 71) also
presents information indicating that
logging, grazing, mining, and dam
construction activities may also pose
threats to the species, but the cited
source only refers to these threats
generally when discussing several
species at once (Furnish and Monthey
1999, Sect. 4, p. 13). When discussing
direct actions that specifically threaten
E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM
05OCP3
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
61842
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
the knobby rams-horn, the only habitatbased threats mentioned by the source
are road building and water diversions
(Furnish and Monthey 1999, Sect. 4,
p. 14).
Based on our evaluation of the
information presented in the petition
and in our files, we have determined the
petition presents substantial
information to indicate that listing the
knobby rams-horn may be warranted
due to the present or threatened
destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range.
Factors B and C: The petition did not
present any information, nor do we have
any information in our files, to indicate
that these factors may pose a threat to
the species.
Factor D: The petition asserts that the
knobby rams-horn is threatened by
inadequate regulatory mechanisms
associated with the Survey and Manage
program, the Special Status Species
Program, and the Aquatic Conservation
Strategy. The knobby rams-horn is not
currently considered a special status
species (USDA and USDI 2007, p. 93)
and, unless subsequently assigned such
status, would therefore not receive
special management consideration on
Federal lands (were it to be found on
such lands). As discussed above under
‘‘The Survey and Manage Program and
Special Status Species Programs,’’ the
claims raised under the petition relative
to the discontinuation of the Survey and
Management Program no longer apply,
because that program is once again
being implemented.
The ACS is a set of standards
established under the Northwest Forest
Plan for protecting aquatic and riparian
habitat on Federal land (USDA and
USDI 1994, p. 9; CBD et al. 2008, p. 32).
The ACS is unlikely to provide
significant protection for this species,
because the knobby rams-horn is not
known to occur on Federal land.
Factor E: The petition asserts that
climate change is a threat to the knobby
rams-horn (CBD et al. 2008, p. 26).
Climate change is causing significant
reductions in both the volume and
persistence of winter snowpack
throughout the western United States,
including northern California (Knowles
et al. 2006, pp. 4545, 4546; Kapnick and
Hall 2010, pp. 3446, 3454). The
reduction and earlier melting of the
snowpack is likely to continue, and this
may result in a reduction in the amount
of water that is available during summer
months (Kapnick and Hall 2010, pp.
3446, 3454). Such a reduction in
available surface water may result in
increased water diversions from
groundwater and springs, but the extent
to which springs supporting the knobby
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:18 Oct 04, 2011
Jkt 226001
rams-horn may be affected by potential
increased water diversions is unclear.
Reduced snow runoff and lower flow
levels may also result in water
temperature increases (Field et al. 2007,
pp. 620, 629). Although potential water
temperature increases could negatively
impact the knobby rams-horn, this
species occurs in large, cold perennial
springs, and the extent to which the
springs that support this mollusk may
be affected by this potential threat is
unclear.
The petition also indicated that the
knobby rams-horn is threatened by the
vulnerability of small, isolated
populations to inbreeding depression
and deleterious stochastic events (CBD
et al. 2008, pp. 28, 29). We lack
information regarding local population
sizes, and therefore cannot determine
the likelihood of inbreeding depression.
However, because the knobby rams-horn
occupies only two known sites on
private land the species may be
threatened by deleterious stochastic
events such as the 1991 spill of the
herbicide metam sodium into the nearby
upper Sacramento River at Cantara Bend
due to a train derailment (Furnish and
Monthey 1999, Sect. 4, pp. 13, 14).
The petition states that the species
may be threatened by chemical
pollution (CBD et al. 2008, p. 71), but
the petition did not provide information
directly indicating that pollution may be
a threat, nor did we find such
information in our files (except as
discussed above with regard to
accidental spills).
Knobby ram’s-horn Summary: Based
on our evaluation of the information
presented in the petition and in our
files, we have determined the petition
presents substantial information to
indicate that listing the knobby ram’shorn may be warranted due to the
present or threatened destruction,
modification or curtailment of its
habitat or range (Factor A) resulting
from road building and water
diversions. We are initiating a status
review to determine whether listing
under the Act is warranted.
Masked Duskysnail (Lyogyrus n. sp. 2)
The masked duskysnail is an aquatic
snail known from three or four sites at
two large lakes in Washington State
(Duncan 2005e, p. 3; USDA and USDI
2007, p 93). One lake (Curlew Lake) is
in Ferry County, while the other (Fish
Lake) is in Chelan County, and is
partially within the Wenatchee National
Forest (Duncan 2005e, p. 3). Three of
the occupied sites are on Federal land
(USDA and USDI 2007, p. 93). The
masked duskysnail appears to require
cool water, oxygenated mud substrates,
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
and water plants (Furnish and Monthey
1999, Sect. 5, p. 2).
Factor A: The petition asserts that
threats to the masked duskysnail
include urbanization, water pollution
and eutrophication from various
sources, and (possibly) water diversions
(CBD et al. 2008, p. 58). Information
cited by the petitioner or that is in our
files indicates that water pollution and
eutrophication from pesticides,
petroleum products, and nitrogenous
compounds may threaten the species,
but characterizes urbanization as a
threat only because it increases the
likelihood of impacts from pollution
(Frest and Johannes 1995a, p. 186;
Furnish and Monthey 1999, Sect. 5, p.
2; Duncan 2005e, p. 3). Eutrophication
problems have resulted in citizen
complaints and the initiation of cleanup
programs in both lakes where this
species occurs (Duncan 2005e, p. 8).
Water diversions constitute a less
serious threat due to the large size of the
lakes in which the masked duskysnail
resides (Furnish and Monthey 1999,
Sect. 5, p. 2; Duncan 2005e, p. 3).
Based on our evaluation of the
information presented in the petition
and in our files, we have determined the
petition presents substantial
information to indicate that listing the
masked duskysnail may be warranted
due to the present or threatened
destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range.
Factors B and C: The petition did not
present any information, nor do we have
any information in our files, to indicate
that these factors may pose a threat to
the species.
Factor D: The petition asserts that the
masked duskysnail is threatened by
inadequate regulatory mechanisms
associated with the Survey and Manage
program, the Special Status Species
Program, and the Aquatic Conservation
Strategy. The masked duskysnail is
currently considered a special status
species (USDA and USDI 2007, p. 93).
As a special status species, this mollusk
should receive special management
consideration on Federal lands;
however, maintenance of special species
status is left to the discretion of the
Federal land managers. As discussed
above under ‘‘The Survey and Manage
Program and Special Status Species
Programs,’’ the claims raised under the
petition relative to the discontinuation
of the Survey and Management Program
no longer apply, because that program is
once again being implemented.
The ACS is a set of standards
established under the Northwest Forest
Plan for protecting aquatic and riparian
habitat on Federal land (USDA and
USDI 1994, p. 9; CBD et al. 2008, p. 32).
E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM
05OCP3
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
The ACS includes four components:
Riparian reserves, key watersheds,
watershed analysis, and watershed
restoration. Since the masked
duskysnail is an aquatic mollusk
occurring in part on Federal lands, the
ACS may provide some protection from
potential threats. Those protections
would likely be limited for populations
of the masked duskysnail occupying
private lands, however.
Factor E: The petition asserts that
climate change is a threat to the masked
duskysnail (CBD et al. 2008, p. 26).
Information cited by the petition (CBD
et al. 2008, p. 81) indicates that global
climate change may result in increased
air and surface water temperatures in
central and northern Washington (ISAB
2007, p. 32). The maximum water
temperature preferred by the masked
duskysnail is 18 degrees Celsius (°C) (65
degrees Fahrenheit (°F)) (Duncan 2005e,
p. 6). It is unclear from information
presented by the petition and in our
files whether the water temperatures in
Curlew or Fish Lakes are likely to
exceed that limit within the foreseeable
future.
The petition indicates that the masked
duskysnail may be threatened by
limited gene flow (inbreeding
depression) and stochastic (chance)
events (CBD et al. 2008, pp. 28, 29). We
have little information regarding the
size of local populations, but the
population at Fish Lake was apparently
described as ‘‘dense’’ in the 1970s. Large
or ‘‘dense’’ populations tend to be less
susceptible to inbreeding depression
(Lande 1999, p. 11). The limitation of
the species to only two populations
leaves each population potentially
vulnerable to deleterious stochastic
events, such as chemical spills, but we
lack information to indicate that any
such events may occur within the
foreseeable future.
The petition states that the masked
duskysnail is potentially threatened by
invasive nonnative fish, or by chemical
treatments to remove such fish (CBD et
al. 2008, p. 58). Although Duncan
(2005e, p. 7) supports this claim, we
have no information as to the likelihood
of either occurrence.
Masked duskysnail Summary: Based
on our evaluation of the information
presented in the petition and in our
files, we have determined the petition
presents substantial information to
indicate that listing the masked
duskysnail may be warranted due to the
present or threatened destruction,
modification or curtailment of its
habitat or range (Factor A) resulting
from water pollution from pesticides,
petroleum products, and nitrogenous
compounds. We are initiating a status
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:18 Oct 04, 2011
Jkt 226001
61843
should receive special management
consideration on Federal lands;
however, maintenance of special species
Nerite Pebblesnail (Fluminicola n. sp.
status is left to the discretion of the
11)
Federal land managers. As discussed
The nerite pebblesnail (sometimes
above under ‘‘The Survey and Manage
referred to as the Fredenburg
Program and Special Status Species
pebblesnail (Frest and Johannes 1999, p. Programs,’’ the claims raised under the
29)) is a small aquatic snail known from petition relative to the discontinuation
approximately 19 sites in the Fall and
of the Survey and Management Program
Jenny Creek watersheds, located in the
no longer apply, because that program is
middle Klamath River Drainage, Jackson once again being implemented.
County, Oregon (Frest and Johannes
The ACS is a set of standards
2000, p. 181; USDA and USDI 2007, p.
established under the Northwest Forest
92). Fifteen of the 19 known sites occur
Plan for protecting aquatic and riparian
on Federal land (USDA and USDI 2007, habitat on Federal land (USDA and
p. 93). The species has been found in
USDI 1994, p. 9; CBD et al. 2008, p. 32).
large, cold springs with gravel-boulder
The ACS includes four components:
substrate and ‘‘exceptional water
Riparian reserves, key watersheds,
quality’’ (Frest and Johannes 2000, p.
watershed analysis and watershed
265).
restoration. Since the nerite pebblesnail
Factor A: The petition asserts that this is an aquatic mollusk occurring in part
species may be threatened by logging,
on Federal lands, the ACS may provide
water diversions, and grazing (CBD et al. some protection from potential threats.
2008, p. 46). Information cited by the
Those protections would likely be
petition and in our files indicates that
limited for populations of the nerite
these activities may constitute threats,
pebblesnail occupying private lands,
because logging can produce water
however.
siltation and increased water
The petition also states that this
temperatures; diversions can reduce
mollusk is threatened by the WOPR, a
available water and habitat; and grazing set of revisions to the Northwest Forest
can increase water temperatures, pollute Plan proposed for BLM lands in western
water, and increase siltation (Frest and
Oregon (CBD et al. 2008, p. 34).
Johannes 2000, p. 265; ORNHIC 2004j,
However, the BLM withdrew this
p. 2). Part of the flow from the spring
proposal in 2009 (USDA 2009, p. 1). We
complexes supporting the nerite
are unaware of BLM’s plans to reinstate
pebblesnail is diverted for the City of
the WOPR; therefore, we do not have
Yreka, California, municipal water
the information to assess if, or how,
supply (Frest and Johannes 2000, p.
WOPR may impact the species.
Factor E: The petition asserts that
265). Irrigation diversions are also
climate change is a threat to the nerite
common, as is grazing on much of the
pebblesnail (CBD et al. 2008, p. 26).
larger Fall Creek and Jenny Creek
Climate change is causing significant
system. Logging has been extensive in
reductions in both the volume and
the surrounding watershed (Frest and
persistence of winter snowpack
Johannes 2000, p. 265).
throughout the western United States,
Based on our evaluation of the
including northern California (Knowles
information presented in the petition
et al. 2006, pp. 4545, 4546; Kapnick and
and in our files, we determined the
Hall 2010, pp. 3446, 3454). The
petition presents substantial
reduction and earlier melting of the
information to indicate that listing the
snowpack is likely to continue, and this
nerite pebblesnail may be warranted
may result in a reduction in the amount
due to the present or threatened
of water that is available during summer
destruction, modification, or
months (Kapnick and Hall 2010, pp.
curtailment of its habitat or range.
3446, 3454). Such a reduction in
Factors B and C: The petition did not
present any information, nor do we have available surface water may result in
increased water diversions from
any information in our files, to indicate
groundwater and springs, but the extent
that these factors may pose a threat to
to which springs supporting the nerite
the species.
Factor D: The petition asserts that the pebblesnail may be affected by potential
increased water diversions is unclear.
nerite pebblesnail is threatened by
Reduced snow runoff and lower flow
inadequate regulatory mechanisms
levels may also result in water
associated with the Survey and Manage
temperature increases (Field et al. 2007,
program, the Special Status Species
pp. 620, 629). Although potential water
Program, and the Aquatic Conservation
temperature increases could negatively
Strategy. The nerite pebblesnail is
impact the mollusk, this species occurs
currently considered a special status
in large, cold, perennial springs, and the
species (USDA and USDI 2007, p. 93).
As a special status species, this mollusk extent to which the springs that support
review to determine whether listing
under the Act is warranted.
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM
05OCP3
61844
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
the nerite pebblesnail may be affected
by this potential threat is unclear.
The petition also presents information
to indicate that the nerite pebblesnail
may be threatened by limited gene flow
(inbreeding depression) and stochastic
(chance) events (CBD et al. 2008, pp. 28,
29). Although we do not have
information in our files regarding the
number of nerite pebblesnails at each
occupied site (which would affect the
threat of inbreeding depression), the
clustering of all known populations in
only two spring complexes does leave
them vulnerable to any catastrophic
events that might affect one or both of
those complexes, such as the 1991
herbicide spill at Cantara Bend resulting
in the near complete removal of aquatic
mollusk populations throughout the
upper Sacramento River (Frest and
Johannes 1995b, pp. 72, 73; ORNHIC
2004j, p. 2).
Nerite pebblesnail Summary: Based
on our evaluation of the information
presented in the petition and in our
files, we have determined the petition
presents substantial information to
indicate that listing the nerite
pebblesnail may be warranted due to the
present or threatened destruction,
modification or curtailment of its
habitat or range (Factor A) resulting
from logging, water diversions, and
grazing. We are initiating a status review
to determine whether listing under the
Act is warranted.
Nugget Pebblesnail (Fluminicola
seminalis)
The nugget pebblesnail is an aquatic
snail known from 15 to 22 sites, 5 of
which are on Federal land, in the Pit
and McCloud River drainages in Shasta
County, California (Furnish and
Monthey 1999, Sect. 3, p. 5; USDA and
USDI 2007, p. 92). The species is
believed to have been extirpated over
most of its former range in the
Sacramento River by the 1991 Cantara
herbicide spill (Frest and Johannes
1995b, p. 50; Furnish and Monthey
1999, Sect. 3, p. 5). According to
Furnish and Monthey (1999, Sect. 3, p.
5), the nugget pebblesnail is typically
found on gravel-cobble substrate in large
creeks and rivers, but also occurs on
mud substrates in large spring pools. It
is believed to prefer cool, clear, flowing
water (Frest and Johannes 1995b, p. 50).
Fluminicola species in general require
cold, unpolluted, well-oxygenated water
with little sedimentation, according to
Furnish and Monthey (1999, Sect. 2, pp.
5, 7).
Factor A: The petition asserts that the
nugget pebblesnail is threatened by
water pollution, logging, dams,
diversions, spring developments, road
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:18 Oct 04, 2011
Jkt 226001
and railroad construction, urbanization,
mining, and grazing (CBD et al. 2008, p.
52). Information cited by the petition
and in our files indicates that water
diversions, spring developments, and
impoundments may threaten the species
by removing flowing water and thus
habitat (Furnish and Monthey 1999,
Sect. 3, pp. 2, 3; Hershler et al. 2003, p.
