[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 177 (Tuesday, September 13, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 56608-56630]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-23272]
[[Page 56607]]
Vol. 76
Tuesday,
No. 177
September 13, 2011
Part III
Department of the Interior
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish and Wildlife Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a
Petition To List 42 Great Basin and Mojave Desert Springsnails as
Threatened or Endangered With Critical Habitat; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 177 / Tuesday, September 13, 2011 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 56608]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2011-0001; 92210-0-0008-B2]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on
a Petition To List 42 Great Basin and Mojave Desert Springsnails as
Threatened or Endangered With Critical Habitat
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition finding and initiation of status
reviews.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a
90-day finding on a petition to list 42 Great Basin and Mojave Desert
springsnails as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We addressed 3 of the 42 petitioned
species in a 90-day finding dated August 18, 2009, in which we found
that substantial scientific or commercial information was presented
indicating that listing may be warranted for those 3 species. In this
finding, we find that the petition does not present substantial
scientific or commercial information indicating that listing 7 of the
remaining 39 may be warranted. In addition, we find that the petition
presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating
that listing may be warranted for 32 of the remaining 39 species.
Therefore, with the publication of this notice, we are initiating
status reviews of these 32 species to determine if listing is
warranted. To ensure that the status reviews are comprehensive, we are
requesting scientific and commercial data and other information
regarding these 32 species. Based on the status reviews, we will issue
12-month findings on these 32 species, which will address whether the
petitioned actions are warranted, as provided in the Act. If an
emergency situation develops for any of the 42 petitioned species that
warrants emergency listing, we will act immediately to provide
necessary protection.
DATES: To allow us adequate time to conduct the status reviews, we
request that we receive information on or before November 14, 2011.
Please note that if you are using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see
ADDRESSES section, below), the deadline for submitting an electronic
comment is midnight Eastern Daylight Saving Time on this date.
ADDRESSES: You may submit information by one of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In
the box that reads ``Enter Keyword or ID,'' enter the Docket number for
this finding, which is FWS-R8-ES-2011-0001. You should then see an icon
that reads ``Submit a Comment.'' Please ensure that you have found the
correct rulemaking before submitting your comment.
U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing,
Attn: [FWS-R8-ES-2011-0001], Division of Policy and Directives
Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive,
Suite 222, Arlington, VA 22203.
We will post all information we receive on http://www.regulations.gov.
This generally means that we will post any personal information you
provide us (see the ``Request for Information'' section below for more
details).
After November 14, 2011, you must submit information directly to
the Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section below).
Please note that we might not be able to address or incorporate
information that we receive after the above requested date.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jill Ralston, Deputy State Supervisor,
Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1340
Financial Blvd, Suite 234, Reno, NV 89502, by telephone 775-861-6300,
or by facsimile 775-861-6301. If you use a telecommunications device
for the deaf (TDD), please call the Federal Information Relay Service
(FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Request for Information
When we make a finding that a petition presents substantial
information indicating that listing a species may be warranted, we are
required to promptly review the status of the species (status review).
For the status review to be complete and based on the best available
scientific and commercial information, we request information on the 32
springsnail species from governmental agencies, Native American Tribes,
the scientific community, industry, and any other interested parties.
We seek information on:
(1) The species' biology, range, and population trends, including:
(a) Habitat requirements for feeding, breeding, and sheltering;
(b) Genetics and taxonomy;
(c) Historical and current range including distribution patterns;
(d) Historical and current population levels, and current and
projected trends; and
(e) Past and ongoing conservation measures for the species, their
habitat, or both.
(2) The factors that are the basis for making a listing
determination for a species under section 4(a) of the Act (16 U.S.C.
1531 et seq.), which are:
(a) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range;
(b) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes;
(c) Disease or predation;
(d) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(e) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence.
If, after the status review, we determine that listing any of the
32 springsnail species is warranted, we will propose critical habitat
(see definition in section 3(5)(A) of the Act), under section 4 of the
Act, to the maximum extent prudent and determinable at the time we
propose to list the species. Therefore, within the geographical range
currently occupied by each of the 32 springsnail species, we request
data and information on:
(1) What may constitute ``physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species;''
(2) Where these features are currently found; and
(3) Whether any of these features may require special management
considerations or protection.
