Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removing the Kanab Ambersnail From the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, 33137-33142 [2021-13257]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 119 / Thursday, June 24, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
include the OMB Control Number,
3060–0298, in your correspondence.
The Commission will also accept your
comments via email at PRA@fcc.gov.
To request materials in accessible
formats for people with disabilities
(Braille, large print, electronic files,
audio format), send an email to fcc504@
fcc.gov or call the Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202)
418–0530 (voice), (202) 418–0432
(TTY).
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Synopsis
As required by the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507),
the FCC is notifying the public that it
received final OMB approval on May 13,
2021, for the information collection
requirements contained in the
modifications to the Commission’s rules
in 47 CFR part 51.
Under 5 CFR part 1320, an agency
may not conduct or sponsor a collection
of information unless it displays a
current, valid OMB Control Number.
No person shall be subject to any
penalty for failing to comply with a
collection of information subject to the
Paperwork Reduction Act that does not
display a current, valid OMB Control
Number. The OMB Control Number is
3060–0298.
The foregoing notice is required by
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
Public Law 104–13, October 1, 1995,
and 44 U.S.C. 3507.
The total annual reporting burdens
and costs for the respondents are as
follows:
OMB Control Number: 3060–0298.
OMB Approval Date: May 13, 2021.
OMB Expiration Date: May 31, 2024.
Title: Part 61, Tariffs (Other than
Tariff Review Plan).
Form Number: N/A.
Respondents: Businesses or other forprofit entities.
Number of Respondents and
Responses: 2,925 respondents; 9,585
responses.
Estimated Time per Response: 1–50
hours.
Frequency of Response: One-time,
biennial and on-occasion reporting
requirements.
Obligation To Respond: Required to
obtain or retain benefits. The statutory
authority for this information collection
is contained in sections 1–5, 201–205,
208, 251–271, 403, 502, and 503 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. 151–155, 201–205,
208, 251–271, 403, 502 and 503.
Total Annual Burden: 244,477 hours.
Total Annual Cost: $1,584,000.
Nature and Extent of Confidentiality:
Respondents are not being asked to
submit confidential information to the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:01 Jun 23, 2021
Jkt 253001
Commission. If the Commission
requests respondents to submit
information which respondents believe
is confidential, respondents may request
confidential treatment of such
information under 47 CFR 0.459 of the
Commission’s rules.
Privacy Act: No impact(s).
Needs and Uses: Sections 201, 202,
203, 204 and 205 of the
Communications Act of 1934, (Act) as
amended, 47 U.S.C. 201, 202, 203, 204
and 205, require that common carriers
establish just and reasonable charges,
practices, and regulations, which must
be filed with the Commission to
determine whether such schedules are
just, reasonable and not unduly
discriminatory. On October 9, 2020, the
Commission released the Order, FCC
20–143, published at 85 FR 75894,
which transitions intercarrier
compensation for toll-free services
either to lower, uniform rate caps or to
bill-and-keep over approximately three
years as a means of curtailing abuse of
the 8YY intercarrier compensation
regime. The Order requires price cap
and rate-of-return carriers to establish
separate rate elements for certain
interstate and intrastate toll free and
non-toll free services. Carriers are also
required to lower the 8YY database
query charges over three years, and are
prohibited from charging for more than
one query per call. Competitive local
exchange carriers (LECs) assessing a
tariffed intrastate or interstate Toll Free
Database Query Charge must cap such
charges and revise their tariffs to ensure
that those charges do not exceed the
rates charged by the competing
incumbent LEC.
The information collected through
carriers’ tariffs is used by the
Commission and state commissions to
determine whether services offered are
just and reasonable, as the Act requires.
The tariffs and any supporting
documentation are examined in order to
determine if the services are offered in
a just and reasonable manner.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021–13213 Filed 6–23–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
33137
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS–R6–ES–2019–0055;
FF09E22000 FXES11130900000 201]
RIN 1018–BD49
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Removing the Kanab
Ambersnail From the List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), are removing
the Kanab ambersnail (Oxyloma
haydeni kanabensis) from the Federal
List of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife. This determination is based on
a thorough review of the best available
scientific information. Our review
indicates that the Kanab ambersnail is
not a valid subspecies and therefore
cannot be listed as an endangered entity
under the Endangered Species Act.
DATES: This rule is effective July 26,
2021.
SUMMARY:
This final rule, the
supporting documents we used in
preparing this rule, and public
comments we received are available on
the internet at https://
www.regulations.gov at Docket No.
FWS–R6–ES–2019–0055. Persons who
use a telecommunications device for the
deaf may call the Federal Relay Service
at 800–877–8339.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Yvette Converse, Field Supervisor,
telephone: 801–975–3330. Direct all
questions or requests for additional
information to: Kanab Ambersnail
Questions, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service; Utah Ecological Services Field
Office; 2369 Orton Circle, Suite 50; West
Valley City, Utah 84119. Persons who
use a telecommunications device for the
deaf may call the Federal Relay Service
at 800–877–8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
ADDRESSES:
Previous Federal Actions
On November 15, 1991, we proposed
to list the Kanab ambersnail as an
endangered species (56 FR 58020). The
species’ habitat was greatly reduced in
size and the population declined, due to
preparations for anticipated
development. On April 17, 1992, we
published a final rule listing the Kanab
ambersnail as an endangered species (57
FR 13657), but as explained in that rule,
E:\FR\FM\24JNR1.SGM
24JNR1
33138
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 119 / Thursday, June 24, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
we did not designate critical habitat
because we found that designation
would be not prudent due to a danger
of over-collection or purposeful harm or
killing of snails if the locations of the
snails were made public on critical
habitat maps. On October 12, 1995, we
finalized the Kanab ambersnail recovery
plan (Service 1995, entire).
We completed a 5-year review of the
species’ status in July 2011 (Service
2011, entire). As of the time of the 2011
5-year review, several genetic studies
indicated that at least one of the three
populations identified as the Kanab
ambersnail was potentially part of a
different species or subspecies, but we
did not consider those studies alone to
be certain enough to recommend
delisting at that time (Miller et al. 2000,
p. 8; Stevens et al. 2000, p. 7; Culver et
al. 2007, p. 3; Service 2011, pp. 8–9).
The subsequent publication of a larger,
more comprehensive study on the
genetics of the Kanab ambersnail and
the Oxyloma genus (Culver et al. 2013,
entire) resulted in our proposed rule to
delist Kanab ambersnail based on new
taxonomic information indicating that it
was not a valid taxon, published in the
Federal Register on January 6, 2020 (85
FR 487). Please refer to that proposed
rule for a more detailed description of
the Federal actions concerning this
species that occurred prior to November
26, 2019.
Species Description and Habitat
Information
It is our intent to discuss only those
topics directly related to delisting the
Kanab ambersnail in this rule. For more
information on the description, biology,
ecology, and habitat of the Kanab
ambersnail, please refer to the final
listing rule published in the Federal
Register on April 17, 1992 (57 FR
13657); the Kanab ambersnail recovery
plan (Service 1995); the most recent 5year review for the Kanab ambersnail
completed in July 2011 (Service 2011);
or any of the documents referenced by
this rule. The Service documents,
personal communications, and a list of
cited literature are available as
supporting materials on https://
www.regulations.gov under Docket No.
FWS–R6–ES–2019–0055.
The Kanab ambersnail (Oxyloma
haydeni kanabensis) was taxonomically
identified as a terrestrial snail in the
family Succineidae. Succineids are
usually referred to as ambersnails due to
their mottled grayish-amber to
yellowish-amber colored shells
(Sorensen and Nelson 2002, p. 5).
The Kanab ambersnail typically
inhabits marshes and other wetlands
watered by springs and seeps at the base
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:01 Jun 23, 2021
Jkt 253001
of sandstone or limestone cliffs (Clarke
1991, pp. 28–29; Spamer and Bogan
1993, p. 296; Meretsky et al. 2002, p.
309). Habitat vegetation can consist of
cattail (Typha domingensis), sedge
(Juncus spp.), native crimson
monkeyflower (Mimulus cardinalis),
watercress (Nasturtium officinale),
native water sedge (Carex aquatilis), and
maidenhair fern (Adiantum capillusveneris) (57 FR 13657, April 17, 1992;
Stevens et al. 1997, p. 6; Sorensen 2005,
p. 3). The Kanab ambersnail often
inhabits dead and decaying litter and
live stems of plants (Service 2011, p.
