[Federal Register: October 24, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 207)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 63421-63424]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr24oc08-29]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[FWS-R8-ES-2008-0112; MO 9221050083-B2]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on
a Petition To List the Sacramento Valley Tiger Beetle as Endangered
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition finding.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a
90-day finding on a petition to list the Sacramento Valley tiger beetle
(Cicindela hirticollis abrupta) as threatened or endangered under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We find that the
petition does not present substantial scientific or commercial
information indicating that listing the Sacramento Valley tiger beetle
may be warranted. Therefore, we will not be initiating a further status
review in response to this petition. However, we ask the public to
submit to us any new information that becomes available concerning the
status of, or threats to, the Sacramento Valley tiger beetle or its
habitat at any time.
DATES: The finding announced in this document was made on October 24,
2008.
ADDRESSES: This finding is available on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov. Supporting documentation we used in preparing this
finding is available for public inspection, by appointment, during
normal business hours at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento
Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2800 Cottage
Way, Room W-2605, Sacramento, CA 95825-1846. Please submit any new
information, materials, comments, or questions concerning this finding
to the above address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Moore, Field Supervisor, or
Arnold Roessler, Listing Branch Chief, of the Sacramento Fish and
Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES), by telephone at (916) 414-6600, or by
facsimile to (916) 414-6712. If you use a telecommunications device for
the deaf (TDD), please call the Federal Information Relay Service
(FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires that we make a finding
on whether a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species presents
substantial scientific or commercial information to indicate that the
petitioned action may be warranted. We are to base this finding on
information provided in the petition, supporting information submitted
with the petition, and information otherwise available in our files at
the time we make the determination. To the maximum extent practicable,
we are to make this finding within 90 days of our receipt of the
petition, and publish our notice of the finding promptly in the Federal
Register.
Our standard for substantial information within the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) with regard to a 90-day petition finding is ``that
amount of information that would lead a reasonable person to believe
that the measure proposed in the petition may be warranted'' (50 CFR
424.14(b)). If we find that substantial information was presented, we
are required to promptly commence a review of the status of the
species.
We base this finding on information provided by the petitioner that
we determined to be reliable after reviewing sources referenced in the
petition and information available in our files at the time of the
petition review. We evaluated that information in accordance with 50
CFR 424.14(b). Our process for making this 90-day finding under section
4(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 50 CFR 424.14(b) of our regulations is
limited to a determination of whether the information in the petition
meets the ``substantial information'' threshold.
Petition History
On May 14, 2003, we received a petition, dated May 13, 2003, from
Mr. John Mendoza of Chico, California, requesting we emergency list the
Sacramento Valley tiger beetle as an endangered species. The petition
clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite
identification information
[[Page 63422]]
of the petitioner required at 50 CFR 424.14(a). In our July 9, 2003,
response letter to Mr. Mendoza, we explained that we had reviewed the
petition and determined that an emergency listing was not warranted,
and that due to court orders and judicially approved settlement
agreements, we would not be able to further address the petition to
list the Sacramento Valley tiger beetle at that time, but would
complete the action when workload and funding allowed. This finding
addresses the petition.
Previous Federal Actions
We had included the Sacramento Valley tiger beetle as a candidate
(Category 2) for Federal listing as either threatened or endangered in
the 1994 Candidate Notice of Review (CNOR) (59 FR 58981, November 15,
1994, p. 59014). Category 2 status included those taxa for which
information in the Service's possession indicated that a proposed
listing rule was possibly appropriate, but for which sufficient data on
biological vulnerability and threats were not available to support a
proposed rule. In the CNOR published on February 28, 1996, we announced
a revised list of animal and plant taxa that were regarded as
candidates for possible addition to the Lists of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife and Plants (61 FR 7595). The revised candidate list
included only former Category 1 species. All former Category 2 species
were dropped from the list in order to reduce confusion about the
conservation status of these species, and to clarify that the Service
no longer regarded these species as candidates for listing. Because the
Sacramento Valley tiger beetle was a Category 2 species, it was no
longer recognized as a candidate species as of the February 28, 1996,
CNOR.