277). Grazing, logging, and other sources
of water pollution and sedimentation
also pose potential threats (Furnish and
Monthey 1999, Sect. 3, pp. 2, 3). The Pit
River is listed on the State of
California’s list of water quality limited
segments because of organic enrichment
and high nutrient levels from grazing
and agriculture (CEPA 2002, p. 143).
Mining and road and railroad
construction are also potential sources
of excessive sedimentation, but we were
unable to find information regarding the
extent to which such activities occur in
the vicinity of the nugget pebblesnail
(Furnish and Monthey 1999, Sect. 3, p.
6). We did not find information to
support the petition’s claim that
urbanization constitutes a threat to this
species.
Based on our evaluation of the
information presented in the petition
and in our files, we have determined the
petition presents substantial
information to indicate that listing the
nugget pebblesnail may be warranted
due to the present or threatened
destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range.
Factors B and C: The petition did not
present any information, nor do we have
any information in our files, to indicate
that these factors may pose a threat to
the species.
Factor D: The petition asserts that the
nugget pebblesnail is threatened by
inadequate regulatory mechanisms
associated with the Survey and Manage
program, the Special Status Species
Program, and the Aquatic Conservation
Strategy. The nugget pebblesnail is
currently considered a special status
species (USDA and USDI 2007, p. 93).
As a special status species, this mollusk
should receive special management
consideration on Federal lands;
however, maintenance of special species
status is left to the discretion of the
Federal land managers. As discussed
above under ‘‘The Survey and Manage
Program and Special Status Species
Programs,’’ the claims raised under the
petition relative to the discontinuation
of the Survey and Management Program
no longer apply, because that program is
once again being implemented.
The ACS is a set of standards
established under the Northwest Forest
Plan for protecting aquatic and riparian
habitat on Federal land (USDA and
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
USDI 1994, p. 9; CBD et al. 2008, p. 32).
The ACS includes four components:
Riparian reserves, key watersheds,
watershed analysis, and watershed
restoration. Since the nugget pebblesnail
is an aquatic mollusk occurring in part
on Federal lands, the ACS may provide
some protection from potential threats.
Those protections would likely be
limited for populations of the nugget
pebblesnail occupying private lands,
however.
Factor E: The petition asserts that
climate change is a threat to the nugget
pebblesnail (CBD et al. 2008, p. 26).
Climate change is causing significant
reductions in both the volume and
persistence of winter snowpack
throughout the western United States,
including northern California (Knowles
et al. 2006, pp. 4545, 4546; Kapnick and
Hall 2010, pp. 3446, 3454). The
reduction and earlier melting of the
snowpack is likely to continue, and this
may result in a reduction in the amount
of water that is available during summer
months (Kapnick and Hall 2010, p.
3446, 3454). Such a reduction in
available surface water may result in
increased water diversions from
groundwater and springs, but the extent
to which springs supporting the nugget
pebblesnail may be affected by potential
increased water diversions is unclear.
Reduced snow runoff and lower flow
levels may also result in water
temperature increases (Field et al. 2007,
pp. 620, 629). Although potential water
temperature increases could negatively
impact the nugget pebblesnail, the
extent this mollusk may be affected by
this potential threat is unclear.
The petition indicates that the nugget
pebblesnail may be threatened by
limited gene flow (inbreeding
depression) and stochastic (chance)
events (CBD et al. 2008, pp. 28, 29).
Frest and Johannes (1995b, p. 50)
indicate that local populations ‘‘can be
very abundant locally,’’ which would
make inbreeding depression less likely
(Lande 1999, p. 11). However, since the
species has been extirpated over much
of its former range by the Cantara
herbicide spill (Furnish and Monthey
1999, Sect. 3, p. 5; ORNHIC 2004k, p.
2), it has demonstrated itself to be
susceptible to stochastic events.
The petition also states that fire may
threaten the species. The Burney Fire of
1992 is described by several sources as
having (in conjunction with subsequent
salvage logging) caused significant
impacts to populations of nugget
pebblesnails (Furnish and Monthey
1999, Sect. 3, pp. 6, 8; ORNHIC 2004k,
p. 2). We therefore consider large fires
to constitute a possible threat.
E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM
05OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Although the petition indicates that
the nugget pebblesnail may be
threatened by recreation, we were not
able to find information supporting that
claim.
Nugget pebblesnail Summary: Based
on our evaluation of the information
presented in the petition and in our
files, we have determined the petition
presents substantial information to
indicate that listing the nugget
pebblesnail may be warranted due to the
present or threatened destruction,
modification or curtailment of its
habitat or range (Factor A) resulting
from water diversions, impoundments,
pollution and sedimentation. We are
initiating a status review to determine
whether listing under the Act is
warranted.
Potem Creek Pebblesnail (Fluminicola
potemicus)
The Potem Creek pebblesnail is an
aquatic snail known from 12 sites in the
upper Sacramento River system and Pit
River tributaries in Shasta County,
California (ORNHIC 2004l, pp. 1, 6;
USDA and USDI 2007, p. 92). Three of
the sites are on Federal land. The Potem
Creek pebblesnail is known to occur on
muddy substrates in spring runs that are
small, perennial, cold, and shallow
(ORNHIC 2004l, pp. 1, 3). According to
Furnish and Monthey (1999, Sect. 2, p.
5), Fluminicola species in general
require cold, unpolluted, and well
oxygenated water with little
sedimentation.
Factor A: The petition asserts that the
Potem Creek pebblesnail is threatened
by water diversions, impoundments,
spring developments, grazing, logging,
mining, road construction, and
pollution. Information cited by the
petition and in our files indicates that
water diversions and impoundments
may threaten the Potem Creek
pebblesnail by removing flowing water
and thus habitat (Frest and Johannes
1995b, p. 43; Hershler et al. 2003, p.
277; ORNHIC 2004l, p. 2). Use of
springs and channel bottoms by
livestock may also threaten the species
by polluting the water (ORNHIC 2004l,
p. 2). Road construction may impede
flows (resulting in less snail habitat),
and cause sedimentation resulting in
smothered substrates and impaired egg
survivorship (Furnish and Monthey
1999, Sect. 2, pp. 3, 7; ORNHIC 2004l,
p. 2). Because the Potem Creek
pebblesnail is only known to occur at 12
sites, any such impacts to even a few
such sites could pose a threat to the
species as a whole. Logging and mining
activities may cause excessive
sedimentation and thereby impair
survivorship of Potem Creek pebblesnail
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:18 Oct 04, 2011
Jkt 226001
eggs (Furnish and Monthey 1999, Sect.
2, p. 7; ORNHIC 2004l, p. 2).
Based on our evaluation of the
information presented in the petition
and in our files, we have determined the
petition presents substantial
information to indicate that listing the
Potem Creek pebblesnail may be
warranted due to the present or
threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range.
Factors B and C: The petition did not
present any information, nor do we have
any information in our files, to indicate
that these factors may pose a threat to
the species.
Factor D: The petition asserts that the
Potem Creek pebblesnail is threatened
by inadequate regulatory mechanisms
associated with the Survey and Manage
program, the Special Status Species
Program, and the Aquatic Conservation
Strategy. The Potem Creek pebblesnail
is not currently considered a special
status species (USDA and USDI 2007, p.
93), and therefore would not receive
special management consideration on
Federal lands. As discussed above
under ‘‘The Survey and Manage
Program and Special Status Species
Programs,’’ the claims raised under the
petition relative to the discontinuation
of the Survey and Management Program
no longer apply, because that program is
once again being implemented.
The ACS is a set of standards
established under the Northwest Forest
Plan for protecting aquatic and riparian
habitat on Federal land (USDA and
USDI 1994, p. 9; CBD et al. 2008, p. 32).
The ACS includes four components:
Riparian reserves, key watersheds,
watershed analysis, and watershed
restoration. Since the Potem Creek
pebblesnail is an aquatic mollusk
occurring in part on Federal lands, the
ACS may provide some protection from
potential threats. Those protections
would likely be limited for populations
of the Potem Creek pebblesnail
occupying private lands, however.
Factor E: The petition asserts that
climate change is a threat to the Potem
Creek pebblesnail (CBD et al. 2008, p.
26). Climate change is causing
significant reductions in both the
volume and persistence of winter
snowpack throughout the western
United States, including northern
California (Knowles et al. 2006, pp.
4545, 4546; Kapnick and Hall 2010, pp.
3446, 3454). The reduction and earlier
melting of the snowpack is likely to
continue, and this may result in a
reduction in the amount of water that is
available during summer months
(Kapnick and Hall 2010, p. 3446, 3454).
Such a reduction in available surface
water may result in increased water
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
61845
diversions from groundwater and
springs, but the extent to which springs
supporting the Potem Creek pebblesnail
may be affected by potential increased
water diversions is unclear. Reduced
snow runoff and lower flow levels may
also result in water temperature
increases (Field et al. 2007, pp. 620,
629). Although potential water
temperature increases could negatively
impact the Potem Creek pebblesnail,
this species occurs in large, cold,
perennial springs, and the extent to
which the springs that support the
mollusk may be affected by this
potential threat is unclear.
The petition also indicates that the
Potem Creek pebblesnail may be
threatened by limited gene flow
(inbreeding depression) and stochastic
events (CBD et al. 2008, pp. 28, 29). We
do not have any information regarding
the number of Potem Creek pebblesnails
at each occupied site (which would
affect the threat of inbreeding
depression). However, the fact that the
species occupies only 12 known sites,
all of which are in the same general area
in which a major deleterious event
occurred historically (the 1991 metam
sodium spill into the upper Sacramento
River). This indicates that the species
may be susceptible to stochastic events
(Furnish and Monthey 1999, Sect. 2,
p. 7).
Potem Creek pebblesnail Summary:
Based on our evaluation of the
information presented in the petition
and in our files, we have determined the
petition presents substantial
information to indicate that listing the
Potem Creek pebblesnail may be
warranted due to the present or
threatened destruction, modification or
curtailment of its habitat or range
(Factor A) resulting from water
diversions, impoundments, grazing,
road construction, logging and mining.
We are initiating a status review to
determine whether listing under the Act
is warranted.
Puget Oregonian (Cryptomastix devia)
The Puget Oregonian (Cryptomastix
devia) is a terrestrial snail known from
approximately 177 sites in Washington
and Oregon, 148 of which are on
Federal land (Kogut and Duncan 2005,
pp. 4–5; USDA and USDI 2007, p. 92).
Most occupied sites are located in the
Cowlitz and Cispus River drainages of
the Gifford Pinchot National Forest, in
southwestern Washington State. The
Puget Oregonian is characterized by the
Oregon Natural Heritage Program as ‘‘in
strong decline throughout its range,’’
with only 13 to 40 occupied sites
considered to have good viability
(ORNHIC 2004q, pp. 1, 2). The Puget
E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM
05OCP3
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
61846
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
Oregonian is believed to be associated
with big-leaf maple (Acer
macrophyllum) in mature to old-growth
moist conifer forests that have over 70
percent canopy cover (Kogut and
Duncan 2005, pp. 5, 6).
Factor A: The petition asserts that the
Puget Oregonian is threatened by
logging, urbanization, and agricultural
conversion (CBD et al. 2008, pp. 39, 40).
Information presented by the petition
indicates that the Puget Oregonian may
be threatened by loss of habitat due to
logging and conversion for agriculture
or development (Kogut and Duncan
2005, p. 1). Forest Service documents
obtained by the petitioners indicate the
snail was detected in nine timber sales
and a commercial thinning project,
thereby demonstrating that logging
occurs within the species range (CBD et
al. 2008, p. 39). The petition states that
mitigation measures were likely taken
under the Survey and Manage Program
for all of the sales, but their information
only specifically mentions mitigation
for a single project.
The petition also states that grazing
threatens the species (CBD et al. 2008,
p. 39). Presumably, the petition refers to
the threat posed to the species by the
grazing of areas that have already been
logged (Frest and Johannes 1995a, p.
229; ORNHIC 2004q, p. 2). Since we
lack evidence that grazing is threatening
the species in areas that haven’t first
been logged, and since the Puget
Oregonian is dependent on mature
forests with extensive canopy cover, we
consider grazing to be covered by the
term ‘‘conversion for agriculture,’’ rather
than an independent threat.
Factor B: The petition did not present
any information, nor do we have any
information in our files, to indicate that
this factor may pose a threat to the
species.
Factor C: The petition indicates that
predation may constitute a threat (CBD
et al. 2008, p. 40). While Kogut and
Duncan (2005, pp. 1, 8) do state that
vertebrate and invertebrate predators
(including predatory snails and ground
beetles specifically adapted for feeding
on snails) may concentrate in isolated
small habitat patches where Puget
Oregonian snails would be most
vulnerable, they do not characterize
predation as a primary threat, and do
not offer substantial information to
indicate that it is impacting the species.
We have no information in our files to
indicate that predation is a potential
threat to this species. Neither the
petition nor the information in our files
identifies disease as a potential threat to
the species.
Factor D: The petition asserts that the
Puget Oregonian is threatened by
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:18 Oct 04, 2011
Jkt 226001
inadequate regulatory mechanisms
associated with the Survey and Manage
program, the Special Status Species
Program, and the Aquatic Conservation
Strategy. The Puget Oregonian is
currently considered a special status
species (USDA and USDI 2007, p. 93).
As a special status species, this mollusk
should receive special management
consideration on Federal lands;
however, maintenance of special species
status is left to the discretion of the
Federal land managers. As discussed
above under ‘‘The Survey and Manage
Program and Special Status Species
Programs,’’ the claims raised under the
petition relative to the discontinuation
of the Survey and Management Program
no longer apply, because that program is
once again being implemented.
The ACS is a set of standards
established under the Northwest Forest
Plan for protecting aquatic and riparian
habitat on Federal land (USDA and
USDI 1994, p. 9; CBD et al. 2008, p. 32).
The ACS includes four components:
Riparian reserves, key watersheds,
watershed analysis, and watershed
restoration. Since the Puget Oregonian
is a terrestrial mollusk occurring in part
on Federal riparian lands, the ACS may
provide some protection from potential
threats. Those protections would likely
be limited for populations of the Puget
Oregonian occupying private lands,
however.
The petition also states this mollusk
is threatened by the WOPR, a set of
revisions to the Northwest Forest Plan
proposed for BLM lands in western
Oregon (CBD et al. 2008, p. 34).
However, the BLM withdrew this
proposal in 2009 (USDA 2009, p. 1). We
are unaware of any BLM plans to
reinstate the WOPR; therefore, we do
not have the information to assess if, or
how, WOPR may impact the species.
Factor E: The petition (CBD et al.
2008, p. 40) presents information to
indicate that high-intensity fire may
pose a threat to the species by removing
habitat, directly killing individual
snails, and isolating remaining
populations (Kogut and Duncan 2005,
p. 1).
The petition also claims that Puget
Oregonian is threatened by climate
change (CBD et al. 2008, pp. 26, 27), and
notes that the likelihood of highintensity fire in forests occupied by the
Puget Oregonian may be heightened by
climate change, due to increased
summer temperatures and lengthened
summer drought (Westerling et al. 2006,
pp. 940–942). Additionally, summer
water stress due to climate change in
western forests, including the heart of
the species’ distribution in the Cowlitz
and Cispus River drainages, is currently
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
causing increased tree mortality (Van
Mantgem et al. 2009, pp. 521–522)
which may lead to changes in forest
structure and composition and
decreased canopy cover that may pose
a threat to the Puget Oregonian (Kogut
and Duncan 2005, pp. 5, 6; Van
Mantgem et al. 2009, p. 523). Finally,
climate change is increasing the
susceptibility of western forests to
various species of forest pests with the
capacity to kill large stands of mature
trees (Logan et al. 2003, p. 130).
Specifically, the Douglas-fir beetle
(Dendroctonus pseudotsugae), which
infests and kills Douglas-fir throughout
the range of the Puget Oregonian, tends
to undergo large outbreaks following
droughts (Schmitz and Gibson 1996, p.
1).