11).
When the Kanab ambersnail was
listed, we knew of two populations in
Utah (Three Lakes and Kanab Creek
Canyon) and one population in Arizona
(Vasey’s Paradise) (57 FR 13657, April
17, 1992). The Kanab Creek Canyon
population in Utah was extirpated by
1991, after dewatering of the seep for
livestock use severely reduced the
available habitat. Kanab ambersnails
were last found there in 1990, when
three individuals were identified
(Service 2011, p. 12). Currently, there
are two naturally occurring populations
of Kanab ambersnails (Vasey’s Paradise
in Arizona, and Three Lakes in Utah)
and one introduced population (Upper
Elves Canyon in Arizona) established
with individuals translocated from
Vasey’s Paradise (Service 2011, p. 6).
The Vasey’s Paradise population was
discovered in 1991 (Spamer and Bogan
1993, p. 47). Vasey’s Paradise is a
riverside spring located approximately
33 miles (mi) (53 kilometers (km))
downstream of Lee’s Ferry on the
Colorado River, in Grand Canyon
National Park, Arizona (Spamer and
Bogan 1993, p. 37). Occupied and
potential habitat at Vasey’s Paradise is
9,041 square feet (ft2) (840 square meters
(m2)) (Service 1995, p. ii). The
population is protected by National Park
Service regulations and the presence of
poison ivy, which deters visitors
(Stevens et al. 1997, p. 12; Sorensen
2016, pers. comm.).
Monitoring of the Vasey’s Paradise
population from 2007 to present has
relied on timed counts of live snails
observed among the traditionally
sampled vegetation patches. The timed
count sampling provides a catch-perunit-effort (CPUE) estimate of relative
abundance of the snails in each survey.
Over the past decade, there have been
seasonal and annual variations in CPUE
estimates of the Vasey’s Paradise
population. Overall the relative
abundance of this Kanab ambersnail
population has declined substantially
from the levels observed in the late
1990s and prior to 2002, when drought
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
conditions and reduced spring flow
became particularly severe (Sorensen
2015, p. 10; Sorensen 2020, p. 1). This
decline has continued since 2011
(Sorensen 2015, p. 10; Sorensen 2020, p.
1).
The most recent population estimate
is from 2002, which estimated 3,124
individuals and noted that population
numbers could be highly variable from
year to year (Gloss et al. 2005, p. 3).
Fourteen individuals were collected in
2008, for genetic analysis (Culver et al.
2013, p. 7). A survey in 2016 found only
one snail, but search conditions were
difficult and time was limited (Sorensen
2016, pers. comm.).
The Three Lakes population is a series
of small ponds on private land
approximately 6 mi (10 km) northwest
of Kanab, Utah (Clarke 1991, p. 28;
Service 1995, p. 3). Occupied and
potential habitat is approximately 4.94
acres (ac) (2 hectares (ha)) (Service 1995,
p. 3). Available habitat is wet meadow
and marsh. The habitat was greatly
reduced in size and the population
declined beginning in 1991, due to
preparations for anticipated
development, which resulted in the
original emergency listing (57 FR 13657,
April 17, 1992). The development
anticipated at the time of listing has not
occurred, and Kanab ambersnails were
found there in 2008 (Culver et al. 2013,
p. 6) and 2016 (Sorensen 2016, pers.
comm.).
A timed count survey of the Three
Lakes population was conducted in
early October 2011 by Service, Utah
Division of Wildlife Resources, and
Arizona Fish and Game Department
biologists. The Three Lakes Kanab
ambersnail population was robust with
a CPUE estimate of 10.47 snails per 10
minutes searched (Sorensen 2011, p.
14). In 2016, the land was sold to Best
Friends Animal Sanctuary, which has
expressed a willingness to preserve the
habitat. A followup survey of the Three
Lakes Kanab ambersnail population was
conducted by the same partners in early
May 2017, with an estimated CPUE of
158.75 snails per 10 minutes searched
(Sorensen 2017, pers. comm.).
Upper Elves Canyon is located
approximately 83 mi (134 km)
downstream of Vasey’s Paradise on the
Colorado River, in Grand Canyon
National Park, Arizona (Sorensen 2016,
p. 1). Occupied and potential habitat is
adjacent to a perennial seep and is 1,068
ft2 (99.2 m2) (Sorensen 2005, p. 3). This
population is protected by National Park
Service regulations, as well as by its
inaccessibility (Service 2011, p. 7). This
population was established by the
Arizona Fish and Game Department
between 1998 and 2002, by
E:\FR\FM\24JNR1.SGM
24JNR1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 119 / Thursday, June 24, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
translocating 340 individuals from the
Vasey’s Paradise population. Since
2005, this population has been
considered self-sustaining with an
estimated population of approximately
700 individuals (Sorensen 2005, p. 9).
Between 2009 and 2015, timed count
surveys of the translocated population
at Upper Elves Chasm were conducted
by Arizona Game and Fish Department,
National Park Service biologists, and
volunteers. Surveys over this timeframe
documented a small but relatively stable
Kanab ambersnail population at the site,
with CPUE estimates between 0.85 to
4.15 snails per 10 minutes searched
(Sorensen 2015, p. 12).
Taxonomy
Kanab ambersnails were first
collected in 1909, by James Ferriss from
an area called ‘‘The Greens,’’ a vegetated
seep approximately 6 mi (10 km) north
of Kanab in Kanab Creek Canyon, Utah
(57 FR 13657, April 17, 1992; Service
1995, p. 2). However, ambersnails have
not been found at the type locality since
1991 (Meretsky et al. 2002, p. 314;
Culver et al. 2013, p. 6).
The snails collected by James Ferriss
in 1909 were initially placed in the
species Succinea hawkinisi, but Pilsbry
(1948, p. 797) placed them in Oxyloma
and created the subspecies kanabensis
under the species haydeni (57 FR 13657,
April 17, 1992). The subspecies
kanabensis classification was
considered to be temporary at the time,
and the author recommended that the
taxonomic status be reconsidered in the
future (Pilsbry 1948, p. 798; Clarke
1991, p. 23; 57 FR 13657, April 17,
1992).
We have assessed all available genetic
information for the Kanab ambersnail
(Miller et al. 2000, entire; Stevens et al.
2000, entire; Culver et al. 2013, entire).
Since the listing of Kanab ambersnail in
1992 (57 FR 13657; April 17, 1992) and
the publication of the Kanab ambersnail
recovery plan in 1995 (Service 1995,
entire), several studies on subspecies
distribution, morphological
characteristics, and genetic
relationships to other Oxyloma species
have been completed. We briefly
describe these studies below. At this
time, these studies represent the best
scientific information available in order
for us to analyze the Kanab ambersnail’s
distribution and taxonomic changes.
Various analyses can be done to
determine genetic structure of a species,
including analyses of: (1) Mitochondrial
DNA, which is rapidly evolving and
useful to determine recent populations;
(2) nuclear microsatellite DNA, which
has high amounts of genetic variation
and can be used to look at populations
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:01 Jun 23, 2021
Jkt 253001
within a species; (3) nuclear DNA,
which is inherited equally from both
parents (unlike mitochondrial DNA,
which is inherited maternally); and (4)
amplified fragment length
polymorphisms (AFLP), which are used
to sample multiple loci across the
genome.
Miller et al. (2000) used AFLP to
determine intra- and inter-population
genetic information for four Oxyloma
species in Utah and Arizona. Among
these, two Niobrara ambersnail
(Oxyloma haydeni haydeni) locations
were studied at Indian Gardens
(Arizona) and Minus Nine Mile Spring
(Arizona), and two Kanab ambersnail
populations were studied at Three Lakes
(Utah) and Vasey’s Paradise (Arizona)
(Miller et al. 2000, pp. 1845–1946).
From this study, the ambersnail
population at Three Lakes appears more
closely related to the Niobrara
ambersnail population at Indian
Gardens than to the ambersnail
population at Vasey’s Paradise (Miller et
al. 2000, p. 1852). Upper Elves Canyon
was not included in this study.