Species Information
Subspecies Description
The Sacramento Valley tiger beetle is one of 11 recognized
subspecies of the hairy-necked tiger beetle (Cicindela hirticollis), so
called because of the small white hairs on the side of the thorax (the
middle of three body sections in insects) (Pearson et al. 2006, p. 71).
Hairy-necked tiger beetles are medium-sized beetles approximately 10 to
15 millimeters (mm) (0.4 to 0.6 inches (in)) long, with cream-colored
maculations (spots and squiggles) on their wing covers (elytra).
The Sacramento Valley tiger beetle is distinguished most easily by
its dark blackish-brown background color, and by the two G-shaped
maculations at the front of the elytra (Pearson et al. 2006, p. 72).
These maculations tend to be strongly hooked, and separate from a line
running along the outer elytral edge. The Sacramento Valley tiger
beetle was first described as a subspecies in 1913 (Casey 1913, p. 31),
and its subspecies status was confirmed by Graves et al. in 1988
(Graves et al. 1988, pp. 660-661).
Distribution
The petition did not provide any information on the Sacramento
Valley tiger beetle's distribution or life history. However, from
information in our files, we know that although the hairy-necked tiger
beetle is distributed widely across North America, the Sacramento
Valley tiger beetle is only known from five locations in the Sacramento
Valley of California (Knisley 2004, p. 8, fig. 1, table 1; Pearson et
al. 2006, p. 74; CNDDB 2007, pp. 1-5). Three of the five locations are
in or near the cities of: Colusa, in Colusa County; Nicolaus, in Sutter
County; and Davis, in Yolo County. A fourth location is along the
Feather River, about 6 miles (10 kilometers) southwest of Nicolaus, in
Sutter County. The fifth location does not appear in the California
Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), but is supported by various
collection specimens examined by Knisley (2004, p. 8, table 1). The
specimens were variously labeled ``Sacramento'' and ``Sacramento,
west'', and so may come from either the City of Sacramento, in
Sacramento County, or West Sacramento, in Yolo County. Knisley stated
they were probably from West Sacramento (Knisley 2004, p. 8, fig. 1),
but he also indicated they may have come from Discovery Park, which is
in the city of Sacramento (Knisley 2004, p. 8).
The CNDDB lists the Nicolaus site as historically supporting the
largest known population, with over 250 individuals seen in 1984, but
it is difficult to make comparisons since population estimates for
other sites were not recorded (Knisley 2004, table 1; CNDDB 2007, pp.
1-5). The Nicolaus site has also provided the majority of collection
records (19 of 29), and was the location of the subspecies' last known
siting on April 14, 1984 (Knisley 2004, p. 8, table 1; CNDDB 2007, pp.
1-5). Existing records for other sites are much older, ranging from May
1918 in ``Sacramento,'' to April 1959 at the site 6 miles (10
kilometers) southwest of Nicolaus (Knisley 2004, table 1).
Habitat and Life History
Although there is essentially no literature on the specific biology
of the Sacramento Valley tiger beetle, the hairy-necked tiger beetle
species as a whole lives on sandy soils near water, including sandy
riverbanks and sand bars (Graves et al. 1988, p. 647; Knisley 2004, p.
5; Knisley and Fenster 2005, p. 451). In relatively warmer areas of
North America, including Virginia and presumably in California's
Sacramento Valley, eggs are laid in early spring, and the grublike
larvae hatch and pass through three molts prior to becoming adults in
late summer (Knisley 2004, p. 6). Beginning in late September to mid-
October, the adults overwinter in burrows they dig in the sand. They
then re-emerge in early spring to mate and lay eggs (Knisley 2004, pp.
5, 6). They are not known to live through two winters as adults,
although subspecies living in colder areas may overwinter their first
year as larvae and overwinter a second year as adults. Both adults and
larvae are predatory and feed on small arthropods such as ants, flies,
and spiders (Knisley 2004, p. 6; Pearson et al. 2006, pp. 7, 8). Larvae
dig burrows in the sand from which they ambush passing prey (Pearson et
al. 2006, pp. 8, 9). Adults hunt during the day, running down prey
items by sight and catching them with their large mandibles. They may
also scavenge on dead organisms (Fenster and Knisley 2006, p. 2).