The petition indicates that the Puget
Oregonian may be threatened by limited
gene flow (inbreeding depression) and
stochastic events (CBD et al. 2008, pp.
28, 29). Although only one to three
individual snails have typically been
found at occupied sites (Kogut and
Duncan 2005, p. 6), we consider actual
population numbers likely to be higher,
since ‘‘populations’’ of one to three
individuals would be unlikely to
persist. Moreover, Kogut and Duncan
(2005, p. 6) note that individuals of this
species may easily be overlooked. We
do not have any information in our files
regarding the size of most local
populations, which would affect their
susceptibility to inbreeding depression.
We also do not have any information in
our files regarding the likelihood of
damaging stochastic events, other than
for wildfire, which is covered above.
The petition also states that the Puget
Oregonian may be threatened by
competition with invasive slugs, harvest
of special forest products such as
mushrooms and moss, and recreation
(camping) (CBD et al. 2008, pp. 39, 40).
Although invasive slugs and harvest of
special forest products are mentioned by
Kogut and Duncan (2005, p. 1) as
possible concerns, we lack information
to indicate that their influence on Puget
Oregonian populations is significant
enough to constitute a threat. Similarly,
while the petitioner’s claims that a
Puget Oregonian population was
detected at a campground (CBD et al.
2008, p. 39), neither the petition nor our
files contain any information that
demonstrates how the species may be
threatened by camping or other
recreational activities.
Puget Oregonian Summary: Based on
our evaluation of the information
presented in the petition and in our
files, we have determined the petition
presents substantial information to
indicate that listing the Puget Oregonian
E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM
05OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
may be warranted due to the present or
threatened destruction, modification or
curtailment of its habitat or range
(Factor A) resulting from logging and
conversion for agriculture; and other
natural or manmade factors affecting its
current existence (Factor E) resulting
from high intensity fire, and from
increased tree mortality due to various
causes associated with climate change.
While we expect the reinstatement of
the Survey and Manage Program to help
address threats to the species resulting
from logging and agricultural
conversion on Federal land, information
indicating that population numbers are
in decline throughout the species’ range,
and that only 13 to 40 populations are
considered to have good viability
(ORNHIC 2004q, pp. 1, 2) leads us to
conclude that information presented by
the petition regarding the overall level
of threat to the species; including
threats from logging, agricultural
conversion, high intensity fire, and
climate change; is substantial. We are
initiating a status review to determine
whether listing under the Act is
warranted.
Shasta Chaparral (Trilobopsis roperi)
The Shasta chaparral is a terrestrial
snail known from 146 occurrences in
Shasta County, California, 140 of which
are on Federal land (Burke et al. 1999,
Sect. 14 p. 5; USDA and USDI 2007, p.
93). The Shasta chaparral has been
found within 100 m (328 ft) of limestone
rockslides, draws, or caves with a cover
of shrubs or oak (Kelley et al. 1999, p.
61). Forest litter and coarse woody
debris are considered necessary to
provide food and temporary cover from
the semi-xeric (dry) conditions of the
surrounding environment, according to
Burke et al. (1999, Sect. 14, p. 6).
Factor A: Information in our files
indicates that the Shasta chaparral may
be threatened by a proposal to raise
Shasta Dam, which if carried out, would
likely inundate important habitat and
occupied sites (USBR 2007, p. ES 6;
Terry 2008, p. 1).
The petition states that the Shasta
chaparral is threatened by road building
and maintenance, limestone quarrying
and mining, recreation, and
urbanization in the Redding area (CBD
et al. 2008, p. 66). Although these
claims are supported by Frest and
Johannes (2000, p. 319), that document
relies on the assumption that only five
occupied sites exist. However,
information in our files shows that 146
such sites are now known, and Frest
and Johannes (2000, p. 319) do not
elaborate regarding the extent or
locations of the listed activities in
relation to occupied sites or potential
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:18 Oct 04, 2011
Jkt 226001
habitat, we do not consider the
information supporting these claims to
be substantial.
Based on our evaluation of the
information presented in the petition
and in our files, we determined the
petition presents substantial
information to indicate that listing the
Shasta chaparral may be warranted due
to the present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of its
habitat or range.
Factor B: The petition states that the
Shasta chaparral is threatened by
overcollecting (CBD et al. 2008, p. 66).
Although Burke et al. (1999, Sect. 14, p.
1) do mention this as a potential threat,
they do not provide substantial
information to indicate that collecting is
taking place at a level that could
threaten this species.
Factor C: The petition did not present
any information, nor do we have any
information in our files, to indicate, that
this factor may pose a threat to the
species.
Factor D: The petition asserts that the
Shasta chaparral is threatened by
inadequate regulatory mechanisms
associated with the Survey and Manage
program, the Special Status Species
Program, and the Aquatic Conservation
Strategy. The Shasta chaparral is
currently considered a special status
species (USDA and USDI 2007, p. 93).
As a special status species, this mollusk
should receive special management
consideration on Federal lands;
however, maintenance of special species
status is left to the discretion of the
Federal land managers. As discussed
above under ‘‘The Survey and Manage
Program and Special Status Species
Programs,’’ the claims raised under the
petition relative to the discontinuation
of the Survey and Management Program
no longer apply, because that program is
once again being implemented.
The ACS is unlikely to provide
significant protections, because the
Shasta chaparral is not an aquatic or
riparian species (Burke et al. 1999, Sect.
14, p. 6).
Factor E: The petition asserts that the
Shasta chaparral is threatened by
wildfire that will become more frequent
with climate change (CBD et al. 2008,
pp. 27, 66). The Shasta chaparral
depends on forest litter and woody
debris to provide microclimate
conditions with lower temperatures and
higher humidity than surrounding areas,
so high-intensity fire could pose a threat
to the species by removing those refugia
(Burke et al. 1999, Sect. 14, pp. 6, 7).
The petition and our files contain
information indicating that global
climate change is producing warmer
summer temperatures, combined with
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
61847
longer periods of summer drought in the
western U.S., which is increasing the
vulnerability of western U.S. forests to
wildfire (Westerling, et al. 2006, p. 940).
Wildfire frequency and total area
burned increased after the mid-1980s to
levels several times those during the
period 1970–1986 (Westerling, et al.
2006, p. 941). These changes cannot be
explained solely by land-use history
considerations such as fire suppression
(Westerling et al. 2006, p. 940).
The petition states that the Shasta
chaparral is threatened by pesticide
application (CBD et al. 2008, p. 66).
Although Burke et al. (1999, Sect. 14, p.
7) do mention herbicide use as a
potential threat, they do not provide
information to indicate what herbicides,
if any, are used in or near sites occupied
by this species, or in what amounts, or
to what extent the Shasta chaparral may
be susceptible to the herbicides used.
The petition also indicates that the
Shasta chaparral may be threatened by
limited gene flow (inbreeding
depression) and stochastic events (CBD
et al. 2008, pp. 28, 29). We lack
information regarding the size of most
local populations of these subspecies,
which would affect their susceptibility
to inbreeding depression. We also lack
information regarding the likelihood of
damaging stochastic events capable of
threatening the subspecies, other than
for wildfire, which is covered above.
Shasta chaparral Summary: Based on
our evaluation of the information
presented in the petition and in our
files, we have determined the petition
presents substantial information to
indicate that listing the Shasta chaparral
may be warranted due to the present or
threatened destruction, modification or
curtailment of its habitat or range
(Factor A) resulting from the potential
raising of Shasta Dam. We are initiating
a status review to determine whether
listing under the Act is warranted.
Shasta Hesperian (Vespericola shasta)
The Shasta hesperian is a terrestrial
snail known from 78 sites in Shasta
County, California (Burke et al. 1999,
Sect. 17 p. 1; USDA and USDI 2007, p.
94). Seventy-two of those occupied sites
are federally owned (USDA and USDI
2007, p. 94). The Shasta hesperian is
considered an old-growth and riparian
associate (Frest and Johannes 1993, p.
41) and is believed to inhabit damp
ground at the margins of streams (Burke
et al. 1999, Sect. 17 p. 1).
Factor A: The petition asserts that the
Shasta hesperian is threatened by
habitat loss due to timber harvest and
grazing (CBD et al. 2008, p. 70). The
petition presents information to indicate
that the Shasta hesperian may be
E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM
05OCP3
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
61848
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
threatened by logging and grazing, both
of which can directly remove habitat
and also alter hydrology, thereby
increasing the likelihood of both
flooding and loss of soil moisture (Burke
et al. 1999, Sect. 17, p. 7). The petition
states that the species was detected at a
timber sale and a fuels reduction project
(CBD et al. 2008, p. 70).
Based on our evaluation of the
information presented in the petition
and in our files, we have determined the
petition presents substantial
information to indicate that listing the
Shasta hesperian may be warranted due
to the present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of its
habitat or range.
Factors B and C: The petition did not
present any information, nor do we have
any information in our files, to indicate
that these factors may pose a threat to
the species.
Factor D: The petition asserts that the
Shasta hesperian is threatened by
inadequate regulatory mechanisms
associated with the Survey and Manage
program, the Special Status Species
Program, and the Aquatic Conservation
Strategy. The Shasta hesperian is
currently considered a special status
species (USDA and USDI 2007, p. 93).
As a special status species, this mollusk
should receive special management
consideration on Federal lands;
however, maintenance of special species
status is left to the discretion of the
Federal land managers. As discussed
above under ‘‘The Survey and Manage
Program and Special Status Species
Programs,’’ the claims raised under the
petition relative to the discontinuation
of the Survey and Management Program
no longer apply, because that program is
once again being implemented.
The ACS is a set of standards
established under the Northwest Forest
Plan for protecting aquatic and riparian
habitat on Federal land (USDA and
USDI 1994, p. 9; CBD et al. 2008, p. 32).
The ACS includes four components:
Riparian reserves, key watersheds,
watershed analysis, and watershed
restoration. Since the Shasta hesperian
is a terrestrial mollusk occurring in part
on Federal riparian lands, the ACS may
provide some protection from potential
threats. Those protections would likely
be limited for populations of the Shasta
hesperian occupying private lands,
however.
Factor E: The petition asserts that the
Shasta hesperian is threatened by
wildfire that will become more frequent
with climate change (CBD et al. 2008,
pp. 27, 28). The petition and our files
contains information indicating that
global climate change is producing
warmer summer temperatures,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:18 Oct 04, 2011
Jkt 226001
combined with longer periods of
summer drought in the western U.S.,
which is increasing the vulnerability of
western U.S. forests to wildfire
(Westerling et al. 2006, p. 940). Wildfire
frequency and total area burned
increased after the mid-1980s to levels
several times those during the period
1970–1986 (Westerling et al. 2006, p.
941). These changes cannot be
explained solely by land-use history
considerations such as fire suppression
(Westerling et al. 2006, p. 940).
Although no information cited by the
petition or in our files provided direct
examples of wildfire impacts to the
Shasta hesperian, the petition does note
that, according to Survey and Manage
documents, this mollusk was directly
affected by at least one underburn or
fuel reduction project (CBD et al. 2008,
p. 28).
The petition asserts that climate
change is a threat to the Shasta
hesperian (CBD et al. 2008, p. 26). The
petition provides information indicating
that climate change is expected to cause
significant reductions in both the
volume and persistence of winter
snowpack throughout the western
United States (Knowles et al. 2006, p.
4545). Such reductions have already
been documented in the Oregon
Cascades (Knowles et al. 2006, pp. 4545,
4546). If reduced snowpack resulted in
a reduction of soil moisture, the Shasta
hesperian, which requires damp ground
at the margins of streams (Burke et al.
1999, Section 17, p. 1), could be
impacted. However, neither the petition
nor our files contain information about
the extent soil drying could occur
within the Shasta hesperian’s habitat or
what impact that drying would have to
the species.
The petition states that chemical
pollution may threaten the species (CBD
et al. 2008, p. 70). Burke et al. (1999,
Sect. 14, p. 7) mentions this as a
possible threat due to the danger of large
spills, such as the 1991 Cantara spill of
herbicide into the upper Sacramento
River, and to the potential for numerous
smaller spills ‘‘that could come from
roads and railroads.’’ We do not have
information to indicate that the
likelihood of such spills, or to estimate
their impact to a terrestrial snail such as
the Shasta hesperian.
The petition states that invasive
species may threaten the Shasta
hesperian (CBD et al. 2008, p. 70).
Although Burke et al. (1999, Sect. 17, p.
7) mention this as a possibility, they do
not provide information to indicate the
invasive species involved or their likely
impacts.
The petition also indicates that the
Shasta hesperian may be threatened by
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
limited gene flow (inbreeding
depression) and stochastic events (CBD
et al. 2008, pp. 28, 29). We lack
information regarding the size of most
local populations of this species, which
would affect their susceptibility to
inbreeding depression. We also lack
information regarding the likelihood of
damaging stochastic events capable of
threatening the species, other than for
wildfire which is covered above.
However, given the large number of
known occurrences (78), the threat from
stochastic events is likely low.
Shasta hesperian Summary: Based on
our evaluation of the information
presented in the petition and in our
files, we have determined the petition
presents substantial information to
indicate that listing the Shasta
hesperian may be warranted due to the
present or threatened destruction,
modification or curtailment of its
habitat or range (Factor A) resulting
from logging and grazing activities. We
are initiating a status review to
determine whether listing under the Act
is warranted.
Shasta Pebblesnail (Fluminicola
multifarius)
The Shasta pebblesnail was formally
named and described in 2007 (Hershler
et al. 2007, pp. 415–419). This species
combines four groups of snails
previously considered likely to be
species but never formally described.
Those were the Sacramento pebblesnail
(Fluminicola n. sp. 1, from Frest and
Johannes 1995b, pp. 42, D14) (not the
same as Fluminicola n. sp. 1 from USDA
and USDI 2007, p. 250) and three
provisional species discussed in Frest
and Johannes 1999 (pp. 39–50): The flat
top pebblesnail (Fluminicola n. sp. 15),
the Shasta Springs pebblesnail
(Fluminicola n. sp. 16), and the disjunct
pebblesnail (Fluminicola n. sp. 17). The
latter three of these groups were
included under the Northwest Forest
Plan’s Survey and Manage Program
(USDA and USDI 2007, pp. 169, 252),
and were included as separate species
in the original petition (CBD et al. 2008,
pp. 45–48). However, in a letter dated
April 13, 2009 (Curry 2009, pp. 1, 2), the
petitioners informed us that these three
groups had been combined into a single
species, which had been formally
described by Hershler et al. (2007). The
letter amended the original petition by
petitioning for the listing of the
combined entity—the Shasta
pebblesnail.
Neither the petition nor the 2009
amending letter includes information on
the group formerly known as the
Sacramento pebblesnail. We know that
a survey of mollusks in the upper
E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM
05OCP3
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
Sacramento River found the Sacramento
pebblesnail at 13 sites (Frest and
Johannes 1995b, p. 42), but we lack
information regarding whether this
erstwhile species was known from
additional areas. We are therefore
proceeding with our discussion of the
Shasta pebblesnail by combining our
information regarding the flat top,
Shasta Springs, and disjunct
pebblesnails with such data as we have
in our files regarding the Sacramento
pebblesnail.
The Shasta pebblesnail is an aquatic
snail known from at least 36 sites
(including the 13 sites mentioned above
that are occupied by the group formerly
known as the Sacramento pebblesnail)
in the upper Sacramento River
watershed in Shasta County, California
(Frest and Johannes 1995b, p. 42;
Furnish and Monthey 1999, Sect. 2, p.
5; USDA and USDI 2007, p. 92). Two
sources indicate that all occupied sites
of those groups previously known as the
flat top, disjunct, and Shasta Springs
pebblesnails are on private land
(Furnish and Monthey 1999, Sect. 2, p.
5; USDA and USDI 2007, p. 92).
However, a third source indicates that
‘‘some’’ sites occupied by the group
previously known as the Shasta Springs
pebblesnail are on the Shasta National
Forest (Frest and Johannes 1999, p. 44).
We have no information regarding land
ownership for sites occupied by the
group previously known as the
Sacramento pebblesnail. According to
Furnish and Monthey (1999, Sect. 2, pp.