Stevens et al. (2000) used
mitochondrial DNA and morphological
analysis to distinguish Succineidae
(Oxyloma, Catinella, and Succinea)
populations in the United States and
Canada. The authors collected over 450
samples from seven U.S. States and
Canadian provinces, including from 63
different populations or locations of
snails (Stevens et al. 2000, p. 4).
Determining Oxyloma species based on
morphology was shown to be inaccurate
(Stevens et al. 2000, pp. 4–5, 42).
Vasey’s Paradise did not cluster with
the Three Lakes ambersnail population
or the two sampled Niobrara ambersnail
populations, leading the authors to
suggest Vasey’s Paradise might
represent a unique species (Stevens et
al. 2000, p. 41). However, a later, more
comprehensive study found that Vasey’s
Paradise clustered closely enough with
samples from other surrounding
Oxyloma populations for them all to be
considered part of the same Oxyloma
species (Culver et al. 2013, p. 57).
In this most recent and detailed peerreviewed study, ambersnails were
collected from 12 locations in Arizona
and Utah, with each location providing
at least 14 ambersnail specimens
(Culver et al. 2013, p. 5). Samples
consisted of Kanab ambersnail, Niobrara
ambersnail, blunt ambersnail (Oxyloma
retusum), undescribed species of
Oxyloma, and individuals from
Catinella (used to provide an outgroup
comparison) (Culver et al. 2013, p. 6).
This study included samples from all
three extant populations identified as
Kanab ambersnail. Between the
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
33139
Oxyloma populations, shell morphology
did not have the variation usually
associated with different species,
leading the authors to state that none of
the 12 populations sampled was
reproductively isolated from the others
(Culver et al. 2013, p. 52). This
information supports the finding that
the three populations identified as
Kanab ambersnail do not alone
comprise a discrete taxon.
Genetic results indicated that there
was gene flow among all the
populations sampled, most likely due to
short- or long-distance dispersals from
other populations (Culver et al. 2013, p.
57). Additionally, Kanab ambersnail
samples from Vasey’s Paradise did not
cluster with the other two Kanab
ambersnail populations (Culver et al.
2013, pp. 51, 55). The authors
concluded that the three populations of
Kanab ambersnail are not a valid
subspecies of Oxyloma haydeni and
should instead be considered part of the
same taxa as the ambersnails from the
eight other populations of Oxyloma in
Utah and Arizona that were sampled for
comparison (Culver et al. 2013, entire).
This study declined to positively
identify a species-level taxon for these
11 populations of ambersnail, due to
lack of genetic information on the genus
(Culver et al. 2013). The primary author
stated later that her expert opinion was
they should all, including those
previously identified as Kanab
ambersnail, be considered Niobrara
ambersnail (Oxyloma hadenyi) (Culver
2016, pers. comm.). The authors stated
that specimens from the type locality of
the Niobrara ambersnail in Nebraska
could be examined for comparison to
verify this conclusion (Franzen 1964, p.
73; Culver et al. 2013, p. 57; Culver
2016, pers. comm.), but to date, no such
analysis has been done.
The above-described Culver et al.
(2013) study was released as a United
States Geological Survey (USGS)
Scientific Investigations Report, and the
review approach was similar to that of
manuscripts published by scientific
journals. The report was initially
reviewed by five reviewers and required
subsequent revision. The report
received an additional review following
revision due to the complex subject
matter. The response to reviewer
comments and subsequent revised
manuscript were reviewed by another
independent geneticist to ensure that
the author adequately addressed issues
and comments brought up by reviewers
(Sorensen 2014, pers. comm.). The
subsequent revision that occurred after
2011 resulted in more genetic
information added to the final 2013
manuscript, which further substantiated
E:\FR\FM\24JNR1.SGM
24JNR1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
33140
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 119 / Thursday, June 24, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
the authors’ findings (Sorensen 2014,
pers. comm). As a result, we have a high
level of confidence in the results of the
Culver et al. (2013) genetic study.
For the Kanab ambersnail to be
considered a distinct subspecies,
nuclear and mitochondrial DNA tests
should show that the three populations
cluster together when compared to other
populations of ambersnails (Culver et al.
2013, p. 55). However, the Vasey’s
Paradise population does not cluster
with the other two Kanab ambersnail
populations and the degree of variation
shown in Vasey’s Paradise from the
other populations is not unique enough
to constitute a subspecies on its own, as
it shares markers with several nearby
populations of non-listed Oxyloma
snails (Stevens et al. 2000, p. 41; Culver
et al. 2013, pp. 55–57).
The genetic uniqueness in Vasey’s
Paradise may be attributable to flooding,
which can erode away ideal vegetation
or habitat, leaving only a few
individuals able to survive and
reestablish the population at that site,
creating genetic bottlenecks. Genetic
diversity at these types of sites will
often be lower than at sites that have
experienced short- or long-distance
dispersals (Culver et al. 2013, p. 55).
Furthermore, ambersnails have the
ability to self-reproduce, allowing for
colonization of new areas by only one
individual. This ability may explain
how many genetically distinct
populations of Oxyloma developed in a
relatively short time period (Culver et
al. 2013, p. 56). At least one or more
bottleneck events in the past, likely due
to flooding, caused unusual population
genetic events (Culver et al. 2013, p. 55).
Overall, these studies show that shell
morphology and anatomical
characteristics that were once
considered diagnostic do not alone
reliably correspond with the results
from genetic analyses of Succineidae
snails (Hoagland and Davis 1987, p. 519;
Pigati et al. 2010, p. 523). Samples
originally identified as different species
or subspecies based on physical
differences are consistently found to be
related closely enough to qualify as
members of the same species based on
genetic studies (Culver et al. 2013,
entire; Miller et al. 2000, entire; Stevens
et al. 2000, entire). Traditionally, shell
morphology, such as their slender and
drawn-out spire and short shell
aperture, was used to distinguish the
Kanab ambersnail from other members
of Oxyloma (Pilsbry 1948, pp. 797–798).
However, shell shape can vary as much
within a population as within a species
(Hoagland and Davis 1987, p. 519).
Therefore, it is important to consider
other factors such as genetics, anatomy,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:01 Jun 23, 2021
Jkt 253001
and habitat to determine a species
within Oxyloma (Hoagland and Davis
1987, p. 519; Sorensen and Nelson 2002,
p. 5).
In addition to shell morphology,
reproductive anatomy (phallus shape)
was previously a main determining
factor of the Oxyloma genus (Miller et
al. 2000, p. 1853). However, anatomical
descriptions used to classify the Kanab
ambersnail had no quantifying factors,
such as prostate gland length, and soft
tissues were difficult to measure
objectively (Pilsbry 1948, p. 798; Culver
et al. 2013, pp. 52–53). It is difficult to
achieve standard anatomical
measurements with repeatability
because of the flexibility and elasticity
of soft tissues (Culver et al. 2013, p. 18).
Overall, anatomical characteristics have
been found to vary greatly within
Oxyloma (Culver et al. 2013, p. 52).
There have been at least two instances
when a species of snail was placed in
the wrong genus due to relying solely on
the reproductive anatomy (Johnson et
al. 1986, p. 105; Miller et al. 2000, p.
1853). In another case, variation in
anatomical structure was found in the
blunt ambersnail, leading the authors to
conclude that the species was not
restricted geographically as initially
believed (Franzen 1963, p. 94). Previous
Oxyloma studies have used only one or
two specimens to determine the species’
taxonomic status, which makes it
difficult to properly assess the true
status (Hoagland and Davis 1987, p.
515).
Standards for quantifying anatomy are
minimal and not descriptive enough,
with the use of such words as small,
medium, and large, which are vague
terms and not measurable (Hoagland
and Davis 1987, p. 478). Anatomical
characteristics should not be the only
factor to determine a species within
Oxyloma, even with an understanding
of the individual and geographical
variation (Franzen 1963, p. 83).
Variation between populations,
anatomical differences among
individuals, overlapping habitat, and
minimal repeatability with
measurements of anatomical features
make it difficult to rely on anatomical
descriptions to determine species
classification (Franzen 1964, p. 80;
Sorensen and Nelson 2002, pp. 4–5).
Overall, reproductive anatomy is likely
not a good species indicator in snails;
instead, genetic relationships provide
the most reliable method of classifying
taxa.