Status of the Species
The petition cites a February 2003 final draft report to the
Service on the status of the Sacramento Valley tiger beetle as reported
by Dr. C. Barry Knisley (Knisley 2003, pp. 1-19 plus appendices). The
status review cited by the petition indicates that only three
Sacramento Valley tiger beetles were found during comprehensive surveys
of historically occupied sites and potential habitat within the
subspecies' known range. However, a subsequently revised draft of the
report (2004 revised report) explains that the surveys did not in fact
find any Sacramento Valley tiger beetles, and concludes that the
Sacramento Valley tiger beetle ``must now be extinct from throughout
its former range along the Feather and Sacramento Rivers and from other
areas of potential range'' (Knisley 2004, p. 10). Knisley explains in
the 2004 revised report (Knisley 2004, p. 10), that the three
``Sacramento Valley tiger beetles'' previously reported were actually
Cicindela hirticollis gravida collected at Point Reyes, California, and
mistakenly placed by a colleague in a vial containing C. oregona tiger
beetles from Nicolaus, California.
Knisley (2004, pp. 9-10) concluded the Sacramento Valley tiger
beetle is extinct based on 4 years of surveys
[[Page 63423]]
(2001 to 2004) conducted during months and times when the adults should
have been active (May to October). The surveys included all potential
sites within the Sacramento Valley tiger beetle's known historic range,
as well as many additional sites outside the subspecies' known range
that contained the necessary habitat characteristics. The areas
surveyed included stream reaches of the Kings River in Tulare, Kings,
and Fresno Counties; San Joaquin River in Fresno, Madera, Stanislaus,
San Joaquin, Sacramento, and Contra Costa Counties; American River in
Sacramento County; Yuba River in Yuba County; Feather River in Yuba and
Sutter Counties; and the Sacramento River in Shasta, Tehama, Glenn,
Colusa, Sutter, Yolo, Sacramento, and Solano Counties. River sections
deemed most likely to still support Sacramento Valley tiger beetles
(based on remaining habitat and historic population locations) were
surveyed four to six times each over 4 years. Over 150 different sites
were surveyed from 2001 to 2004, including 130 sites in 2003-2004.
Survey methods and conclusions were also published in a peer-reviewed
journal (Knisley and Fenster 2005). Because the sandy shoreline habitat
preferred by Sacramento Valley tiger beetles was easily identified and
searched, there is a high likelihood the surveys would have accounted
for year-to-year variation in population numbers and would have found
Sacramento Valley tiger beetles had any remained extant. Knisley and
Fenster (2005, p. 451) estimated the subspecies probably went extinct
in the late 1980s to early 1990s.
Based on the best scientific information available, the most likely
cause of the Sacramento Valley tiger beetle's extinction is habitat
change brought about by construction of Oroville and Shasta dams
(Knisley 2003, p. 15; Knisley 2004, p. 24; Knisley and Fenster 2005, p.
456; Fenster and Knisley 2006, pp. 19-20). Flow alterations established
by these dams likely led to the gradual loss of fine-grained shoreline
habitat due to reduction of sediment transport, reduced variability in
water flow, and resulting increases to vegetation growth along the
water's edge. Due to these factors, relatively little suitable habitat
now remains along the Feather and Sacramento rivers within the
Sacramento Valley tiger beetle's historic range (Knisley and Fenster
2005, p. 456). Flow releases are also likely to have resulted in
prolonged flooding of large areas of remaining, suitable habitat,
drowning larvae in their burrows during summer months, and adults in
their overwintering burrows during the winter (Fenster and Knisley
2006, p. 19). Both larvae and adults have adapted to short periods of
immersion, such as might have resulted from heavy flows prior to dam
construction, but C. hirticollis larvae will die after 4 to 8 days of
immersion, and may simply dig out of their burrows prior to that, to be
swept away by the flow (Knisley 2004, p. 19; Fenster and Knisley 2006,
p. 20). Adults survive only a few days of immersion (Fenster and
Knisley 2006, p. 20), although it is unclear to what extent an
overwintering adult would be able to simply move to higher ground
(Knisley 2004, p. 22).