2, 5), the Shasta pebblesnail lives in
cold perennial springs, and is highly
sensitive to water pollution, oxygen
deficits, elevated water temperatures,
and sedimentation.
Factor A: The petition asserts that the
Shasta pebblesnail is threatened by
habitat loss due to water diversions,
impoundments, spring developments,
grazing, logging, mining, road
construction, and pollution (CBD et al.
2008, pp. 45, 48, 49). Information cited
in the petition or in our files indicates
that the Shasta pebblesnail may be
exposed to, and threatened by, water
diversions and by water pollution,
including eutrophication and
sedimentation, resulting from a variety
of sources such as logging and grazing
(Furnish and Monthey 1999, Sect. 2, p.
7; USDA and USDI 2007, p. 252). Water
diversions can reduce flows, and reduce
available habitat, while eutrophication
can decrease oxygen, and sedimentation
can cover substrates needed for feeding
and egg-laying. Water impoundments
have also been identified as a potential
threat (Furnish and Monthey 1999, Sect.
2, p. 7), but we do not have information
in our files to indicate that their impacts
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:18 Oct 04, 2011
Jkt 226001
are ongoing, as opposed to being
completely historical in nature.
Based on our evaluation of the
information presented in the petition
and in our files, we have determined the
petition presents substantial
information to indicate that listing the
Shasta pebblesnail may be warranted
due to the present or threatened
destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range.
Factors B and C: The petition did not
present any information, nor do we have
any information in our files, to indicate
that these factors may pose a threat to
the species.
Factor D: The petition asserts that the
Shasta pebblesnail is threatened by
inadequate regulatory mechanisms
associated with the Survey and Manage
program, the Special Status Species
Program, and the Aquatic Conservation
Strategy. The Shasta pebblesnail is not
currently considered a special status
species (USDA and USDI 2007, p. 93)
and therefore would not receive special
management consideration on Federal
lands. As discussed above under ‘‘The
Survey and Manage Program and
Special Status Species Programs,’’ the
claims raised under the petition relative
to the discontinuation of the Survey and
Management Program no longer apply,
because that program is once again
being implemented.
The Aquatic Conservation Strategy
(ACS) is a set of standards established
under the Northwest Forest Plan for
protecting aquatic and riparian habitat
on Federal land (USDA and USDI 1994,
p. 9; CBD et al. 2008, p. 32). The ACS
includes four components: Riparian
reserves, key watersheds, watershed
analysis, and watershed restoration.
Since the Shasta pebblesnail is an
aquatic mollusk occurring in part on
Federal lands, the ACS may provide
some protection from potential threats.
Those protections would likely be
limited for populations of the Shasta
pebblesnail occupying private lands,
however.
Factor E: The petition asserts that
climate change is a threat to the Shasta
pebblesnail (CBD et al. 2008, p. 26).
Climate change is causing significant
reductions in both the volume and
persistence of winter snowpack
throughout the western United States,
including northern California (Knowles
et al. 2006, pp. 4545, 4546; Kapnick and
Hall 2010, pp. 3446, 3454). The
reduction and earlier melting of the
snowpack is likely to continue, and this
may result in a reduction in the amount
of water that is available during summer
months (Kapnick and Hall 2010, pp.
3446, 3454). Such a reduction in
available surface water may result in
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
61849
increased water diversions from
groundwater and springs, but the extent
to which springs supporting the Shasta
pebblesnail may be affected by potential
increased water diversions is unclear.
Reduced snow runoff and lower flow
levels may also result in water
temperature increases (Field et al. 2007,
pp. 620, 629). Such increases could pose
a threat to the Shasta pebblesnail, which
is highly sensitive to elevated water
temperatures (Furnish and Monthey
1999, Sect. 2, pp. 2, 5).
The petition indicates the Shasta
pebblesnail may be threatened by
limited gene flow (inbreeding
depression) and stochastic events (CBD
et al. 2008, pp. 28, 29). The size of local
populations would affect their
susceptibility to inbreeding depression;
however, we lack information regarding
the size of most local populations of this
species. We also lack information
regarding the likelihood of damaging
stochastic events capable of threatening
the species.
Shasta pebblesnail Summary: Based
on our evaluation of the information
presented in the petition and in our
files, we have determined the petition
presents substantial information to
indicate that listing the Shasta
pebblesnail may be warranted due to the
present or threatened destruction,
modification or curtailment of its
habitat or range (Factor A) resulting
from water diversions and water
pollution. We are initiating a status
review to determine whether listing
under the Act is warranted.
Shasta Sideband (Monadenia
troglodytes troglodytes) and Wintu
Sideband (M. t. wintu)
The Shasta sideband and Wintu
sideband are terrestrial snails inhabiting
the vicinity of Shasta Lake, in Shasta
County, California (Burke et al. 1999,
Sect. 11, pp. 1, 5). The Shasta sideband
is known from nine sites, most of which
are located along the McCloud River
Arm of the lake (Burke et al. 1999, Sect.
11, p. 5; USDA and USDI 2007, p. 93).
Eight of the nine sites are on Federal
land (USDA and USDI 2007, p. 93). The
Wintu sideband occurs at eight sites,
most of which are along the Pit River
arm of the lake (Burke et al. 1999, Sect.
11, p. 5; USDA and USDI 2007, p. 93).
Seven of those eight sites are on Federal
land (USDA and USDI 2007, p. 93). Both
subspecies are apparently restricted to
limestone outcrops or related substrates,
and are associated with caves, talus, or
rocky outcrops in open, brushy, and
late-successional pine-oak woodland
areas (Burke et al. 1999, Sect. 11, p. 5).
Forest litter and coarse woody debris are
E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM
05OCP3
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
61850
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
considered necessary to provide food
and temporary cover.
Factor A: The petition asserts that the
Shasta and Wintu sidebands are
threatened by habitat loss due to
logging, road construction and
maintenance, and recreation (CBD et al.
2008, pp. 61, 62). We did not find
information to support these claims,
although Burke et al. (1999, p. 7) note
that forest management activities have
significantly impacted other mollusk
species. Information provided by the
petition cites an environmental impact
statement indicating that both
subspecies may be threatened by road
building and maintenance (Burke et al.
1999, Sect. 11, pp. 6, 10). Burke et al.
(1999, p. 6) also state that habitat
alteration, including recreation
development, may constitute a threat,
but they do not provide information on
the extent to which this activity is
actually occurring or is likely to occur
in sites occupied by either subspecies.
Substantial information in our files
also indicates that these mollusks may
be threatened by a proposal to raise
Shasta Dam, which if carried out, would
be likely to inundate important habitat
and occupied sites (USBR 2007, p. ES 6;
Terry 2008, p. 1).
Based on our evaluation of the
information presented in the petition
and in our files, we have determined the
petition presents substantial
information to indicate that listing the
Shasta sideband and Wintu sideband
may be warranted due to the present or
threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of their habitat or range.
Factor B: The petition states that both
subspecies are threatened by
overcollecting (CBD et al. 2008, pp. 61,
62). Although Burke et al. (1999, Sect.
11, p. 6) do mention this as a potential
threat, they do not elaborate on whether
collection is taking place at a level that
could threaten either subspecies.
Factor C: The petition did not present
any information, nor do we have any
information in our files, to indicate that
this factor may pose a threat to either
subspecies.
Factor D: The petition asserts that
Shasta sideband and Wintu sideband
are threatened by inadequate regulatory
mechanisms associated with the Survey
and Manage program, the Special Status
Species Program, and the Aquatic
Conservation Strategy. Both mollusk
species are currently considered special
status species (USDA and USDI 2007,
p. 93). As special status species, these
mollusks should receive special
management consideration on Federal
lands; however, maintenance of special
species status is left to the discretion of
the Federal land managers. As discussed
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:18 Oct 04, 2011
Jkt 226001
above under ‘‘The Survey and Manage
Program and Special Status Species
Programs,’’ the claims raised under the
petition relative to the discontinuation
of the Survey and Management Program
no longer apply, because that program is
once again being implemented.
The Aquatic Conservation Strategy is
unlikely to provide significant
protections for these organisms, because
the Shasta sideband and Wintu
sideband are not aquatic or riparian
subspecies (Burke et al. 1999, Sect. 11,
p. 5).
Factor E: The petition asserts that the
Shasta sideband and Wintu sideband
are threatened by wildfire that will
become more frequent with climate
change (CBD et al. 2008, pp. 27, 28, 61,
62). The petition and our files contain
information indicating that global
climate change is producing warmer
summer temperatures, combined with
longer periods of summer drought in the
western United States, which is
increasing the vulnerability of western
U.S. forests to wildfire (Westerling et al.
2006, p. 940). Wildfire frequency and
total area burned increased after the
mid-1980s, to levels several times those
of 1970–1986 (Westerling et al. 2006, p.
941). These changes cannot be
explained solely by land-use history
considerations such as fire suppression
(Westerling et al. 2006, p. 940). While
the petition provided general
information about fire frequencies and
climate change in the Pacific Northwest,
it did not include any information about
the effects of fire on these subspecies or
about predicted climate change-induced
changes in fire frequency within the
subspecies’ ranges.
The petition states that the Shasta and
Wintu sidebands are threatened by
pesticide application (CBD et al. 2008,
pp. 61, 62). Although Burke et al. (1999,
Sect. 6, p. 6) mention herbicide use as
a potential threat, they do not provide
information to indicate what herbicides,
if any, are used in the vicinity of the
mollusks, or in what amounts, or to
what extent the Shasta or Wintu
sidebands may be susceptible to the
herbicides used.
The petition also indicates the Shasta
and Wintu sidebands may be threatened
by limited gene flow (inbreeding
depression) and stochastic events (CBD
et al. 2008, pp. 28, 29). We lack
information regarding the size of most
local populations of these subspecies,
which would affect their susceptibility
to inbreeding depression. We also lack
information regarding the likelihood of
damaging stochastic events capable of
threatening the subspecies, other than
for wildfire, which is covered above.
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Shasta sideband and Wintu sideband
Summary: Based on our evaluation of
the information presented in the
petition and in our files, we have
determined the petition presents
substantial information to indicate that
listing the Shasta sideband and Wintu
sideband may be warranted due to the
present or threatened destruction,
modification or curtailment of its
habitat or range (Factor A) resulting
from road building and the potential
raising of the Shasta dam. We are
initiating a status review to determine
whether listing under the Act is
warranted.
Siskiyou Sideband (Monadenia
chaceana)
The Siskiyou sideband is a terrestrial
snail known from 223 sites scattered
widely across southwestern Oregon and
northwestern California, of which 206
are federally managed (USDA and USDI
2007, pp. 93, 261). According to Burke
et al. (1999, Sect. 7 p. 4), it occupies
moist microhabitats in late-successional
forest and talus slopes or rocky areas.
Factor A: The petition (CBD et al.
2008, p. 59) asserts that the Siskiyou
sideband may be threatened by logging,
which can ‘‘alter the necessary
microclimate conditions that allow
populations to persist’’ (USDA and
USDI 2007, p. 261). According to Frest
and Johannes (1993, p. 3) logging
specifically reduces canopy cover;
decreases shade; increases ground
temperature; decreases soil moisture;
compacts the soil; removes cover
objects, such as woody debris; and
increases wind, all of which contribute
to desiccation. Burke et al. (1999, Sect.
7, p. 7) reaffirm that forest management
activities that affect shade have
significantly impacted other species of
this genus in the Pacific Northwest. The
petition states that the mollusk has been
identified at three timber sales (CBD et
al. 2008, p. 53). The petition also
documents that the Forest Service and
BLM addressed the effects of forest
management practices on the 223
locations and concluded that, due to
those potential impacts, the Survey and
Manage and Special Species Status
programs were necessary to conserve
the mollusk (USDA and USDI 2007, pp.
93, 262). However, as discussed above
under ‘‘The Survey and Manage
Program and Special Status Species
Programs,’’ the Survey and Manage
program has since been reinstated.
Given that 206 of the 223 known
occupied sites are on Federal land
where the Survey and Manage Program
applies, we consider the logging-related
concerns raised by the petition to be
adequately addressed by this Program.
E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM
05OCP3
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
The petition also states that the
Siskiyou sideband is threatened by
urban and agricultural expansion, talus
mining, and road construction (CBD et
al. 2008, p. 60). Although the petition
cites Frest and Johannes (2000, p. 308)
to support these claims, Frest and
Johannes (2000, p. 308) state that the
species is known from only six sites.
Given that the Siskiyou sideband is now
known to occupy more than 223 sites,
and that the information presented in
the petition only speaks to potential
threats to 6 of the 223 locations, the
available information does not indicate
that the species may be threatened by
those activities.
Factor B: The petition states that the
Siskiyou sideband is threatened by
overcollection (CBD et al. 2008, p. 24).
Although Burke et al. (1999, Sect. 7, p.
6) do mention overcollection as a
potential threat, they do not provide
information that explains the nature or
extent of collection activities. Because
only 33 occupied sites were known
when Burke’s report was published, and
because we have no information to
indicate that overcollection is occurring
at the additional 190 sites, the available
information does not indicate that the
levels of collection may pose a threat
now that 223 occupied sites have been
identified (USDA and USDI 2007, p. 93).
Factor C: The petition did not present
any information, nor do we have any
information in our files, to indicate that
this factor may pose a threat to the
species.
Factor D: The petition asserts that
Siskiyou sideband is threatened by
inadequate regulatory mechanisms
associated with the Survey and Manage
program, the Special Status Species
Program, and the Aquatic Conservation
Strategy. The Siskiyou is currently
considered a special status species
(USDA and USDI 2007, p. 93). As a
special status species, this mollusk
should receive special management
consideration on Federal lands;
however, maintenance of special species
status is left to the discretion of the
Federal land managers. As discussed
above under ‘‘The Survey and Manage
Program and Special Status Species
Programs,’’ the claims raised under the
petition relative to the discontinuation
of the Survey and Management Program
no longer apply, because that program is
once again being implemented.
The ACS is a set of standards
established under the Northwest Forest
Plan for protecting aquatic and riparian
habitat on Federal land (USDA and
USDI 1994, p. 9; CBD et al. 2008, p. 32).
The ACS includes four components:
Riparian reserves, key watersheds,
watershed analysis, and watershed
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:18 Oct 04, 2011
Jkt 226001
restoration. Since the Siskiyou sideband
is a terrestrial mollusk, occurring in part
on Federal riparian lands, the ACS may
provide some protection from potential
threats. Those protections would likely
be limited for populations of the
Siskiyou sideband occupying private
lands, however.
The petition also states that this
mollusk is threatened by the WOPR, a
set of revisions to the Northwest Forest
Plan proposed for BLM lands in western
Oregon (CBD et al. 2008, p. 34).
However, the BLM withdrew this
proposal in 2009 (USDA 2009, p. 1). We
are unaware of any BLM plans to
reinstate the WOPR; therefore, we do
not have the information to assess if, or
how, WOPR may impact the species.
Factor E: The petition asserts that
climate change is a threat to the
Siskiyou sideband (CBD et al. 2008, p.
26). Information cited by the petition or
in our files indicates that climate change
is expected to cause significant
reductions in both the volume and
persistence of winter snowpack
throughout the western United States
(Knowles et al. 2006, p. 4545). Such
reductions have already been
documented in the Oregon Cascades
(Knowles et al. 2006, pp. 4545, 4546). If
reduced snowpack resulted in a
reduction of soil moisture, the Siskiyou
sideband, which requires moist habitat
(Duncan 2004, p. 8), could be impacted.
However, neither the petition nor our
files contain information to indicate the
extent to which soil drying could occur
within the Siskiyou sideband’s habitat
or what impact that drying would have
on the species.
The petition also claims the Siskiyou
sideband may be threatened by
prescribed burns (CBD et al. 2008, p.
59). The environmental impact
statement for the removal of the Survey
and Manage Program notes that
prescribed burns are typically
conducted during the spring or fall,
when individuals of the species are
more likely to be active and exposed. By
contrast, summer wildfires occur when
the Siskiyou sideband is more likely to
be aestivating (similar to hibernating) in
a secure location (USDA and USDI
2007, p. 261). The coincidence of
prescribed burns within the mollusk’s
active periods could pose a threat to
local populations within the area of the
burn; however, neither the petition nor
our files contains any information about
the likelihood of prescribed burns being
conducted within the species’ range.