In summary, these analyses present
multiple interpretations of the
taxonomy of the Kanab ambersnail,
none of which correlates to that of our
original listing. Although the exact
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
taxonomy of the genus Oxyloma and its
constituent species remains uncertain, it
is clear that the populations designated
as the Kanab ambersnail do not make
up, together or separately, a valid
subspecies. The 1992 final listing rule
for the Kanab ambersnail (57 FR 13657;
April 17, 1992) relied on the best
available information at the time, and
included only snails found in Vasey’s
Paradise in Arizona and Three Lakes
and Kanab Creek in Utah. This situation
has changed with the addition of the
2013 genetic study of the Oxyloma
genus in Utah and Arizona (Culver et al.
2013, entire).
The various published and
unpublished genetics reports described
above offer different conclusions about
how Succineid snails should be
classified, particularly within the genus
Oxyloma. However, none of the genetic
studies provides support for Oxyloma
haydeni kanabensis as a valid
subspecies. Additionally, available
genetic evidence suggests that at least
one population identified as Kanab
ambersnail is more closely related to
other nearby Oxyloma populations than
it is to the other two Kanab ambersnail
populations.
Therefore, we are delisting the Kanab
ambersnail due to new taxonomic
information that indicates that it is not
a valid taxon, based on the best
available science. The currently listed
entity for the Kanab ambersnail,
restricted to Vasey’s Paradise and Upper
Elves Canyon, Arizona, and Three
Lakes, Utah, is not a valid taxonomic
subspecies. We are unable to evaluate
the populations identified as the Kanab
ambersnail relative to the larger entity
because the larger entity has not yet
been defined from a taxonomic
perspective. If we had additional
updated information available about the
taxonomy of the Oxyloma genus, we
would conduct a status assessment of
the larger entity, but in this case we do
not have enough information to conduct
that analysis. We do not consider the
absence of information on the larger
taxonomy of a group to be sufficient
reason to keep an invalid subspecies
listed as endangered.
Summary of Comments and
Recommendations
In the proposed rule published in the
Federal Register on January 6, 2020 (85
FR 487), we requested that all interested
parties submit written comments on our
proposal to delist the Kanab ambersnail
by March 6, 2020. We also contacted
appropriate Federal and State agencies,
scientific experts and organizations, and
other interested parties and invited
them to comment on the proposal.
E:\FR\FM\24JNR1.SGM
24JNR1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 119 / Thursday, June 24, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
Newspaper notices inviting general
public comment were published in the
Salt Lake Tribune and Saint George
News. We did not receive any requests
for a public hearing. All substantive
information provided during the
comment period was either
incorporated directly into this final rule
or is addressed below.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Peer Reviewer Comments
In accordance with our joint policy on
peer review published in the Federal
Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270)
and our August 22, 2016 memorandum
updating and clarifying the role of peer
review of listing actions under the Act
(USFWS 2016, entire), we solicited
expert opinion from seven
knowledgeable individuals with
scientific expertise and familiarity with
the Kanab ambersnail, its habitat, its
taxonomy, its biological needs and
potential threats, or principles of
conservation biology. We received
responses from five peer reviewers. The
purpose of peer review is to ensure that
our listing determinations are based on
scientifically sound data, assumptions,
and analyses.
We reviewed and addressed all
comments we received from the peer
reviewers for substantive issues and
new information regarding the proposed
delisting of the Kanab ambersnail. The
peer reviewers provided additional
information, clarifications, and
suggestions to improve the final rule,
which we include in this rule or address
in the responses to comments below.
One of the reviewers expressed support
for the proposed action. The other four
did not state support or opposition to
the proposed changes. All reviewers
found that, with their suggested
changes: The proposed rule was
accurate; we provided adequate analysis
to support our proposed determination;
there were no significant oversights,
omissions, or inconsistencies; our
conclusions were logical and supported
by the evidence provided; and we
included all pertinent literature to
support our arguments, assumptions,
and conclusions.
All changes suggested by reviewers
were incorporated into the text of this
final rule. Such changes include
additional details of population
monitoring at all populations, an
explanation of the rigorous review
process for USGS reports, and a
clarification on how shell morphology
supports the conclusions in the Culver
et al. 2013 study. Other minor editorial
clarifications and corrections were also
made based on peer reviewer comments.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:01 Jun 23, 2021
Jkt 253001
Public Comments
We received seven letters from the
public that provided comments on the
proposed rule. Two of the commenters
expressed their support for the proposed
delisting and corroborated information
we supplied in the rule. Four
commenters expressed their opposition
to it. Of these four, none presented
substantive information to support their
opposition. In all cases, the opposition
was based on the importance of
protecting rare species and ecosystems.
While we agree that protecting rare
species and the habitats in which they
occur is important, it is not a relevant
factor in this determination because
Kanab ambersnail is not a valid taxon
and is being delisted on that basis.
One commenter provided some
additional historical background
regarding the naming and sampling of
certain ambersnail sites mentioned in
the proposed rule, but stated that this
information did not affect the validity of
the proposed action. We agree and
thank the commenter for the additional
detail and have added it to the record,
but do not include it in our final rule
as it does not impact our conclusions on
taxonomy.
Delisting Determination
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533)
and its implementing regulations (50
CFR part 424) set forth the procedures
for listing, reclassifying, or removing
species from the Federal Lists of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants. ‘‘Species’’ is defined by the
Act as including any species or
subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants,
and any distinct population segment of
vertebrate fish or wildlife that
interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C.
1532(16)). We may delist a species
according to 50 CFR 424.11(e) if the best
available scientific and commercial data
indicate that: (1) The species is extinct;
(2) the species does not meet the
definition of an endangered or a
threatened species; or (3) the listed
entity does not meet the statutory
definition of a species.
For the Kanab ambersnail, we
conclude that the existing best available
scientific information demonstrates that
Oxyloma haydeni kanabensis does not
represent a valid taxonomic entity and,
therefore, does not meet the definition
of ‘‘species’’ as defined in section 3(16)
of the Act. Therefore, Oxyloma haydeni
kanabensis no longer warrants listing
under the Act. The Kanab ambersnail
does not require a post-delisting
monitoring plan because the
requirements for a monitoring plan do
not apply to species that are delisted for
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
33141
not meeting the statutory definition of a
species.
Effects of This Rule
This rule revises 50 CFR 17.11(h) to
remove the Kanab ambersnail from the
Federal List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife. Because no critical
habitat was ever designated for this
subspecies, this rule does not affect 50
CFR 17.95.
The prohibitions and conservation
measures provided by the Act no longer
apply to the snail previously identified
as the Kanab ambersnail. Interstate
commerce, import, and export of the
snails previously identified as the
Kanab ambersnail are not prohibited
under the Act. In addition, Federal
agencies are no longer required to
consult under section 7 of the Act on
actions that may affect the snails
previously identified as Kanab
ambersnail or their habitat.
Required Determinations
National Environmental Policy Act
We have determined that
environmental assessments and
environmental impact statements, as
defined under the authority of the
National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not
be prepared in connection with
regulations pursuant to section 4(a) of
the Act. We published a notice outlining
our reasons for this determination in the
Federal Register on October 25, 1983
(48 FR 49244).
Government-to-Government
Relationship With Tribes
In accordance with the President’s
memorandum of April 29, 1994
(Government-to-Government Relations
with Native American Tribal
Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive
Order 13175 (Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments), and the Department of
the Interior’s manual at 512 DM 2, we
readily acknowledge our responsibility
to communicate meaningfully with
recognized Federal Tribes on a
government-to-government basis. In
accordance with Secretarial Order 3206
of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal
Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust
Responsibilities, and the Endangered
Species Act), we readily acknowledge
our responsibilities to work directly
with Tribes in developing programs for
healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that
tribal lands are not subject to the same
controls as Federal public lands, to
remain sensitive to Indian culture, and
to make information available to Tribes.
The populations that were listed as
Kanab ambersnail do not occur on
E:\FR\FM\24JNR1.SGM
24JNR1
33142
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 119 / Thursday, June 24, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
Tribal land. We have determined that
while no Tribes will be directly affected
by this action, the delisting may result
in changes to the flow regime for the
Colorado River in and adjacent to the
Grand Canyon. Several Tribes have an
historic affiliation with the Grand
Canyon and could be affected by flow
changes, should they occur. The
potentially impacted Tribes are the
Chemehuevi, the Colorado River Indian
Tribes, the Hualapai, the Hopi, the
Kaibab Band of Paiute, the San Carlos
Apache, the San Juan Southern Paiute,
the Navajo, and the Zuni. These Tribes
were notified in advance of the
publication of the proposed rule and
have been informed of the finalization
of the delisting.