Additional habitat loss has been caused by riprapping and
channelization, particularly in the Sacramento River south of Colusa
(Knisley 2003, p. 14; Knisley 2004, p. 25; Knisley and Fenster 2005, p.
456). The ``Davis'' occurrence, which likely was actually west of Davis
along Putah Creek (Knisley 2004, p. 8), would not have been affected by
the construction of Shasta or Oroville dams, but would have been
subjected to similar losses of sandy shoreline habitat due to the
construction of Monticello dam in 1957 (Knisley 2004, p. 28; USBR 2007,
p. 1). Some suitable sandy river edge habitat may remain at the site of
the ``Sacramento'' occurrence, assuming that site to be Discovery Park
(Knisley 2004, p. 8), but that habitat is heavily impacted by human
foot traffic and would therefore be largely unsuitable for Sacramento
Valley tiger beetles.
Species Status Summary: Stream flow management through the
construction of dams and streambank alteration through channelization
and riprapping has posed a serious threat to the Sacramento Valley
tiger beetle by causing habitat destruction, alteration, and inundation
of historic and other suitable habitat for the subspecies. Extensive
survey efforts of areas with known populations and other areas with
suitable habitat have been unable to locate any extant populations of
the Sacramento Valley tiger beetle. As a result of these survey
efforts, the Sacramento Valley tiger beetle is believed to be extinct,
and this likely occurred sometime in the late 1980s or early 1990s.
Although no single factor (dam construction and operation, stream
channelization, levee construction, riprapping, etc.) can be singled
out as the cause for the subspecies' decline, the combination of all
these factors has led to the extinction of this subspecies.
The petition presented information for one of the five listing
factors (Factor A) in section 4 of the Act in an effort to identify
threats that may be leading to the decline of the Sacramento Valley
tiger beetle. However, these factors are pertinent only in cases where
the organism being proposed for listing: May be a listable entity as
defined by section 3(16) of the Act; and is extant in the wild. Because
the information in our files indicates that the Sacramento Valley tiger
beetle is now extinct and, at the time the petition was presented to
the Service, no longer extant in the wild, the five threat factors are
not analyzed here.
Significant Portion of the Range Analysis
We have reviewed the information presented and supported in the
petition and in our files to assess whether there may be any area
within the range of the subspecies that would be considered a
significant portion of its range. Because the information in our files
indicates that the Sacramento Valley tiger beetle to be extinct, an
analysis of what might constitute a significant portion of the
subspecies' range is not applicable.
Finding
The petition focused entirely on threats posed by Factor A (habitat
alterations), arguing that riprapping, channelization, and inopportune
water releases from Oroville and Shasta dams altered the beetle's
habitat in a manner that threatens or endangers the subspecies. All
available evidence indicates that the subspecies is extinct, and most
likely this occurred in the late 1980s or early 1990s, approximately a
decade before the petition to list was submitted to the Service. The
Act and our regulations define an ``endangered species'' to mean a
species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range (16 U.S.C. 1532(6) and 50 CFR 424.02(e)).
Similarly, a ``threatened species'' is defined as any species that is
likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range (16 U.S.C.
1532(20) and 50 CFR 424.02(m)). Because the Sacramento Valley tiger
beetle is extinct, it therefore is not eligible for listing as an
endangered or threatened species under the Act.
We have reviewed the petition and supporting information provided
with the petition and evaluated that information in relation to other
pertinent literature and information available to us at the time of the
petition review. Because the subspecies is extinct, we also determined
that a significant portion of the range analysis for the subspecies is
not appropriate. Based on this review and evaluation, we
[[Page 63424]]
find that the petition and other available information does not present
substantial information demonstrating that listing the Sacramento
Valley tiger beetle under the Act as threatened or endangered in all or
a significant portion of its range may be warranted at this time. We
encourage interested parties to continue to gather and provide data on
potential occurrence information for the Sacramento Valley tiger
beetle.
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited in this document is
available, upon request, from the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office
(see ADDRESSES).
Author
The primary authors of this notice are staff of Sacramento Fish and
Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2800 Cottage Way,
Sacramento, Ca 95825.
Authority
The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: October 17, 2008.
Kenneth Stansell,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. E8-25403 Filed 10-23-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P