The petition also claims that the
Siskiyou sideband may be threatened by
limited gene flow (inbreeding
depression) and stochastic events (CBD
et al. 2008, pp. 28, 29). We do not have
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
61851
any information regarding the size of
most local populations of this species,
which would affect their susceptibility
to inbreeding depression. We also do
not have information regarding the
likelihood of damaging stochastic events
capable of threatening the species, other
than for wildfire which is discussed
above. Additionally, since the Siskiyou
sideband is known from 223 occupied
sites, any stochastic event would be
unlikely to impact a large enough
number of populations to threaten the
species.
Siskiyou Sideband Summary: The
reinstatement of the Survey and Manage
Program, the withdrawal of the WOPR
proposal, and the discovery of over 200
additional occupied sites since 2000,
when some of the petition’s cited
sources were written, have addressed
the concerns raised by the petition.
Based on our evaluation of the
information presented in the petition
and in our files, we have determined the
petition does not present substantial
information to indicate that listing the
Siskiyou sideband may be warranted.
Tall Pebblesnail (Fluminicola n. sp. 2)
The tall pebblesnail is an aquatic snail
known from only a single site: Harriman
Spring, along the margin of Upper
Klamath Lake, Klamath County, Oregon
(Duncan 2005b, p. 10; USDA and USDI
2007, p. 92). Harriman Spring is on
private land adjacent to Winema
National Forest lands. Like other
Fluminicola species, the tall pebblesnail
appears to require cold, unpolluted,
well-oxygenated water (Duncan 2005b,
pp. 10, 11).
Factor A: The petition asserts that the
tall pebblesnail is threatened by habitat
loss or impairment resulting from
grazing, water diversion, irrigation, lake
level fluctuation, and various sources of
water pollution (CBD et al. 2008, p. 44).
Information cited by the petition or in
our files indicates that the tall
pebblesnail may be threatened by
grazing in the Fourmile Creek
watershed, which feeds into the water
near Harriman Spring (Furnish and
Monthey 1999, Sect. 4, p. 14; Banish
2010, p. 2). Overgrazing near flowing
water can cause increased
sedimentation and eutrophication
downstream (Banish 2010, p. 2), which
can in turn lower oxygen levels and
smother eggs and preferred substrates
(Furnish and Monthey 1999, Sect. 4, pp.
3, 4, 14).
The petition also states that the
species is threatened by urban pollution
(CBD et al. 2008, p. 44). Information in
our files indicates that the development
of vacation homes at nearby Rocky Point
may threaten the snail due to the
E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM
05OCP3
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
61852
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
potential for water pollution from urban
runoff or septic tank failure (Banish
2010, p. 2). Since the species is only
known from one site, it may also be
threatened by water diversions for
irrigation and livestock (which can
lower water flows and diminish
available habitat), dredging (which can
produce sedimentation and disturb or
remove substrate), and lake level
fluctuation (which can leave snails cut
off from flows) (Furnish and Monthey
1999, Sect. 4, p. 14; Duncan 2005b, p.
11).
The petition also states that the
species is threatened generally by road
building and log storage and transport,
but we did not find information in our
files to support these claims.
Based on our evaluation of the
information presented in the petition
and in our files, we have determined the
petition presents substantial
information to indicate that listing the
tall pebblesnail may be warranted due
to the present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of its
habitat or range.
Factors B and C: The petition did not
present any information, nor do we have
any information in our files, to indicate
that these factors may pose a threat to
the species.
Factor D: The petition asserts that tall
pebblesnail is threatened by inadequate
regulatory mechanisms associated with
the Survey and Manage program, the
Special Status Species Program, and the
Aquatic Conservation Strategy. The tall
pebblesnail is currently considered a
special status species (USDA and USDI
2007, p. 92). As a special status species,
this mollusk would receive special
management consideration on Federal
lands if it were to be found on such
lands; however, maintenance of special
species status is left to the discretion of
the Federal land managers. As discussed
above under ‘‘The Survey and Manage
Program and Special Status Species
Programs,’’ the claims raised under the
petition relative to the discontinuation
of the Survey and Management Program
no longer apply, because that program is
once again being implemented. The
Survey requirements of the Survey and
Manage Program will help assure that
any currently unknown populations of
tall pebblesnails that may be located on
Federal lands are identified prior to the
commencement of habitat modifying
activities. The ACS is unlikely to
provide significant protection for this
species, because the tall pebblesnail is
not known to occur on Federal lands.
Factor E: The petition asserts that
climate change is a threat to the tall
pebblesnail (CBD et al. 2008, p. 26).
Climate change is causing significant
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:18 Oct 04, 2011
Jkt 226001
reductions in both the volume and
persistence of winter snowpack
throughout the western United States,
including northern California (Knowles
et al. 2006, pp. 4545, 4546; Kapnick and
Hall 2010, pp. 3446, 3454). The
reduction and earlier melting of the
snowpack is likely to continue, and this
may result in a reduction in the amount
of water that is available during summer
months (Kapnick and Hall 2010, p.
3446, 3454). Such a reduction in
available surface water may result in
increased water diversions from
groundwater and springs, but the extent
to which springs supporting the tall
pebblesnail may be affected by potential
increased water diversions is unclear.
Reduced snow runoff and lower flow
levels may also result in water
temperature increases, which could
negatively impact the tall pebblesnail
(Field et al. 2007, pp. 620, 629).
The petition also indicates that the
tall pebblesnail may be threatened by
limited gene flow (inbreeding
depression) and stochastic events (CBD
et al. 2008, pp. 28, 29). Although we do
not have information regarding the
number of tall pebblesnails at the
species’ single occupied site (which
would affect the threat of inbreeding
depression), the restriction of the
species to one occupied site does leave
it vulnerable to catastrophic events,
such as the 1991 herbicide spill at
Cantara Bend that removed mollusk
populations throughout the upper
Sacramento River (Frest and Johannes
1995b, pp. 72, 73).
Tall Pebblesnail Summary: Based on
our evaluation of the information
presented in the petition and in our
files, we have determined the petition
presents substantial information to
indicate that listing the tall pebblesnail
may be warranted due to the present or
threatened destruction, modification or
curtailment of its habitat or range
(Factor A) resulting from water
pollution produced by grazing and
urban runoff. We are initiating a status
review to determine whether listing
under the Act is warranted.
Tehama Chaparral (Trilobopsis
tehamana)
The Tehama chaparral is a terrestrial
snail known from 12 sites in Tehama,
Butte and Siskiyou Counties, California,
9 of which are on Federal land (ORNHIC
2004p, pp. 1–2; USDA and USDI 2007,
p. 93). The Tehama chaparral has been
found within 100 m (328 ft) of limestone
outcrops with a cover of shrubs or oak
(Kelley et al. 1999, p. 65). It is usually
associated with rocky talus, but may
also be found under leaf litter and
woody debris, all of which are
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
considered necessary to provide food
and temporary cover, according to
Burke et al. (1999, Sect. 14, pp. 5, 6).
Factor A: The petition asserts that the
Tehama chaparral is threatened by
habitat loss due to urbanization and
road construction (CBD et al. 2008, p.
67). Information cited by the petition or
in our files identifies road building,
recreation, and urban expansion as
potential threats (Frest and Johannes
2000, p. 320; ORNHIC 2004p, p. 2).
However, the petition does not provide
any information regarding the extent of
these activities in areas occupied by the
species.
Factor B: The petition states that the
Tehama chaparral is threatened by
overcollecting (CBD et al. 2008, p. 66).
Although Burke et al. (1999, Sect. 14, p.
1) does mention this as a potential
threat, they do not provide information
to indicate that collecting is taking place
at a level that could threaten the
species. We have no additional
information in our files to indicate that
overcollection poses a threat to the
overall status of the species.
Factor C: The petition did not present
any information, nor do we have any
information in our files, to indicate that
this factor may pose a threat to the
species.
Factor D: The petition asserts that
Tehama chaparral is threatened by
inadequate regulatory mechanisms
associated with the Survey and Manage
program, the Special Status Species
Program, and the Aquatic Conservation
Strategy. The Tehama chaparral is
currently considered a special status
species (USDA and USDI 2007, p. 93).
As a special status species, this mollusk
should receive special management
consideration on Federal lands;
however, maintenance of special species
status is left to the discretion of the
Federal land managers. As discussed
above under ‘‘The Survey and Manage
Program and Special Status Species
Programs,’’ the claims raised under the
petition relative to the discontinuation
of the Survey and Management Program
no longer apply, because that program is
once again being implemented.
The ACS is a set of standards
established under the Northwest Forest
Plan for protecting aquatic and riparian
habitat on Federal land (USDA and
USDI 1994, p. 9; CBD et al. 2008, p. 32).
The ACS is unlikely to provide
significant protections for this species,
because the Tehama chaparral is not an
aquatic or riparian species (Burke et al.
1999, Sect. 14, p. 6).
The petition also states this mollusk
is threatened by the WOPR, a set of
revisions to the Northwest Forest Plan
proposed for BLM lands in western
E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM
05OCP3
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
Oregon (CBD et al. 2008, p. 34).
However, the BLM withdrew this
proposal in 2009 (USDA 2009, p. 1). We
are unaware of any BLM plans to
reinstate the WOPR; therefore, we do
not have the information to assess if, or
how, WOPR may impact the species.
Factor E: The petition asserts that the
Tehama chaparral is threatened by fire
that will become more frequent with
climate change (CBD et al. 2008, pp. 27,
28, 67). The petition and our files
contain information indicating that
global climate change is producing
warmer summer temperatures,
combined with longer periods of
summer drought in the western U.S.,
which is increasing the vulnerability of
western U.S. forests to wildfire
(Westerling et al. 2006, p. 940). Wildfire
frequency and total area burned
increased after the mid-1980s to levels
several times those during the period
1970–1986 (Westerling et al. 2006, p.
941). These changes cannot be
explained solely by land-use history
considerations such as fire suppression
(Westerling et al. 2006, p. 940). While
the petition provided general
information about fire frequencies and
climate change in the Pacific Northwest,
it did not include any information about
the effects of fire on the Tehama
chaparral or about predicted climate
change induced changes in fire
frequency within the species range.
The petition states that the Tehama
chaparral is threatened by pesticide
application (CBD et al. 2008, p. 67).
Although Burke et al. (1999, Sect. 14, p.
7) does mention herbicide use as a
potential threat, they do not provide
information to indicate which
herbicides, if any, are used in or near
sites occupied by this species, or in
what amounts, or to what extent the
Tehama chaparral may be susceptible to
the herbicides used. We have no
information in our files to indicate that
pesticide application may be a threat to
the species.
The petition also indicates that the
Tehama chaparral may be threatened by
limited gene flow (inbreeding
depression) and stochastic events (CBD
et al. 2008, pp. 28, 29). We do not have
any information in our files regarding
the size of most local populations of this
species, which would affect its
susceptibility to inbreeding depression.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:18 Oct 04, 2011
Jkt 226001
We also lack information regarding the
likelihood of damaging stochastic events
capable of threatening the species, other
than for wildfire, which is covered
above.
Tehama Chaparral Summary:
Although the petition claims the
Tehama chaparral may be threatened by
urbanization and road construction
(Factor A), and by fire, climate change,
pesticides, limited gene flow, and
deleterious stochastic events (Factor E),
it does not provide sufficient
information regarding the specific
applicability of these threats to areas
occupied by the species. The petition
also states that the species is threatened
due to the discontinuation of the Survey
and Manage Program, and the
enactment of the WOPR program, but
the Survey and Manage Program has
been reinstated, and the WOPR program
has been withdrawn. Based on our
evaluation of the information presented
in the petition and in our files, we have
determined the petition does not
present substantial information to
indicate that listing the Tehama
chaparral may be warranted.
Wintu Sideband (Monadenia troglodytes
wintu)
See discussion for ‘‘Shasta Sideband
(Monadenia troglodytes troglodytes) and
Wintu Sideband (M. t. wintu)’’ above.
Finding
On the basis of our evaluation of the
petition under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the
Act, we find that the petition presents
substantial scientific or commercial
information to indicate that listing 26 of
the 29 petitioned mollusks as threatened
or endangered under the Act may be
warranted. We are therefore initiating
status reviews for the following 26
species and subspecies: Basalt juga, Big
Bar hesperian, canary duskysnail,
Chelan mountainsnail, cinnamon juga,
Columbia duskysnail, Columbia
Oregonian, Dalles sideband, diminutive
pebblesnail, evening fieldslug, Goose
Valley pebblesnail, Hat Creek
pebblesnail, Hoko vertigo, keeled
jumping-slug, knobby rams-horn,
masked duskysnail, nerite pebblesnail,
nugget pebblesnail, Potem Creek
pebblesnail, Puget Oregonian, Shasta
chaparral, Shasta hesperian, Shasta
pebblesnail, Shasta sideband, tall
pebblesnail, and Wintu sideband. We
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
61853
did not find substantial information to
support listing (and will not proceed to
a status review) for the following
petitioned mollusks: Crater Lake
tightcoil, Siskiyou sideband, and
Tehama chaparral (see table above). Our
findings for each petitioned mollusk are
also provided in the table under
‘‘Listable entity evaluation,’’ above.
After completing our status reviews
for the 26 mollusks listed above, we will
publish ‘‘12-month findings,’’ in which
we will determine whether listing any
of these 26 petitioned mollusks under
the Act is warranted. The ‘‘substantial
information’’ standard for a 90-day
finding differs from the Act’s ‘‘best
scientific and commercial data’’
standard that applies to a status review
to determine whether a petitioned
action is warranted. Because the Act’s
standards for 90-day and 12-month
findings are different, a substantial
90-day finding does not mean that the
12-month findings will result in a
warranted finding.
The petition also requests that critical
habitat be designated for the species
concurrent with final listing under the
Act. If we determine in our 12-month
finding, following the status review of
the species, that listing is warranted, we
will address the designation of critical
habitat in a subsequent proposed rule.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited is
available on the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov and upon request
from the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife
Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
Author
The primary authors of this document
are staff members of the Sacramento
Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Authority
The authority for this action is the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: September 26, 2011.
Rowan W. Gould,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.
[FR Doc. 2011–25538 Filed 10–4–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM
05OCP3
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 193 (Wednesday, October 5, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 61826-61853]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-25538]
[[Page 61825]]
Vol. 76
Wednesday,
No. 193
October 5, 2011
Part III
Department of the Interior
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish and Wildlife Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a
Petition To List 29 Mollusk Species as Threatened or Endangered With
Critical Habitat; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 5, 2011 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 61826]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2011-0076; MO-92210-0-0008]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on
a Petition To List 29 Mollusk Species as Threatened or Endangered With
Critical Habitat
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of petition finding and initiation of status review.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announce a 90-day
finding on a petition to list 29 mollusk species and subspecies as
threatened or endangered, under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act). Based on our review, we find that the petition presents
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that
listing 26 of the 29 species and subspecies may be warranted.
Therefore, with the publication of this notice, we are initiating a
review of the status of the 26 species and subspecies to determine if
listing any of them is warranted. To ensure that the status review is
comprehensive, we are requesting scientific and commercial data and
other information regarding these 26 species and subspecies. Based on
the status review, we will issue a 12-month finding on the petition,
which will address whether the petitioned action is warranted, as
provided in the Act.
DATES: To allow us adequate time to conduct this review, we request
that we receive information on or before December 5, 2011. After this
date, you must submit information directly to the Field Office (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section below). Please note that we may not
be able to address or incorporate information that we receive after the
above requested date.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Search for docket [Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2011-0076] and then follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing,
Attn: [Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2011-0076]; Division of Policy and
Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax
Drive, MS 2042-PDM; Arlington, VA 22203.