§ 17.11
References Cited
50 CFR Part 660
A complete list of all references cited
in this rule is available on the internet
at https://www.regulations.gov under
Docket No. FWS–R6–ES–2019–0055 or
upon request from the Utah Ecological
Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
[RTID 0648–XA797]
Authors
The primary authors of this rule are
staff members of the Service’s Utah
Ecological Services Field Office.
The Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, approved this document and
authorized the undersigned to sign and
submit the document to the Office of the
Federal Register for publication
electronically as an official document of
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Martha Williams, Principal Deputy
Director Exercising the Delegated
Authority of the Director, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, approved this
document on June 14, 2021, for
publication.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species,
Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements,
Transportation.
Regulation Promulgation
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Accordingly, we hereby amend part
17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of
the Code of Federal Regulations, as set
forth below:
PART 17—ENDANGERED AND
THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS
1. The authority citation for part 17
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 1531–
1544; and 4201–4245, unless otherwise
noted.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:36 Jun 23, 2021
Jkt 253001
Anissa Craghead,
Acting Regulations and Policy Chief, Division
of Policy, Economics, Risk Management, and
Analytics, Joint Administrative Operations,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2021–13257 Filed 6–23–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333–15–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
Fisheries Off West Coast States;
Coastal Pelagic Species Fisheries;
Amendment 18 to the Coastal Pelagic
Species Fishery Management Plan
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notification of agency decision.
AGENCY:
On June 14, 2021, the
Regional Administrator of the West
Coast Region, NMFS, with the
concurrence of the Assistant
Administrator for Fisheries, approved
Amendment 18 to the Coastal Pelagic
Species Fishery Management Plan.
Amendment 18 implements a rebuilding
plan for the northern subpopulation of
Pacific sardine, which NMFS declared
overfished in June 2019.
DATES: The amendment was approved
on June 14, 2021.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the Coastal
Pelagic Species (CPS) Fishery
Management Plan (FMP) as amended
through Amendment 18, are available at
the Pacific Fishery Management
Council, 7700 NE Ambassador Place,
Suite 101, Portland, OR 97220–1384, or
at this URL; https://www.pcouncil.org/
coastal-pelagic-species/fisherymanagement-plan-and-amendments/.
The final Environmental Assessment
(EA) prepared pursuant to the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for
Amendment 18 is available on NMFS’
website at https://
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/west-coast/
laws-and-policies/west-coast-regionnational-environmental-policy-actdocuments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Lynn Massey, Sustainable Fisheries
Division, NMFS, at lynn.massey@
noaa.gov or 562–436–2462; or Kerry
SUMMARY:
Signing Authority
■
[Amended]
2. Amend § 17.11(h) by removing the
entry for ‘‘Ambersnail, Kanab’’ under
SNAILS from the List of Endangered
and Threatened Wildlife.
■
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Griffin, Pacific Fishery Management
Council, at kerry.griffin@noaa.gov or
503–820–2409.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Amendment 18 expands Section 4.5 of
the CPS FMP to include the rebuilding
plan for Pacific sardine. There are no
implementing regulations associated
with Amendment 18, therefore NMFS
did not promulgate proposed and final
rules to implement this amendment.
NMFS published a Notice of
Availability for Amendment 18 on
March 16, 2021 (86 FR 14401), and
solicited public comments through May
17, 2021. NMFS received five public
comments in support of Amendment 18,
one from a student and four from
prominent fishing industry groups. The
industry groups included the California
Wetfish Producers Association, the West
Coast Pelagic Conservation Group, the
Sportfishing Association of California,
and the West Coast Seafood Processors
Association. NMFS received three
public comments opposing Amendment
18, one from a private citizen and two
from the environmental nongovernmental organization Oceana.
Oceana submitted two letters, one
containing its public comment and the
other containing a list of names that
signed a petition campaigning against
Amendment 18. NMFS summarizes and
responds to the public comments below.
NMFS responded to comments related
to NEPA compliance in the final EA
prepared for Amendment 18 (see
ADDRESSES).
Comment 1: Oceana argues that by
adopting the recommended
management strategy for the rebuilding
plan (Alternative 1 Status Quo
Management) considered in the
supporting EA for Amendment 18 (see
ADDRESSES), NMFS is continuing failed
policies that led to the overfished
determination.
Response: This comment
misunderstands the biology of Pacific
sardine, the structure of the CPS FMP,
and the extraordinary and precautionary
measures that the Council has built into
the framework for managing CPS.
Pacific sardines are well known to
experience dramatic swings in
abundance in response to
environmental conditions, even in the
absence of fishing pressure. The recent
population decline of Pacific sardine
appears to be due to poor recruitment.
Specifically, the Southwest Fisheries
Science Center’s (SWFSC) 2020 stock
assessment states that recruitment has
declined since 2005–2006 except for a
brief period of modest recruitment
success in 2009–2010, with the 2011–
E:\FR\FM\24JNR1.SGM
24JNR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 119 (Thursday, June 24, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 33137-33142]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-13257]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2019-0055; FF09E22000 FXES11130900000 201]
RIN 1018-BD49
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removing the Kanab
Ambersnail From the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are
removing the Kanab ambersnail (Oxyloma haydeni kanabensis) from the
Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. This determination
is based on a thorough review of the best available scientific
information. Our review indicates that the Kanab ambersnail is not a
valid subspecies and therefore cannot be listed as an endangered entity
under the Endangered Species Act.
DATES: This rule is effective July 26, 2021.
ADDRESSES: This final rule, the supporting documents we used in
preparing this rule, and public comments we received are available on
the internet at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-
2019-0055. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf may
call the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Yvette Converse, Field Supervisor,
telephone: 801-975-3330. Direct all questions or requests for
additional information to: Kanab Ambersnail Questions, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service; Utah Ecological Services Field Office; 2369 Orton
Circle, Suite 50; West Valley City, Utah 84119. Persons who use a
telecommunications device for the deaf may call the Federal Relay
Service at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Previous Federal Actions
On November 15, 1991, we proposed to list the Kanab ambersnail as
an endangered species (56 FR 58020). The species' habitat was greatly
reduced in size and the population declined, due to preparations for
anticipated development. On April 17, 1992, we published a final rule
listing the Kanab ambersnail as an endangered species (57 FR 13657),
but as explained in that rule,
[[Page 33138]]
we did not designate critical habitat because we found that designation
would be not prudent due to a danger of over-collection or purposeful
harm or killing of snails if the locations of the snails were made
public on critical habitat maps. On October 12, 1995, we finalized the
Kanab ambersnail recovery plan (Service 1995, entire).
We completed a 5-year review of the species' status in July 2011
(Service 2011, entire). As of the time of the 2011 5-year review,
several genetic studies indicated that at least one of the three
populations identified as the Kanab ambersnail was potentially part of
a different species or subspecies, but we did not consider those
studies alone to be certain enough to recommend delisting at that time
(Miller et al. 2000, p. 8; Stevens et al. 2000, p. 7; Culver et al.
2007, p. 3; Service 2011, pp. 8-9). The subsequent publication of a
larger, more comprehensive study on the genetics of the Kanab
ambersnail and the Oxyloma genus (Culver et al. 2013, entire) resulted
in our proposed rule to delist Kanab ambersnail based on new taxonomic
information indicating that it was not a valid taxon, published in the
Federal Register on January 6, 2020 (85 FR 487). Please refer to that
proposed rule for a more detailed description of the Federal actions
concerning this species that occurred prior to November 26, 2019.
Species Description and Habitat Information
It is our intent to discuss only those topics directly related to
delisting the Kanab ambersnail in this rule. For more information on
the description, biology, ecology, and habitat of the Kanab ambersnail,
please refer to the final listing rule published in the Federal
Register on April 17, 1992 (57 FR 13657); the Kanab ambersnail recovery
plan (Service 1995); the most recent 5-year review for the Kanab
ambersnail completed in July 2011 (Service 2011); or any of the
documents referenced by this rule. The Service documents, personal
communications, and a list of cited literature are available as
supporting materials on https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No.
FWS-R6-ES-2019-0055.
The Kanab ambersnail (Oxyloma haydeni kanabensis) was taxonomically
identified as a terrestrial snail in the family Succineidae. Succineids
are usually referred to as ambersnails due to their mottled grayish-
amber to yellowish-amber colored shells (Sorensen and Nelson 2002, p.
5).
The Kanab ambersnail typically inhabits marshes and other wetlands
watered by springs and seeps at the base of sandstone or limestone
cliffs (Clarke 1991, pp. 28-29; Spamer and Bogan 1993, p. 296; Meretsky
et al. 2002, p. 309). Habitat vegetation can consist of cattail (Typha
domingensis), sedge (Juncus spp.), native crimson monkeyflower (Mimulus
cardinalis), watercress (Nasturtium officinale), native water sedge
(Carex aquatilis), and maidenhair fern (Adiantum capillus-veneris) (57
FR 13657, April 17, 1992; Stevens et al. 1997, p. 6; Sorensen 2005, p.
3). The Kanab ambersnail often inhabits dead and decaying litter and
live stems of plants (Service 2011, p. 11).
When the Kanab ambersnail was listed, we knew of two populations in
Utah (Three Lakes and Kanab Creek Canyon) and one population in Arizona
(Vasey's Paradise) (57 FR 13657, April 17, 1992). The Kanab Creek
Canyon population in Utah was extirpated by 1991, after dewatering of
the seep for livestock use severely reduced the available habitat.
Kanab ambersnails were last found there in 1990, when three individuals
were identified (Service 2011, p. 12). Currently, there are two
naturally occurring populations of Kanab ambersnails (Vasey's Paradise
in Arizona, and Three Lakes in Utah) and one introduced population
(Upper Elves Canyon in Arizona) established with individuals
translocated from Vasey's Paradise (Service 2011, p. 6).
The Vasey's Paradise population was discovered in 1991 (Spamer and
Bogan 1993, p. 47). Vasey's Paradise is a riverside spring located
approximately 33 miles (mi) (53 kilometers (km)) downstream of Lee's
Ferry on the Colorado River, in Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona
(Spamer and Bogan 1993, p. 37). Occupied and potential habitat at
Vasey's Paradise is 9,041 square feet (ft\2\) (840 square meters
(m\2\)) (Service 1995, p. ii). The population is protected by National
Park Service regulations and the presence of poison ivy, which deters
visitors (Stevens et al. 1997, p. 12; Sorensen 2016, pers. comm.).
Monitoring of the Vasey's Paradise population from 2007 to present
has relied on timed counts of live snails observed among the
traditionally sampled vegetation patches. The timed count sampling
provides a catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE) estimate of relative abundance
of the snails in each survey. Over the past decade, there have been
seasonal and annual variations in CPUE estimates of the Vasey's
Paradise population. Overall the relative abundance of this Kanab
ambersnail population has declined substantially from the levels
observed in the late 1990s and prior to 2002, when drought conditions
and reduced spring flow became particularly severe (Sorensen 2015, p.
10; Sorensen 2020, p. 1). This decline has continued since 2011
(Sorensen 2015, p. 10; Sorensen 2020, p. 1).
The most recent population estimate is from 2002, which estimated
3,124 individuals and noted that population numbers could be highly
variable from year to year (Gloss et al. 2005, p. 3). Fourteen
individuals were collected in 2008, for genetic analysis (Culver et al.
2013, p. 7). A survey in 2016 found only one snail, but search
conditions were difficult and time was limited (Sorensen 2016, pers.
comm.).
The Three Lakes population is a series of small ponds on private
land approximately 6 mi (10 km) northwest of Kanab, Utah (Clarke 1991,
p. 28; Service 1995, p. 3). Occupied and potential habitat is
approximately 4.94 acres (ac) (2 hectares (ha)) (Service 1995, p. 3).
Available habitat is wet meadow and marsh. The habitat was greatly
reduced in size and the population declined beginning in 1991, due to
preparations for anticipated development, which resulted in the
original emergency listing (57 FR 13657, April 17, 1992). The
development anticipated at the time of listing has not occurred, and
Kanab ambersnails were found there in 2008 (Culver et al. 2013, p. 6)
and 2016 (Sorensen 2016, pers. comm.).
A timed count survey of the Three Lakes population was conducted in
early October 2011 by Service, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, and
Arizona Fish and Game Department biologists. The Three Lakes Kanab
ambersnail population was robust with a CPUE estimate of 10.47 snails
per 10 minutes searched (Sorensen 2011, p. 14). In 2016, the land was
sold to Best Friends Animal Sanctuary, which has expressed a
willingness to preserve the habitat. A followup survey of the Three
Lakes Kanab ambersnail population was conducted by the same partners in
early May 2017, with an estimated CPUE of 158.75 snails per 10 minutes
searched (Sorensen 2017, pers. comm.).
Upper Elves Canyon is located approximately 83 mi (134 km)
downstream of Vasey's Paradise on the Colorado River, in Grand Canyon
National Park, Arizona (Sorensen 2016, p. 1). Occupied and potential
habitat is adjacent to a perennial seep and is 1,068 ft\2\ (99.2 m\2\)
(Sorensen 2005, p. 3). This population is protected by National Park
Service regulations, as well as by its inaccessibility (Service 2011,
p. 7). This population was established by the Arizona Fish and Game
Department between 1998 and 2002, by
[[Page 33139]]
translocating 340 individuals from the Vasey's Paradise population.
Since 2005, this population has been considered self-sustaining with an
estimated population of approximately 700 individuals (Sorensen 2005,
p. 9). Between 2009 and 2015, timed count surveys of the translocated
population at Upper Elves Chasm were conducted by Arizona Game and Fish
Department, National Park Service biologists, and volunteers. Surveys
over this timeframe documented a small but relatively stable Kanab
ambersnail population at the site, with CPUE estimates between 0.85 to
4.15 snails per 10 minutes searched (Sorensen 2015, p. 12).
Taxonomy
Kanab ambersnails were first collected in 1909, by James Ferriss
from an area called ``The Greens,'' a vegetated seep approximately 6 mi
(10 km) north of Kanab in Kanab Creek Canyon, Utah (57 FR 13657, April
17, 1992; Service 1995, p. 2). However, ambersnails have not been found
at the type locality since 1991 (Meretsky et al. 2002, p. 314; Culver
et al. 2013, p. 6).
The snails collected by James Ferriss in 1909 were initially placed
in the species Succinea hawkinisi, but Pilsbry (1948, p. 797) placed
them in Oxyloma and created the subspecies kanabensis under the species
haydeni (57 FR 13657, April 17, 1992). The subspecies kanabensis
classification was considered to be temporary at the time, and the
author recommended that the taxonomic status be reconsidered in the
future (Pilsbry 1948, p. 798; Clarke 1991, p. 23; 57 FR 13657, April
17, 1992).
We have assessed all available genetic information for the Kanab
ambersnail (Miller et al. 2000, entire; Stevens et al. 2000, entire;
Culver et al. 2013, entire). Since the listing of Kanab ambersnail in
1992 (57 FR 13657; April 17, 1992) and the publication of the Kanab
ambersnail recovery plan in 1995 (Service 1995, entire), several
studies on subspecies distribution, morphological characteristics, and
genetic relationships to other Oxyloma species have been completed. We
briefly describe these studies below. At this time, these studies
represent the best scientific information available in order for us to
analyze the Kanab ambersnail's distribution and taxonomic changes.
Various analyses can be done to determine genetic structure of a
species, including analyses of: (1) Mitochondrial DNA, which is rapidly
evolving and useful to determine recent populations; (2) nuclear
microsatellite DNA, which has high amounts of genetic variation and can
be used to look at populations within a species; (3) nuclear DNA, which
is inherited equally from both parents (unlike mitochondrial DNA, which
is inherited maternally); and (4) amplified fragment length
polymorphisms (AFLP), which are used to sample multiple loci across the
genome.