We will post all information received on https://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any
personal information you provide us (see the Information Solicited
section below for more details).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Listing Coordinator, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, 2800 Cottage
Way, Room W-2605, Sacramento, CA 95825; telephone 916-414-6600; or
facsimile 916-414-6712. If you use a telecommunications device for the
deaf (TDD), please call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at
800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Information Solicited
When we make a finding that a petition presents substantial
information indicating that listing a species or subspecies may be
warranted, we are required to promptly review the status of the species
or subspecies (status review). For the status review to be complete and
based on the best available scientific and commercial information, we
request information on the 26 petitioned species and subspecies of
mollusk for which we find substantial information herein to indicate
that listing as threatened or endangered may be warranted. We request
such information from governmental agencies, Native American Tribes,
the scientific community, industry, and any other interested parties.
We seek information on:
(1) The species' or subspecies' biology, range, and population
trends, including:
(a) Habitat requirements for feeding, breeding, and sheltering;
(b) Genetics and taxonomy (especially reasons why they should or
should not be considered listable entities under section 4(a) of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.) (see Listable Entity Evaluation, below);
(c) Historical and current range including distribution patterns;
(d) Historical and current population levels, and current and
projected trends; and
(e) Past and ongoing conservation measures for the species, its
habitat, or both.
(2) The factors that are the basis for making a listing
determination for a species or subspecies under section 4(a) of the
Act, which are:
(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.
Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as
full references) to allow us to verify any scientific or commercial
information you include.
If, after the status review, we determine that listing any of the
26 species and subspecies of mollusk is warranted, we will propose
critical habitat (see definition in section 3(5)(A) of the Act), as per
section 4 of the Act, to the maximum extent prudent and determinable at
the time we propose to list the species or subspecies. Therefore,
within each of the geographical ranges currently occupied by the 26
species and subspecies of mollusk, we also request data and information
on:
(1) What may constitute ``physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species;''
(2) Where these features are currently found; and
(3) Whether any of these features may require special management
considerations or protection.
In addition, we request data and information on ``specific areas
outside the geographical area occupied by the species'' that are
``essential to the conservation of the species.'' Please provide
specific comments and information as to what, if any, critical habitat
you think we should propose for designation if the species is proposed
for listing, and why such habitat meets the requirements of section 4
of the Act.
Submissions merely stating support for or opposition to the action
under consideration without providing supporting information, although
noted, will not be considered in making a determination. Section
4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that determinations as to whether any
species is an endangered or a threatened species must be made ``solely
on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.''
You may submit your information concerning this status review by
one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. If you submit
information via https://www.regulations.gov, your entire submission--
including any personal identifying information--will be posted on the
Web site. If your submission is made via a hardcopy that includes
personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your
document that we withhold this personal identifying information from
public
[[Page 61827]]
review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We
will post all hardcopy submissions on https://www.regulations.gov.
Information and supporting documentation that we received and used
in preparing this finding is available for you to review at https://www.regulations.gov, or by appointment, during normal business hours,
at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife
Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Background
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires that we make a finding on
whether a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species presents
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the
petitioned action may be warranted. We are to base this finding on
information provided in the petition, supporting information submitted
with the petition, and information otherwise available in our files. To
the maximum extent practicable, we are to make this finding within 90
days of our receipt of the petition and publish our notice of the
finding promptly in the Federal Register.
Our standard for substantial scientific or commercial information
within the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) with regard to a 90-day
petition finding is ``that amount of information that would lead a
reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in the petition
may be warranted'' (50 CFR 424.14(b)). If we find that substantial
scientific or commercial information was presented, we are required to
promptly conduct a species status review, which we subsequently
summarize in our 12-month finding.
Petition History
On March 17, 2008, we received a petition (dated March 13, 2008)
from five conservation organizations: The Center for Biological
Diversity (CBD), Conservation Northwest, the Environmental Protection
Information Center, the Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center, and Oregon
Wild. The petition asked us to list 32 species and subspecies of snails
and slugs (mollusks) in the Pacific Northwest as threatened or
endangered under the Act. Additionally, the petition requested that we
designate critical habitat concurrent with listing. The petition
clearly identified itself as a petition and included the requisite
identification information for the petitioners, as required by 50 CFR
424.14(a). In a June 27, 2008, letter to the petitioners, we responded
that we had reviewed the information presented in the petition and
determined that issuing an emergency regulation temporarily listing the
species as per section 4(b)(7) of the Act was not warranted. We also
stated that we could not address their petition at that time due to
court orders and judicially approved settlement agreements for other
listing and critical habitat determinations under the Act that required
nearly all of our listing and critical habitat funding for fiscal year
2008.
On April 13, 2009, we received a signed e-mail from CBD providing
updated taxonomic information regarding some of the 32 petitioned
mollusk species (Curry 2009, pp. 1-2). The e-mail indicated that two of
those species had been formally described (see Listable Entity
Evaluation, below), two others had been combined into a single species
that had been formally described, and that three additional petitioned
species had been combined into a single species that had been formally
described. The e-mail provided a citation to the article making these
taxonomic changes, and asked us to consider the revised species for
listing as threatened or endangered under the Act. We treated this e-
mail as an amendment to the original petition. Therefore, the amended
petition asks us to list 29 species and subspecies of mollusks.
Overview of the 29 Mollusk Species and Subspecies
The 29 species and subspecies of mollusk included in the petition
are endemic (native and restricted) to the Pacific Northwest, occurring
in western Washington, Oregon, and Northern California. Fourteen of the
petitioned species and subspecies are aquatic and 15 are terrestrial
(13 land snails and 2 slugs). They exist primarily in small, isolated
populations, all of which are protected under the Northwest Forest
Plan's Survey and Manage Program. Fourteen of the species and
subspecies are known from 10 or fewer sites.
Listable Entity Evaluation
Section 3(16) of the Act defines the term ``species'' to include
``any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct
population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which
interbreeds when mature.'' Entities that meet the Act's definition of a
``species'' can be considered for listing under the Act and are,
therefore, referred to as ``listable entities.'' Listable entities can
then be listed if they are determined to meet the definition of an
endangered species or a threatened species. The petitioner requested
that we list 29 species and subspecies of mollusk (the ``petitioned
mollusks''); 15 of which have been formally described as species, 4
formally described as subspecies, and 10 that have not been formally
described.
Prior to making a determination of whether the petition presents
substantial information to indicate whether listing may be warranted,
we must address the question of whether the petition presents
substantial information to indicate whether the petitioned mollusks are
listable entities. Nineteen of the 29 petitioned mollusks are listable
entities because they are formally described as species or subspecies
in recognized scientific journals. We may also consider some or all of
the remaining 10 petitioned mollusks to be listable entities if
information submitted with the petition or in our files indicates that
treatment of these mollusks as listable entities may be warranted.
The petition cited several documents from Federal agencies
demonstrating a long history of treating these 10 petitioned mollusks
as species (Burke et al. 1999, Sect. 12, pp. 1-16; Burke et al. 1999,
Sect. 15, pp. 1-10; Furnish and Monthey 1999, Sect. 2, pp. 2-10;
Furnish and Monthey 1999, Sect. 4, pp. 3-15; Furnish and Monthey 1999,
Sect. 5, pp. 1-8; Duncan 2005b, pp. 3-15; Duncan 2005c, pp. 1-19;
Duncan 2005e, pp. 3-9; USDA and USDI 2007, pp. 92-94, 250, 251, 257-
259, 263, 264, 266-269). The documents describe each of these 10
mollusks and their habitats. The documents also include formal reviews
of management actions taken by the agencies, and their impacts on these
10 mollusks (as well as on the 19 formally described mollusks). Based
on our review of the information in the petition, we conclude the
reports present a clear indication that each of these 10 petitioned
mollusks has been treated as a species by Federal land management
agencies, even without formal description and recognition as a species.
Accordingly, we find that the petition presents substantial information
indicating that the 10 petitioned mollusks that have not yet been
formally described may be species as defined by the Act and may thus be
listable entities. Therefore, in addition to the 19 formally described
species and subspecies, we consider whether the petition presents
scientific or commercial information to indicate whether listing any of
the 10 petitioned mollusks that have not yet been formally described
may be warranted.
This finding addresses 29 mollusk species and subspecies, as
identified in the table below.
[[Page 61828]]
List of 29 Species and Subspecies Included in This Finding
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finding: substantial
Common name Scientific name Formally described? information?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Basalt juga........................ Juga n. sp. 2.............. No.................... Yes.
Big Bar hesperian.................. Vespericola pressleyi...... Yes................... Yes.
Canary duskysnail.................. Colligyrus convexus........ Yes................... Yes.
Chelan mountainsnail............... Oreohelix n. sp. 1......... No.................... Yes.
Cinnamon juga...................... Juga n. sp. 3.............. No.................... Yes.
Columbia duskysnail................ Lyogyrus n. sp. 1.......... No.................... Yes.
Columbia Oregonian................. Cryptomastix hendersoni.... Yes................... Yes.
Crater Lake tightcoil.............. Pristiloma arcticum Yes................... No.
crateris.
Dalles sideband.................... Monadenia fidelis minor.... Yes................... Yes.
Diminutive pebblesnail............. Fluminicola n. sp. 3....... No.................... Yes.
Evening fieldslug.................. Deroceras hesperium........ Yes................... Yes.
Goose Valley pebblesnail........... Fluminicola anserinus...... Yes................... Yes.
Hat Creek pebblesnail.............. Fluminicola umbilicatus.... Yes................... Yes.
Hoko vertigo....................... Vertigo n. sp. 1........... No.................... Yes.
Keeled jumping-slug................ Hemphillia burringtoni..... Yes................... Yes.
Knobby rams-horn................... Vorticifex n. sp. 1........ No.................... Yes.
Masked duskysnail.................. Lyogyrus n. sp. 2.......... No.................... Yes.
Nerite pebblesnail................. Fluminicola n. sp. 11...... No.................... Yes.
Nugget pebblesnail................. Fluminicola seminalis...... Yes................... Yes.
Potem Creek pebblesnail............ Fluminicola potemicus...... Yes................... Yes.
Puget Oregonian.................... Cryptomastix devia......... Yes................... Yes.
Shasta chaparral................... Trilobopsis roperi......... Yes................... Yes.
Shasta hesperian................... Vespericola shasta......... Yes................... Yes.
Shasta pebblesnail................. Flumenicola multifarius.... Yes................... Yes.
Shasta sideband.................... Monadenia troglodytes Yes................... Yes.
troglodytes.
Siskiyou sideband.................. Monadenia chaceana......... Yes................... No.
Tall pebblesnail................... Fluminicola n. sp. 2....... No.................... Yes.
Tehama chaparral................... Trilobopsis tehamana....... Yes................... No.
Wintu sideband..................... Monadenia troglodytes wintu Yes................... Yes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Survey and Manage Program and Special Status Species Programs
All of the petitioned mollusks are protected on Federal lands by
the Northwest Forest Plan's (NWFP's) Survey and Manage Program (U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) and U.S. Department of the Interior
(USDI) 2007, pp. 92-94, 249-269). The Survey and Manage Program was
developed because of concerns that the NWFP would not adequately
protect many species that were rare, isolated, or rare and isolated,
and that could be impacted by forest management practices. The program
was also developed to address concerns that additional management
measures would be required to conserve the species (USDA and USDI 2001,
p. 7). The program requires pre-disturbance surveys and mitigation,
strategic surveys, management, and an annual species review (USDA and
USDI 1994, p. 9; Olson et al. 2007, pp. iii, 1, 2). The Survey and
Manage Program has not been managed continuously since 2001 due to a
number of lawsuits and a 2007 decision to discontinue the program (USDA
and USDI 2007, pp. xi, xii, xx). However, as result of a challenge to
the 2007 decision, a settlement agreement was finalized in July 2011
that reinstated the Survey and Manage Program as it had been
implemented in 2001 (Conservation Northwest v. Rey, 2009, Case No. C-
08-1067-JCC (W.D. Wash.)). Many of the petition's claims, particularly
as they relate to Factor D (existing regulatory mechanisms), are
related to the status of the Survey and Management Program, which had
been discontinued at the time of the petition.
Many of the petitioned species are recognized as sensitive species
or as special status species by the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and
Bureau of Land Management (BLM), respectively (USDA and USDI 2007, pp.
25, 92-94). We refer to these programs collectively as special status
species programs. The goal of these programs is to avoid the need to
list a given species under the Endangered Species Act, but we do not
have information in our files to show exactly what this may entail with
regard to any of the petitioned mollusks addressed by a special status
species program. Inclusion or removal of individual species and
subspecies in the special status species program is left to the
discretion of the agency's regional decision makers (USDA and USDI
2007, pp. 25, 65).
The Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS) is a habitat management
program established under the Northwest Forest Plan for protecting
aquatic and riparian habitat on Federal land (USDA and USDI 1994, pp.
9, 10; CBD et al. 2008, p. 32). The ACS includes four components:
Riparian reserves, key watersheds, watershed analysis, and watershed
restoration. Riparian reserves are comprised of aquatic features and
their protected riparian buffers. Buffers differ in size, dependent on
the type of aquatic habitat. Under the ACS, Federal land managers
establish requirements for timber management, road building, grazing,
and recreation management within established riparian reserves. The
strategy identifies key watersheds to be managed for at risk salmonids,
or where high water quality is considered important. Information for
managing reserves and key watersheds is obtained and updated through
systematic procedures of watershed analysis, and that information may
also be used for watershed restoration (USDA and USDI 1994, pp. 9, 10).
Evaluation of Information for This Finding
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing
regulations at 50 CFR 424 set forth the procedures for adding a species
to, or removing a species from, the Federal Lists of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife and Plants. A species may be determined to be an
endangered or a threatened species due to one or more of the five
factors described in section
[[Page 61829]]
4(a)(1) of the Act: (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 90-day finding, we evaluated whether information
regarding threats to each of the petitioned mollusks, as presented in
the petition and other information available in our files, is
substantial, thereby indicating that the petitioned action may be
warranted. With one exception, all potential threats addressed in our
analyses were alleged in the petition. The exception is the potential
impact of plans to raise the Shasta Dam on the Shasta sideband, Shasta
chaparral and Wintu sideband; we addressed this potential threat based
on information in our files. All supporting documents used were either
cited in the petition or in our files. Substantial information need
only be found for one of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1)
of the Act to reach a ``substantial'' finding for a given petitioned
mollusk. As discussed above, we will conduct a 12-month review of
petitioned mollusks for which a ``substantial'' finding is reached, and
during that review we will consider all available information relating
to all five factors. We ask that information relating to any of the
five factors be submitted per the instructions listed above in the
Information Solicited section, regardless of whether a substantial
finding was determined for that factor.
Basalt juga (Juga (Oreobasis) n. sp. 2)
The basalt juga is believed to be limited to springs in the central
and eastern Columbia River Gorge in Oregon and Washington (Duncan
2005b, pp. 9-10). It has 28 known occurrences and has been documented
on the Gifford-Pinchot and Mount Hood National Forests, in the Columbia
River Gorge National Scenic Area, and on private land. Duncan (2005b,
p. 8) reported it to be sensitive to water pollution, low oxygen,
increased water temperatures, and sedimentation. Population numbers are
declining according to Frest and Johannes (1995a, p. 179).
Factor A: The petition asserts that the basalt juga is threatened
by highway and railway development, logging, grazing, and water
diversions (CBD et al. 2008, p. 55). Information cited by the petition
supports these claims with regard to water diversions, and notes that
some of those diversions are for purposes of grazing and logging
(Oregon Natural Heritage Information Center (ORNHIC) 2004a, p. 2). The
immediacy of the primary threat (water diversions) is considered
``moderate,'' which means the threat is likely to be operating within 2
to 5 years of the ORNHIC publication in 2004 (Master et al. 2002, pp.
14, 15, ORNHIC 2004a, p. 2). The cited source also mentions past
impacts from road construction, logging and grazing, but does not
indicate the extent to which these pose present threats. The petition
notes, however, that documents obtained through the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) indicate that the species was detected at four
timber sales and three road maintenance projects (CBD et al. 2008, p.
55). Impacts to springs in the Columbia Gorge due to diversions,
highway construction, and logging are common on both private and public
lands, and likely to continue (Frest and Johannes 1995a, p. 185).