Miller et al. (2000) used AFLP to determine intra- and inter-
population genetic information for four Oxyloma species in Utah and
Arizona. Among these, two Niobrara ambersnail (Oxyloma haydeni haydeni)
locations were studied at Indian Gardens (Arizona) and Minus Nine Mile
Spring (Arizona), and two Kanab ambersnail populations were studied at
Three Lakes (Utah) and Vasey's Paradise (Arizona) (Miller et al. 2000,
pp. 1845-1946). From this study, the ambersnail population at Three
Lakes appears more closely related to the Niobrara ambersnail
population at Indian Gardens than to the ambersnail population at
Vasey's Paradise (Miller et al. 2000, p. 1852). Upper Elves Canyon was
not included in this study.
Stevens et al. (2000) used mitochondrial DNA and morphological
analysis to distinguish Succineidae (Oxyloma, Catinella, and Succinea)
populations in the United States and Canada. The authors collected over
450 samples from seven U.S. States and Canadian provinces, including
from 63 different populations or locations of snails (Stevens et al.
2000, p. 4). Determining Oxyloma species based on morphology was shown
to be inaccurate (Stevens et al. 2000, pp. 4-5, 42). Vasey's Paradise
did not cluster with the Three Lakes ambersnail population or the two
sampled Niobrara ambersnail populations, leading the authors to suggest
Vasey's Paradise might represent a unique species (Stevens et al. 2000,
p. 41). However, a later, more comprehensive study found that Vasey's
Paradise clustered closely enough with samples from other surrounding
Oxyloma populations for them all to be considered part of the same
Oxyloma species (Culver et al. 2013, p. 57).
In this most recent and detailed peer-reviewed study, ambersnails
were collected from 12 locations in Arizona and Utah, with each
location providing at least 14 ambersnail specimens (Culver et al.
2013, p. 5). Samples consisted of Kanab ambersnail, Niobrara
ambersnail, blunt ambersnail (Oxyloma retusum), undescribed species of
Oxyloma, and individuals from Catinella (used to provide an outgroup
comparison) (Culver et al. 2013, p. 6). This study included samples
from all three extant populations identified as Kanab ambersnail.
Between the Oxyloma populations, shell morphology did not have the
variation usually associated with different species, leading the
authors to state that none of the 12 populations sampled was
reproductively isolated from the others (Culver et al. 2013, p. 52).
This information supports the finding that the three populations
identified as Kanab ambersnail do not alone comprise a discrete taxon.
Genetic results indicated that there was gene flow among all the
populations sampled, most likely due to short- or long-distance
dispersals from other populations (Culver et al. 2013, p. 57).
Additionally, Kanab ambersnail samples from Vasey's Paradise did not
cluster with the other two Kanab ambersnail populations (Culver et al.
2013, pp. 51, 55). The authors concluded that the three populations of
Kanab ambersnail are not a valid subspecies of Oxyloma haydeni and
should instead be considered part of the same taxa as the ambersnails
from the eight other populations of Oxyloma in Utah and Arizona that
were sampled for comparison (Culver et al. 2013, entire). This study
declined to positively identify a species-level taxon for these 11
populations of ambersnail, due to lack of genetic information on the
genus (Culver et al. 2013). The primary author stated later that her
expert opinion was they should all, including those previously
identified as Kanab ambersnail, be considered Niobrara ambersnail
(Oxyloma hadenyi) (Culver 2016, pers. comm.). The authors stated that
specimens from the type locality of the Niobrara ambersnail in Nebraska
could be examined for comparison to verify this conclusion (Franzen
1964, p. 73; Culver et al. 2013, p. 57; Culver 2016, pers. comm.), but
to date, no such analysis has been done.
The above-described Culver et al. (2013) study was released as a
United States Geological Survey (USGS) Scientific Investigations
Report, and the review approach was similar to that of manuscripts
published by scientific journals. The report was initially reviewed by
five reviewers and required subsequent revision. The report received an
additional review following revision due to the complex subject matter.
The response to reviewer comments and subsequent revised manuscript
were reviewed by another independent geneticist to ensure that the
author adequately addressed issues and comments brought up by reviewers
(Sorensen 2014, pers. comm.). The subsequent revision that occurred
after 2011 resulted in more genetic information added to the final 2013
manuscript, which further substantiated
[[Page 33140]]
the authors' findings (Sorensen 2014, pers. comm). As a result, we have
a high level of confidence in the results of the Culver et al. (2013)
genetic study.
For the Kanab ambersnail to be considered a distinct subspecies,
nuclear and mitochondrial DNA tests should show that the three
populations cluster together when compared to other populations of
ambersnails (Culver et al. 2013, p. 55). However, the Vasey's Paradise
population does not cluster with the other two Kanab ambersnail
populations and the degree of variation shown in Vasey's Paradise from
the other populations is not unique enough to constitute a subspecies
on its own, as it shares markers with several nearby populations of
non-listed Oxyloma snails (Stevens et al. 2000, p. 41; Culver et al.
2013, pp. 55-57).
The genetic uniqueness in Vasey's Paradise may be attributable to
flooding, which can erode away ideal vegetation or habitat, leaving
only a few individuals able to survive and reestablish the population
at that site, creating genetic bottlenecks. Genetic diversity at these
types of sites will often be lower than at sites that have experienced
short- or long-distance dispersals (Culver et al. 2013, p. 55).
Furthermore, ambersnails have the ability to self-reproduce, allowing
for colonization of new areas by only one individual. This ability may
explain how many genetically distinct populations of Oxyloma developed
in a relatively short time period (Culver et al. 2013, p. 56). At least
one or more bottleneck events in the past, likely due to flooding,
caused unusual population genetic events (Culver et al. 2013, p. 55).
Overall, these studies show that shell morphology and anatomical
characteristics that were once considered diagnostic do not alone
reliably correspond with the results from genetic analyses of
Succineidae snails (Hoagland and Davis 1987, p. 519; Pigati et al.
2010, p. 523). Samples originally identified as different species or
subspecies based on physical differences are consistently found to be
related closely enough to qualify as members of the same species based
on genetic studies (Culver et al. 2013, entire; Miller et al. 2000,
entire; Stevens et al. 2000, entire). Traditionally, shell morphology,
such as their slender and drawn-out spire and short shell aperture, was
used to distinguish the Kanab ambersnail from other members of Oxyloma
(Pilsbry 1948, pp. 797-798). However, shell shape can vary as much
within a population as within a species (Hoagland and Davis 1987, p.
519). Therefore, it is important to consider other factors such as
genetics, anatomy, and habitat to determine a species within Oxyloma
(Hoagland and Davis 1987, p. 519; Sorensen and Nelson 2002, p. 5).
In addition to shell morphology, reproductive anatomy (phallus
shape) was previously a main determining factor of the Oxyloma genus
(Miller et al. 2000, p. 1853). However, anatomical descriptions used to
classify the Kanab ambersnail had no quantifying factors, such as
prostate gland length, and soft tissues were difficult to measure
objectively (Pilsbry 1948, p. 798; Culver et al. 2013, pp. 52-53). It
is difficult to achieve standard anatomical measurements with
repeatability because of the flexibility and elasticity of soft tissues
(Culver et al. 2013, p. 18). Overall, anatomical characteristics have
been found to vary greatly within Oxyloma (Culver et al. 2013, p. 52).
There have been at least two instances when a species of snail was
placed in the wrong genus due to relying solely on the reproductive
anatomy (Johnson et al. 1986, p. 105; Miller et al. 2000, p. 1853). In
another case, variation in anatomical structure was found in the blunt
ambersnail, leading the authors to conclude that the species was not
restricted geographically as initially believed (Franzen 1963, p. 94).
Previous Oxyloma studies have used only one or two specimens to
determine the species' taxonomic status, which makes it difficult to
properly assess the true status (Hoagland and Davis 1987, p. 515).
Standards for quantifying anatomy are minimal and not descriptive
enough, with the use of such words as small, medium, and large, which
are vague terms and not measurable (Hoagland and Davis 1987, p. 478).
Anatomical characteristics should not be the only factor to determine a
species within Oxyloma, even with an understanding of the individual
and geographical variation (Franzen 1963, p. 83). Variation between
populations, anatomical differences among individuals, overlapping
habitat, and minimal repeatability with measurements of anatomical
features make it difficult to rely on anatomical descriptions to
determine species classification (Franzen 1964, p. 80; Sorensen and
Nelson 2002, pp. 4-5). Overall, reproductive anatomy is likely not a
good species indicator in snails; instead, genetic relationships
provide the most reliable method of classifying taxa.
In summary, these analyses present multiple interpretations of the
taxonomy of the Kanab ambersnail, none of which correlates to that of
our original listing. Although the exact taxonomy of the genus Oxyloma
and its constituent species remains uncertain, it is clear that the
populations designated as the Kanab ambersnail do not make up, together
or separately, a valid subspecies. The 1992 final listing rule for the
Kanab ambersnail (57 FR 13657; April 17, 1992) relied on the best
available information at the time, and included only snails found in
Vasey's Paradise in Arizona and Three Lakes and Kanab Creek in Utah.
This situation has changed with the addition of the 2013 genetic study
of the Oxyloma genus in Utah and Arizona (Culver et al. 2013, entire).
The various published and unpublished genetics reports described
above offer different conclusions about how Succineid snails should be
classified, particularly within the genus Oxyloma. However, none of the
genetic studies provides support for Oxyloma haydeni kanabensis as a
valid subspecies. Additionally, available genetic evidence suggests
that at least one population identified as Kanab ambersnail is more
closely related to other nearby Oxyloma populations than it is to the
other two Kanab ambersnail populations.
Therefore, we are delisting the Kanab ambersnail due to new
taxonomic information that indicates that it is not a valid taxon,
based on the best available science. The currently listed entity for
the Kanab ambersnail, restricted to Vasey's Paradise and Upper Elves
Canyon, Arizona, and Three Lakes, Utah, is not a valid taxonomic
subspecies. We are unable to evaluate the populations identified as the
Kanab ambersnail relative to the larger entity because the larger
entity has not yet been defined from a taxonomic perspective. If we had
additional updated information available about the taxonomy of the
Oxyloma genus, we would conduct a status assessment of the larger
entity, but in this case we do not have enough information to conduct
that analysis. We do not consider the absence of information on the
larger taxonomy of a group to be sufficient reason to keep an invalid
subspecies listed as endangered.
Summary of Comments and Recommendations
In the proposed rule published in the Federal Register on January
6, 2020 (85 FR 487), we requested that all interested parties submit
written comments on our proposal to delist the Kanab ambersnail by
March 6, 2020. We also contacted appropriate Federal and State
agencies, scientific experts and organizations, and other interested
parties and invited them to comment on the proposal.
[[Page 33141]]
Newspaper notices inviting general public comment were published in the
Salt Lake Tribune and Saint George News. We did not receive any
requests for a public hearing. All substantive information provided
during the comment period was either incorporated directly into this
final rule or is addressed below.
Peer Reviewer Comments
In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the
Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270) and our August 22, 2016
memorandum updating and clarifying the role of peer review of listing
actions under the Act (USFWS 2016, entire), we solicited expert opinion
from seven knowledgeable individuals with scientific expertise and
familiarity with the Kanab ambersnail, its habitat, its taxonomy, its
biological needs and potential threats, or principles of conservation
biology. We received responses from five peer reviewers. The purpose of
peer review is to ensure that our listing determinations are based on
scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analyses.
We reviewed and addressed all comments we received from the peer
reviewers for substantive issues and new information regarding the
proposed delisting of the Kanab ambersnail. The peer reviewers provided
additional information, clarifications, and suggestions to improve the
final rule, which we include in this rule or address in the responses
to comments below. One of the reviewers expressed support for the
proposed action. The other four did not state support or opposition to
the proposed changes. All reviewers found that, with their suggested
changes: The proposed rule was accurate; we provided adequate analysis
to support our proposed determination; there were no significant
oversights, omissions, or inconsistencies; our conclusions were logical
and supported by the evidence provided; and we included all pertinent
literature to support our arguments, assumptions, and conclusions.
All changes suggested by reviewers were incorporated into the text
of this final rule. Such changes include additional details of
population monitoring at all populations, an explanation of the
rigorous review process for USGS reports, and a clarification on how
shell morphology supports the conclusions in the Culver et al. 2013
study. Other minor editorial clarifications and corrections were also
made based on peer reviewer comments.
Public Comments
We received seven letters from the public that provided comments on
the proposed rule. Two of the commenters expressed their support for
the proposed delisting and corroborated information we supplied in the
rule. Four commenters expressed their opposition to it. Of these four,
none presented substantive information to support their opposition. In
all cases, the opposition was based on the importance of protecting
rare species and ecosystems. While we agree that protecting rare
species and the habitats in which they occur is important, it is not a
relevant factor in this determination because Kanab ambersnail is not a
valid taxon and is being delisted on that basis.
One commenter provided some additional historical background
regarding the naming and sampling of certain ambersnail sites mentioned
in the proposed rule, but stated that this information did not affect
the validity of the proposed action. We agree and thank the commenter
for the additional detail and have added it to the record, but do not
include it in our final rule as it does not impact our conclusions on
taxonomy.
Delisting Determination
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing
regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for listing,
reclassifying, or removing species from the Federal Lists of Endangered
and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. ``Species'' is defined by the Act
as including any species or subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants,
and any distinct population segment of vertebrate fish or wildlife that
interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). We may delist a species
according to 50 CFR 424.11(e) if the best available scientific and
commercial data indicate that: (1) The species is extinct; (2) the
species does not meet the definition of an endangered or a threatened
species; or (3) the listed entity does not meet the statutory
definition of a species.
For the Kanab ambersnail, we conclude that the existing best
available scientific information demonstrates that Oxyloma haydeni
kanabensis does not represent a valid taxonomic entity and, therefore,
does not meet the definition of ``species'' as defined in section 3(16)
of the Act. Therefore, Oxyloma haydeni kanabensis no longer warrants
listing under the Act. The Kanab ambersnail does not require a post-
delisting monitoring plan because the requirements for a monitoring
plan do not apply to species that are delisted for not meeting the
statutory definition of a species.
Effects of This Rule
This rule revises 50 CFR 17.11(h) to remove the Kanab ambersnail
from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. Because no
critical habitat was ever designated for this subspecies, this rule
does not affect 50 CFR 17.95.
The prohibitions and conservation measures provided by the Act no
longer apply to the snail previously identified as the Kanab
ambersnail. Interstate commerce, import, and export of the snails
previously identified as the Kanab ambersnail are not prohibited under
the Act. In addition, Federal agencies are no longer required to
consult under section 7 of the Act on actions that may affect the
snails previously identified as Kanab ambersnail or their habitat.
Required Determinations
National Environmental Policy Act
We have determined that environmental assessments and environmental
impact statements, as defined under the authority of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not be
prepared in connection with regulations pursuant to section 4(a) of the
Act. We published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination
in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).
Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994
(Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal
Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments), and the Department of the
Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with
Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights,
Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act),
we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with
Tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge
that tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal
public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make
information available to Tribes.
The populations that were listed as Kanab ambersnail do not occur
on
[[Page 33142]]
Tribal land. We have determined that while no Tribes will be directly
affected by this action, the delisting may result in changes to the
flow regime for the Colorado River in and adjacent to the Grand Canyon.
Several Tribes have an historic affiliation with the Grand Canyon and
could be affected by flow changes, should they occur. The potentially
impacted Tribes are the Chemehuevi, the Colorado River Indian Tribes,
the Hualapai, the Hopi, the Kaibab Band of Paiute, the San Carlos
Apache, the San Juan Southern Paiute, the Navajo, and the Zuni. These
Tribes were notified in advance of the publication of the proposed rule
and have been informed of the finalization of the delisting.
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited in this rule is available
on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R6-
ES-2019-0055 or upon request from the Utah Ecological Services Field
Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Authors
The primary authors of this rule are staff members of the Service's
Utah Ecological Services Field Office.
Signing Authority
The Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, approved this
document and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document
to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as
an official document of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Martha
Williams, Principal Deputy Director Exercising the Delegated Authority
of the Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, approved this document
on June 14, 2021, for publication.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we hereby amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I,
title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS
0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245, unless
otherwise noted.
Sec. 17.11 [Amended]
0
2. Amend Sec. 17.11(h) by removing the entry for ``Ambersnail, Kanab''
under SNAILS from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.
Anissa Craghead,
Acting Regulations and Policy Chief, Division of Policy, Economics,
Risk Management, and Analytics, Joint Administrative Operations, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-13257 Filed 6-23-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