Consequently, based on our evaluation of the information presented
in the petition and in our files, we determined the petition presents
substantial information to indicate that listing the basalt juga may be
warranted due to the present or threatened destruction, modification,
or curtailment of its habitat or range.
Factors B and C: The petition did not present any information, nor
do we have any information in our files, to indicate that these factors
may pose a threat to the species.
Factor D: The petition asserts that basalt juga is threatened by
inadequate regulatory mechanisms associated with the Survey and Manage
program, the Special Status Species Program, and the Aquatic
Conservation Strategy. The basalt juga is currently considered a
special status species (USDA and USDI 2007, p. 93). As a special status
species, the basalt juga should receive special management
consideration on Federal lands; however, maintenance of special species
status is left to the discretion of the Federal land managers. As
discussed above under ``The Survey and Manage Program and Special
Status Species Programs,'' the claims raised under the petition
relative to the discontinuation of the Survey and Management Program no
longer apply, because that program is once again being implemented.
Factor E: The petition asserts that basalt juga is threatened by
climate change (CDB et al. 2008, pp. 26, 27). The petition and our
files contain information indicating that climate change is expected to
cause significant reductions in both the volume and persistence of
winter snowpack throughout the western United States (Knowles et al.
2006, p. 4545). Such reductions have already been documented in the
Columbia Gorge (Knowles et al. 2006, pp. 4545, 4546; ISAB 2007, p. 12).
This trend is expected to continue, thereby further reducing summer
water availability (Field et al. 2007, pp. 620, 627; ISAB 2007, p. 15).
Such a reduction in available surface water may result in increased
water diversions from groundwater and springs, but the extent to which
springs supporting the basalt juga may be affected by potential
increased water diversions is unclear. Reduced snow runoff and lower
flow levels may result in water temperature increases (Field et al.
2007, p. 620; ISAB 2007, p. 16). Potential water temperature increases
may be deleterious to the basalt juga, but the extent to which springs
supporting the basalt juga may be affected by temperature increases is
unclear, and this will likely depend on the size and depth of
groundwater reservoirs, and on the flow rates of both groundwater and
surface water into spring pools. However, watersheds fed by very large
and deep groundwater systems are relatively uncommon in the Columbia
Basin (ISAB 2007, p. 32). The basalt juga is dependent on cold, highly
oxygenated water (Duncan 2005b, p. 11), so temperature increases could
be deleterious.
The petition and our files also contain information indicating that
climate change is also expected to further increase the frequency and
intensity of wildfires in the Columbia Basin (ISAB 2007, p. 22; CDB et
al. 2008, pp. 27, 28). Wildfire affected much of the basalt juga's
range in 1993 (Frest and Johannes 1995a, p. 179; Duncan 2005b, p. 12;
CDB et al. 2008, p. 55). The removal of cover plants by wildfires can
reduce shading and increase soil erosion, thereby increasing water
temperatures and sedimentation in springs occupied by the species.
Basalt juga Summary: Based on our evaluation of the information
presented in the petition and in our files, we have determined that
substantial information exists to indicate that listing the basalt juga
may be warranted due to the present or threatened destruction,
modification or curtailment of its habitat or range (Factor A)
resulting from water pollution and diversions. Because we have found
that the petition presents substantial information indicating that
listing the basalt juga may be warranted, we are initiating a status
review to determine whether listing under the Act is warranted.
[[Page 61830]]
Big Bar Hesperian (Vespericola pressleyi)
The Big Bar hesperian is a terrestrial snail known from 27
locations in the Trinity National Forest, in Trinity County, California
(Burke et al. 1999, Sect. 16 p. 1; USDA and USDI 2007, p. 93). It is an
old-growth and riparian associate according to Frest and Johannes
(1993, p. 40) and it is known to inhabit forests of conifer and
hardwood trees in permanently damp or moist areas within 200 meters (m)
(656 feet (ft)) of seeps, springs, and stable streams (Kelley et al.
1999, p. 73).
Factor A: The petition asserts that the Big Bar hesperian is
threatened by habitat alteration due to grazing and logging (CBD et al.
2008, p. 69). Information cited in the petition (Burke et al. 1999,
Sect. 16, pp. 1, 6) indicates that overgrazing may adversely impact the
species due to the potential for trampling and the removal of
vegetation necessary for food, shade, and subsurface dampness. However,
neither the petition nor our files contained any information about the
presence of grazing activities within the species' habitat that would
allow us to assess the likelihood of these types of impacts occurring.
Burke et al. (1999, p. 6) also indicate that removal of trees or downed
wood, such as through logging activities, may adversely affect the
species due to increased sun and wind exposure with resulting soil
moisture losses. Information cited in the petition indicated that
habitat loss is occurring now and affecting the majority of the species
(Master et al. 2002, pp. 14, 15; ORNHIC 2004b, p. 2).
Therefore, based on our evaluation of the information presented in
the petition and in our files, we have determined the petition presents
substantial information to indicate that listing the Big Bar hesperian
may be warranted due to the present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range.
Factors B and C: The petition did not present any information, nor
do we have any information in our files, to indicate that these factors
may pose a threat to the species.
Factor D: The petition asserts that Big Bar hesperian is threatened
by inadequate regulatory mechanisms associated with the Survey and
Manage program, the Special Status Species Program, and the Aquatic
Conservation Strategy. The Big Bar hesparian is currently considered a
special status species (USDA and USDI 2007, p. 93). As a special status
species, the Big Bar hesperian should receive special management
consideration on Federal lands; however, maintenance of special species
status is left to the discretion of the Federal land managers. As
discussed above under ``The Survey and Manage Program and Special
Status Species Programs,'' the claims raised under the petition
relative to the discontinuation of the Survey and Management Program no
longer apply, because that program is once again being implemented.
Factor E: The petition asserts that Big Bar hesperian is threatened
by fire, pesticide application, recreation, and invasive species (CBD
et al. 2008, pp. 26, 69). The petition notes that part of the snail's
habitat was destroyed by fire in 2001 (CBD et al. 2008, p. 69; USFWS
2001, p. 2). Additional information cited by the petition indicates
that pesticides, recreational activities involving motor vehicles, and
invasive species may negatively impact some populations, but the source
does not provide clear information regarding the extent of these
activities in the species' range (Burke et al. 1999, Sect. 16, pp. 1,
6).
The petition asserts that climate change could adversely affect the
Big Bar hesperian (CBD et al. 2008, p. 26). Information in our files
indicates that climate change is causing earlier melting and
significant reductions in snowpack throughout the western United
States, including northern California (Kapnick and Hall 2010, pp. 3446,
3448). The consequent lengthening of summer drought and associated
increases in mean annual air temperature are positively correlated with
increased tree mortality rates in old-growth forests, including forests
in northern California (Van Mantgem et al. 2009, pp. 522, 523).
Continuation of these trends could potentially result in loss of the
damp forest conditions required by the Big Bar hesperian (Burke et al.
1999, Sect. 16, pp. 5, 6); however, the exact extent of these potential
changes upon the species is unknown.
Big Bar hesperian Summary: Based on our evaluation of the
information presented in the petition and in our files, we have
determined the petition presents substantial information to indicate
that listing the Big Bar hesperian may be warranted due to the present
or threatened destruction, modification or curtailment of its habitat
or range (Factor A) resulting from grazing and logging activities.
Because we have found that the petition presents substantial
information indicating that listing the Big Bar hesparian may be
warranted, we are initiating a status review to determine whether
listing under the Act is warranted.
Canary Duskysnail (Colligyrus convexus) (previously referred to as
Lyogyrus n. sp. 3)
The canary duskysnail is an aquatic snail known from one (USDA and
USDI 2007, p. 260) to seven sites (Hershler et al. 2003, p. 284) in the
Pit River drainage in Shasta County, California. Of five population
sites listed in the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), one
is located in the Lassen National Forest and another is in McArthur-
Burney Falls State Park (CNDDB 2008, pp. 2, 5). Others are on private
land. Because the CNDDB (2008, pp. 2, 5) and Hershler et al. (2008, p.
284) provide maps of known sites, and because Hershler et al. (2008) is
published by a peer-reviewed journal, we consider these sources to more
accurately reflect the actual number of sites occupied by the canary
duskysnail. The canary duskysnail is known to inhabit cold, clear,
well-oxygenated, unpolluted water (Frest and Johannes 1995b, p. 3;
Furnish and Monthey 1999, Sect. 4, p. 8).
Factor A: The petition asserts that the canary duskysnail's habitat
has been severely degraded by human activities, including mining,
logging, grazing, chemical pollution, road and railroad construction,
and water diversions (CBD et al. 2008, p. 38). The petition also
asserts that dams, diversions, and spring developments have caused
historical habitat loss and these activities continue to threaten the
species. The petition cites the BLM's management recommendations for
this species, which indicate that the species is directly threatened by
grazing and road and railroad construction (both of which cause water
pollution and excessive sedimentation), and water diversions, which
lower water levels and decrease available habitat (Furnish and Monthey
1999, Sect. 4, p. 14). The Pit River is listed on the State of
California's list of water quality limited segments because of organic
enrichment and high nutrient levels from grazing and agriculture
(California Environmental Protection Agency (CEPA) 2002, p. 143), so
water pollution may constitute a threat. In their 2004 publication, the
Oregon Natural Heritage Information Center concluded that threats to
the canary duskysnail are moderate to severe, and imminent (ORNHIC
2004a, p. 2).
The petition also alleges that the canary duskysnail faces threats
from mining, logging, chemical pollution, dams, spring and recreational
development activities (CBD et al. 2008, p. 38). Many of these are
mentioned in the BLM's management recommendations (Furnish and
[[Page 61831]]
Monthey 1999, Sect. 4, p. 13), but that document implies that these are
practices that have negatively impacted habitats of several mollusk
species in the Pit River in the past, and does not identify the
activities as current threats. The document lists threats specifically
applicable to the canary duskysnail as grazing, spring diversions, and
road and railroad construction (Furnish and Monthey 1999, Sect. 4, p.
14). Additionally, the petition claims that recent proposals for
relicensing hydroelectric developments on the Pit River pose imminent
threats to existing populations, but we were unable to confirm that
claim based on a review of the Final Environmental Impact Statement
(FERC 2004a, pp. xvi-xviii).
Based on our evaluation of the information presented in the
petition and in our files, we have determined the petition presents
substantial information to indicate that listing the canary duskysnail
may be warranted due to the present or threatened destruction,
modification or curtailment of its habitat or range.
Factors B and C: The petition did not present any information, nor
do we have any information in our files, to indicate that these factors
may pose a threat to the species.
Factor D: The petition asserts that Canary duskysnail is threatened
by inadequate regulatory mechanisms associated with the Survey and
Manage program, the Special Status Species Program, and the Aquatic
Conservation Strategy. The Canary duskysnail is not currently
considered a special status species (USDA and USDI 2007, p. 93). As
discussed above under ``The Survey and Manage Program and Special
Status Species Programs,'' the claims raised under the petition
relative to the discontinuation of the Survey and Management Program no
longer apply, because that program is once again being implemented.
Factor E: The petition asserts that climate change is a threat to
the canary duskysnail (CBD et al. 2008, pp. 26, 27). Information in our
files indicates that climate change is causing significant reductions
in both the volume and persistence of winter snowpack throughout the
western United States, including northern California (Knowles et al.
2006, pp. 4545, 4546; Kapnick and Hall 2010, pp. 3446, 3454). The
reduction and earlier melting of the snowpack is likely to continue,
and this may result in a reduction in the amount of water that is
available during summer months (Kapnick and Hall 2010, pp. 3446, 3454).
Such a reduction in available surface water may result in increased
water diversions from groundwater and springs, but the extent to which
springs supporting the canary duskysnail may be affected by potential
increased water diversions is unclear. Reduced snow runoff and lower
flow levels may also result in water temperature increases (Field et
al. 2007, pp. 620, 629). Although potential water temperature increases
could negatively impact the canary duskysnail, this species occurs in
large, cold, perennial springs, and the extent to which the springs
that support the canary duskysnail may be affected by this potential
threat is unclear.
The petition also states that those petitioned species existing
only in small, isolated colonies are threatened by increased
vulnerabilities of small, isolated populations to extinction from
limited gene flow and stochastic (chance) events (CBD et al. 2008, pp.
28, 29). The petition provided no information, and we do not have
information in our files regarding the size of most local populations
of this species, which would affect their susceptibility to inbreeding
depression. We also do not have information regarding the likelihood of
damaging stochastic events capable of threatening the species. The
petition does not provide any information regarding the potential
threat from isolation and limited distribution, and we do not consider
isolation and limited distribution, in and of itself, to be a threat to
the canary duskysnail.
Canary duskysnail Summary: Based on our evaluation of the
information presented in the petition and in our files, we have
determined the petition presents substantial information to indicate
that listing the canary duskysnail may be warranted due to the present
or threatened destruction, modification or curtailment of its habitat
or range (Factor A) resulting from railroad and road construction,
grazing, water diversions and water pollution. Because we have found
that the petition presents substantial information indicating that
listing the canary duskysnail may be warranted, we are initiating a
status review to determine whether listing under the Act is warranted.
Chelan Mountainsnail (Oreohelix n. sp. 1)
The Chelan mountainsnail is a terrestrial snail known from at least
104 sites in or near the Wenatchee National Forest in Chelan County,
Washington (USDA and USDI 2007, pp. 93, 263, 264). Eighty-six of those
known sites are on Federal land. The Chelan mountainsnail is known to
inhabit grassy underbrush in, or adjacent to, arid transition forests
of Douglas-fir or ponderosa pine, often in depressions that allow
slightly more moisture accumulation than surrounding areas (Burke et
al. 1999, Sect. 12, pp. 8, 9; Duncan 2005c, pp. 1, 9). The species is
sometimes found in association with schist talus (broken rock),
according to Frest and Johannes (1995a, p. 113).
The number of known occupied sites for this species has increased
significantly in recent years. In 1995 the species was known from only
a single location (Frest and Johannes 1995a, p. 113). In 1999, 14 sites
were known, 7 of which had been destroyed by fire (Burke et al. 1999,
Sect. 12, p. 6; ORNHIC 2004b, p. 1). By 2005, 97 sites had been
identified (Duncan 2005c, p. 9), and by 2007 104 sites were known (USDA
and USDI 2007, p. 93). Information in our files indicates that
approximately 150 occupied sites were found during Forest Service
surveys in 1999 and 2000 (Murphy 2000, p. 2), but it is not clear how
many of these new sites, if any, are accounted for in the 104 sites
that were generally known in 2007 (USDA and USDI 2007, p. 93). It also
is not clear how many of the sites found by Murphy were occupied at the
time by live snails (Murphy 2000, p. 2; Tarr 2010, p. 2).
In sites containing live snails, the number of individuals appears
to be low. Duncan (2005c, p. 12) reported that most sites known in 2005
contained only 1 individual, although a survey of 18 plots in the
vicinity of an unreported number of previously documented sites found a
total of 186 snails, thereby ``suggesting that local populations may be
somewhat more numerous than previously expected.''
Factor A: The petition asserts that timber harvest is a threat to
this species (CBD et al. 2008, p. 64). Logging may negatively impact
this species by causing soil compaction and microhabitat alteration and
large machinery used for logging can also directly crush individual
snails (Duncan 2005c, p. 10). Frest and Johannes (1995a, p. 113)
indicate that logging has occurred and is likely to continue throughout
most of this species' potential range. According to the petition,
National Forest Survey and Manage documents indicate that the Chelan
mountainsnail was detected at a timber sale and at a thinning and
prescribed burning project (CBD et al. 2008, p. 64). The prescribed
burn presumably occurred on the Wenatchee National Forest in 2005
(Duncan 2005c, p. 12). The species appears to prefer areas with a
somewhat more open canopy, thereby allowing for a more lush grass
understory (Duncan 2005c, p.
[[Page 61832]]
11), so it is not clear that tree removal, in and of itself, would pose
a threat.
The petition also states that ingrowth of understory vegetation may
constitute a threat by reducing habitat quality and increasing the risk
of wildfire (CBD et al. 2008, p. 63). Although Duncan (2005c, p. 14)
supports this claim, she does not explain how such ingrowth would
reduce habitat quality, nor does the author indicate whether such
ingrowth is currently occurring or is likely to occur across the
snail's range. We address the risk of fire below under Factor E.
Information in our files supports claims by the petitioner that
heavy grazing may negatively impact the species by compacting soils and
removing the snail's grassy underbrush habitat (Duncan 2005c, p. 14).
According to Frest and Johannes (1995a, p. 113) grazing has occurred
and is likely to continue to occur throughout most of the species'
range. Road building and talus removal associated with road building
and maintenance have impacted at least one occupied site by removing
suitable habitat. These activities had been ongoing for several years
in the early 1990s (Frest and Johannes 1995a, p. 113), and may
reasonably be expected to continue in the future (Duncan 2005c, p. 10).
We therefore determine there is substantial information in the petition
and in our files to indicate that grazing and road building and
maintenance activities may be threats to the Chelan mountainsnail, such
that listing may be warranted.
Factors B and C: The petition did not present any information, nor
do we have any information in our files, to indicate that these factors
may pose a threat to the species.
Factor D: The petition asserts that Chelan mountainsnail is
threatened by inadequate regulatory mechanisms associated with the
Survey and Manage program, the Special Status Species Program, and the
Aquatic Conservation Strategy. The Chelan mountainsnail is currently
considered a special status species (USDA and USDI 2007, p. 93). As a
special status species, the Chelan mountainsnail should receive special
management consideration on Federal lands; however, maintenance of
special species status is left to the discretion of the Federal land
managers. As discussed above under ``The Survey and Manage Program and
Special Status Species Programs,'' the claims raised under the petition
relative to the discontinuation of the Survey and Management Program no
longer apply, because that program is once again being implemented.
Factor E: The petition asserts that high-intensity fire is a threat
to this species, because the species is adapted to the historical low-
intensity seasonal fire regime, but not to modern fires (CBD et al.
2008, p. 63). The likelihood of high-intensity fire in the future may
be heightened by climate change (Westerling et al. 2006, pp. 940, 941).
High-intensity fire may negatively impact this species by removing
habitat, directly killing individual snails, and isolating remaining
populations (Duncan 2005c, p. 14). The Tyee Fire of 1994 destroyed
seven occupied sites, which as of 2005, were still not known to have
been recolonized (Duncan 2005c, p. 9).
We do not have information in our files to indicate that the
effects of climate change may pose a threat to the Chelan mountainsnail
in other ways, since it is already adapted to relatively arid habitats
(Duncan 2005c, p. 11).
The petition lists recreational activities such as off-road vehicle
use as a threat (CBD et al. 2008, p. 64), but we have no information in
our files to indicate that such activities are occurring or are likely
to occur within the range of the Chelan mountainsnail to an extent that
they may pose a threat to the species.
The petition also indicates that the Chelan mountainsnail may be
threatened by limited gene flow (inbreeding depression) and stochastic
(chance) events (CBD et al. 2008, pp. 28, 29). We consider the
potential threat from chance events to be low because the Chelan
mountainsnail is now known from approximately 100 sites (USDA and USDI
2007, p. 93), and approximately 150 additional sites may have been
located (Murphy 2000, p. 2). Although population numbers at each site
appear to be low (Duncan 2005c, p. 12) (which would tend to increase
the possibility of inbreeding depression) (Lande 1999, pp. 11, 12), the
petition does not provide any information regarding the potential
threat from isolation and limited distribution, and we do not consider
isolation and limited distribution, in and of itself, to constitute a
threat to the Chelan mountainsnail.
Chelan mountainsnail Summary: Based on our evaluation of the
information presented in the petition and in our files, we have
determined the petition presents substantial information to indicate
that listing the Chelan mountainsnail may be warranted due to the
present or threatened destruction, modification or curtailment of its
habitat or range (Factor A) resulting from logging, grazing, and road
building and maintenance activities. We are initiating a status review
to determine whether listing under the Act is warranted.
Cinnamon Juga (Juga n. sp. 3)
The cinnamon juga is an aquatic snail known from four (USDA and
USDI 2007, p. 93) to eight sites (Frest and Johannes 1999, p. 90) in
the Shasta Springs complex (a network of hydrologically connected
springs), on the upper Sacramento River, Siskiyou County, California.
None of the sites are on Federal land (USDA and USDI 2007, p. 258). It
is believed to be restricted to large, cold, perennial springs with
sand-cobble or basalt bedrock substrate (Furnish and Monthey 1999,
Sect. 2, p. 5). There is one record of an occurrence in the Sacramento
River itself, but this apparently involved a subaqueous spring (Frest
and Johannes 1999, p. 90). The species is dependent on high levels of
dissolved oxygen, and is sensitive to pollution, elevated temperatures,
and sedimentation, according to Furnish and Monthey (1999, Sect. 2, p.
5).
Factor A: The petition asserts that the species may be threatened
by water diversions, grazing, and water pollution (CBD et al. 2008, p.
55). Information cited by the petition and in our files indicates that
diversions may adversely impact the species by removing habitat and
reducing water flow (Frest and Johannes 1999, p. 90; Furnish and
Monthey 1999, Sect. 2, p. 7; USDA and USDI 2007, p. 258). Our
information also indicates that grazing may pose a threat by polluting
water, increasing siltation, and raising water temperatures (Furnish
and Monthey 1999, Sect. 2, p. 7; USDA and USDI 2007, p. 258).
Additionally, logging may pose a threat to the species by increasing
siltation in occupied habitat (Furnish and Monthey 1999, Sect. 2, p.
7), and groundwater withdrawal has caused the extinction or local
extirpation of ecologically similar species by lowering water tables
(USDA and USDI 2007, p. 258).
The petition also asserts that development may be a threat to the
cinnamon juga, and notes that occupied springs have been negatively
impacted by railroad construction (CBD et al. 2008, p. 56). The
petition did not provide information and we did not find information in
our files indicating that development is likely to impact the cinnamon
juga. We did not find information to indicate how past impacts from
railroad development represent a present or continuing threat, except
as discussed below under Factor E with regard to road and trackside
spraying, and catastrophic chance events.
[[Page 61833]]
Based on our evaluation of the information presented in the
petition and in our files, we have determined the petition presents
substantial information to indicate that listing the cinnamon juga may
be warranted due to the present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range.
Factors B and C: The petition did not present any information, nor
do we have any information in our files, to indicate that these factors
may pose a threat to the species.
Factor D: The petition asserts that cinnamon juga is threatened by
inadequate regulatory mechanisms associated with the Survey and Manage
program, the Special Status Species Program, and the Aquatic
Conservation Strategy (CBD et al. 2008 p. 29). The cinnamon juga is not
currently considered by the USFS or BLM to be a special status species
(USDA and USDI 2007, pp. 93, 258). It is also unlikely to receive
significant protection from the Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS),
since the ACS only applies to Federal lands (USDA and USDI 1994, p. 9;
CBD et al. 2008, p. 32), and the cinnamon juga is not known to occur on
such lands (USDA and USDI 2007, p. 258). As discussed above under ``The
Survey and Manage Program and Special Status Species Programs,'' the
claims raised under the petition relative to the discontinuation of the
Survey and Management Program no longer apply, because that program is
once again being implemented.
Factor E: The petition asserts that climate change is a threat to
the cinnamon juga (CBD et al. 2008, p. 26). Climate change is causing
significant reductions in both the volume and persistence of winter
snowpack throughout the western United States, including northern
California (Knowles et al. 2006, pp. 4545, 4546; Kapnick and Hall 2010,
pp. 3446, 3454). The reduction and earlier melting of snowpack is
likely to continue, and this may result in a reduction in the amount of
water that is available during summer months (Kapnick and Hall 2010,
pp. 3446, 3454). Such a reduction in available surface water may also
result in increased water diversions from groundwater and springs, but
the extent to which springs supporting the cinnamon juga may be
affected by potential increased water diversions is unclear. Reduced
snow runoff and lower flow levels may also result in water temperature
increases (Field et al. 2007, pp. 620, 629). Although potential water
temperature increases could negatively impact the cinnamon juga, this
species occurs in large, cold, perennial springs, and the extent to
which the springs that support the cinnamon juga may be affected by
this potential threat is unclear.
The restriction of the cinnamon juga to only eight known sites in
the same general area leaves it potentially susceptible to catastrophic
chance events, such as the 1991 train derailment and subsequent spill
of the herbicide metam sodium into the nearby upper Sacramento River at
Cantara Bend (Furnish and Monthey 1999, Sect. 2, p. 8). Runoff from
normally scheduled road and trackside herbicide spraying may also
impact the species (Frest and Johannes 1999, p. 90).
Although the petition states that ``recreation'' may also
constitute a threat (CBD et al. 2008, p. 56) we found no supporting
information in the petition or our files to indicate which recreational
activities might be involved, or how they might pose a threat to the
species.
Cinnamon juga Summary: Based on our evaluation of the information
presented in the petition and in our files, we have determined the
petition presents substantial information to indicate that listing the
cinnamon juga may be warranted due to the present or threatened
destruction, modification or curtailment of its habitat or range
(Factor A) resulting from water diversion and groundwater withdrawal,
grazing, and logging activities. We are initiating a status review to
determine whether listing under the Act is warranted.
Columbia Duskysnail (Lyogyrus n. sp. 1)
The Columbia duskysnail is an aquatic snail known from 64 sites in
the central and eastern Columbia Gorge in Multnomah, Clackamas and Hood
River Counties, Oregon, and Klickitat and Skamania Counties, Washington
(Frest and Johannes 1999, p. 70; Duncan 2005b, p. 9; USDA and USDI
2007, p. 93). Fifty-two of the sites are on Federal land (USDA and USDI
2007, p. 93). It is believed to be restricted to soft-bottomed, slow-
flowing areas of cold, well oxygenated springs and spring-influenced
streams tributary to the Columbia River (Duncan 2005b, p. 10). The
Columbia duskysnail often occurs in very small springs, according to
Frest and Johannes (1995a, p. 185). All Lyogyrus species are believed
to be intolerant of oxygen deficits, elevated water temperatures, and
sedimentation (Duncan 2005b, pp. 10, 11).
Factor A: The petition asserts that this species may be threatened
by water diversions, road and railroad construction, and logging (CBD
et al. 2008, p. 57). Information cited by the petition and in our files
indicates that diversions may adversely affect the species by removing
and disturbing habitat; road construction and maintenance may disrupt
flows and produce sediment; and logging may increase soil erosion and
decrease shading (Frest and Johannes 1995a, p. 185; Furnish and Monthey
1999, Sect. 4, pp. 13, 14; Duncan 2005b, pp. 11, 12). Such
modifications are relatively common in the Columbia Gorge, and because
they leave less undisturbed habitat in small springs (such as those
preferred by the Columbia duskysnail) their relative ecological impacts
tend to be larger (Frest and Johannes 1995a, p. 185). The petitioners
state that this snail was detected at 15 timber sales and 7 road
maintenance projects (CBD et al. 2008, p. 57). Three of the timber
sales included specified mitigation measures to protect the species.
The petition also alleges that there are threats from dams and
grazing (CBD et al. 2008, p. 57), but we did not find information in
the petition or our files to indicate that these activities constitute
continuing threats.
Based on our evaluation of the information presented in the
petition and in our files, we determined the petition presents
substantial information to indicate that listing the Columbia
duskysnail may be warranted due to the present or threatened
destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range.
Factors B and C: The petition did not present any information, nor
do we have any information in our files, to indicate that these factors
may pose a threat to the species.
Factor D: The petition asserts that Columbia duskysnail is
threatened by inadequate regulatory mechanisms associated with the
Survey and Manage program, the Special Status Species Program, and the
Aquatic Conservation Strategy. The Columbia duskysnail is currently
considered a special status species (USDA and USDI 2007, p. 93). As a
special status species, the Columbia duskysnail should receive special
management consideration on Federal lands; however, maintenance of
special species status is left to the discretion of the Federal land
managers. As discussed above under ``The Survey and Manage Program and
Special Status Species Programs,'' the claims raised under the petition
relative to the discontinuation of the Survey and Management Program no
longer apply, because that program is once again being implemented.
Factor E: The petition asserts that climate change is a threat to
the Columbia duskysnail (CBD et al. 2008,
[[Page 61834]]
p. 26). Climate change is causing significant reductions in both the
volume and persistence of winter snowpack throughout the western United
States, including northern California (Knowles et al. 2006, pp. 4545,
4546; Kapnick and Hall 2010, pp. 3446, 3454). The reduction and earlier
melting of the snowpack is likely to continue, and this may result in a
reduction in the amount of water that is available during summer months
(Kapnick and Hall 2010, pp. 3446, 3454). Such a reduction in available
surface water may result in increased water diversions from groundwater
and springs, but the extent to which springs supporting the Columbia
duskysnail may be affected by potential increased water diversions is
unclear. Reduced snow runoff and lower flow levels may also result in
water temperature increases (Field et al. 2007, pp. 620, 629). Although
potential water temperature increases could negatively impact the
Columbia duskysnail, the extent to which the springs that support the
Columbia duskysnail may be affected by this potential threat is
unclear.
Climate change is also expected to further increase the frequency
and intensity of wildfires in the Columbia Basin (ISAB 2007, p. 22).
Removal of cover plants by a wildfire could threaten the Columbia
duskysnail by reducing shading and increasing soil erosion, thereby
increasing water temperatures and sedimentation in springs occupied by
the species. A conservation assessment for the Columbia duskysnail
commissioned by the USFS and BLM lists ``fires'' as a threat (Duncan
2005b, p. 12).
The same conservation assessment lists ``recreation'' as a threat
(Duncan 2005b, p. 12), but does not elaborate on the specific
activities referred to or how they may threaten the species. The
petition also states that recreation is a threat, and claims that the
Columbia duskysnail was detected at two recreational projects (CBD et
al. 2008, p. 57).
The petition also states generally that the species is threatened
by ``spraying'' (presumably of pesticides) and by the vulnerability of
small isolated populations to inbreeding depression and deleterious
chance events (CBD et al. 2008, pp. 28, 29, 57). We did not find
information to indicate that pesticide spraying occurs in the vicinity
of the Columbia duskysnail at levels that may threaten the species. We
also did not find information to indicate that Columbia duskysnail
populations are so small and isolated that inbreeding depression or
stochastic events may threaten the species.
Columbia duskysnail Summary: Based on our evaluation of the
information presented in the petition and in our files, we have
determined the petition presents substantial information to indicate
that listing the Columbia duskysnail may be warranted due to the
present or threatened destruction, modification or curtailment of its
habitat or range (Factor A) resulting from water diversions, road
construction and maintenance, and logging activities. We are initiating
a status review to determine whether listing under the Act is
warranted.
Columbia Oregonian (Cryptomastix hendersoni)
The Columbia Oregonian is a terrestrial snail known from 22 to 45
sites (Duncan 2005d, pp. 6, 7; USDA and USDI 2007, p. 92). Seventeen or
18 locations are on Federal land, in the Mount Hood National Forest,
Clackamas County, Oregon (Duncan 2005d, p. 7; USDA and USDI 2007, p.
92). The remaining locations are in the vicinity of the Columbia River
in Wasco and Sherman Counties, Oregon, and in Klickitat County,
Washington (Duncan 2005d, p. 6). The snail is believed to inhabit the
semiarid habitat along the Columbia River by inhabiting moist
microclimates along the margins of streams, seeps, and springs (Kelley
et al. 1999, p. 9; Duncan 2005d, p. 7). In the Mount Hood National
Forest, the Columbia Oregonian is known to occur in moist areas under
closed canopy forests of western hemlock (Burke et al. 1999, Sect. 2,
p. 7). Its population trends (numbers of both sites and individuals)
are downward, according to ORNHC (2004c, p. 2).
Factor A: The petition asserts that the Columbia Oregonian is
threatened by habitat loss due to development, logging, grazing, and
agriculture, as well as by water pollution, diversions, and
impoundments (CBD et al. 2008, p. 41). Info