In addition, we request data and information on ``specific areas
outside the geographical area occupied by the species'' that are
``essential to the conservation of the species.'' Please provide
specific comments and information as to what, if any, critical habitat
you think we should propose for designation if the species is proposed
for listing, and why such habitat meets the requirements of section 4
of the Act.
Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as
scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to
verify any scientific or commercial information you include.
Submissions merely stating support for or opposition to the action
under consideration without providing supporting information, although
noted, will not be considered in making a determination. Section
4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that determinations as to whether any
species is an endangered or threatened species must be made ``solely on
the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.''
[[Page 56609]]
You may submit your information concerning this status review by
one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. If you submit
information via http://www.regulations.gov, your entire submission--
including any personal identifying information--will be posted on the
Web site. If you submit a hardcopy that includes personal identifying
information, you may request at the top of your document that we
withhold this personal identifying information from public review.
However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will
post all hardcopy submissions on http://www.regulations.gov.
Information and supporting documentation that we received and used
in preparing this finding is available for you to review at http://www.regulations.gov, or you may make an appointment during normal
business hours at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Nevada Fish and
Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Background
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)) requires
that we make a finding on whether a petition to list, delist, or
reclassify a species presents substantial scientific or commercial
information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. We
are to base this finding on information provided in the petition,
supporting information submitted with the petition, and information
otherwise available in our files. To the maximum extent practicable, we
are to make this finding within 90 days of our receipt of the petition
and publish our notice of the finding promptly in the Federal Register.
Our standard for substantial scientific or commercial information
within the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) with regard to a 90-day
petition finding is ``that amount of information that would lead a
reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in the petition
may be warranted'' (50 CFR 424.14(b)). If we find that substantial
scientific or commercial information was presented, we are required to
promptly conduct a species status review, which we subsequently
summarize in our 12-month finding.
Petition History
On February 27, 2009, we received a formal petition dated February
17, 2009, from the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), Tierra Curry,
Noah Greenwald, Dr. James Deacon, Don Duff, and the Freshwater Mollusk
Conservation Society (hereinafter referred to as the petitioners),
requesting that we, the Service, list 42 species of Great Basin
springsnails in Nevada, Utah, and California as threatened or
endangered with critical habitat under the Act. The petition clearly
identified itself as a petition and included the appropriate
identification information for the petitioners, as required in 50 CFR
424.14(a).
In an October 19, 2009, letter to the petitioners, we acknowledged
receipt of the petition, and responded that we reviewed the information
presented in the petition and determined that issuing an emergency
regulation temporarily listing the species under section 4(b)(7) of the
Act was not warranted. We also stated that compliance with various
court orders, settlement agreements and other statutory deadlines
required us to expend all of our listing and critical habitat funding
for Fiscal Year 2009; thus, we anticipated making an initial finding in
Fiscal Year 2010. This finding addresses the petition.
Previous Federal Actions
Three of the 42 petitioned springsnail species were addressed in a
separate 90-day finding on a petition to list 206 species in the
midwest and western United States (August 18, 2009; 74 FR 41649); thus,
these three species are not included in this finding. In the finding
dated August 18, 2009, we found substantial scientific or commercial
information was presented indicating that listing may be warranted for
the longitudinal gland pyrg (Pyrgulopsis anguina), Hamlin Valley pyrg
(Pyrgulopsis hamlinensis), and sub-globose snake pyrg (Pyrgulopsis
saxatilis). Therefore, this finding addresses the remaining 39
springsnail species from the petition dated February 17, 2009.
On December 14, 2009, one of the petitioners, CBD, filed a 60-day
notice of intent to sue indicating that the Service failed to comply
with its mandatory duty to make a preliminary 90-day finding on the
petition to list these 42 springsnail species, as well as findings for
numerous other species. On April 26, 2010, CBD amended its complaint in
Center for Biological Diversity v. Salazar, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Case No.: 1:10-cv-230-PLF (D.D.C.), adding an allegation that
the Service failed to issue its 90-day petition findings on the 42
springsnail species within the mandatory statutory timeframe.
Evaluation of Information for This Finding
Section 4 of the Act and its implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424
set forth the procedures for adding a species to, or removing a species
from, the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and
Plants. A species may be determined to be an endangered or threatened
species due to one or more of the five factors described in section
4(a)(1) of the Act:
(a) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range;
(b) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes;
(c) Disease or predation;
(d) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(e) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence.
In making this 90-day finding, we evaluated whether information
regarding threats to the 39 springsnail species as presented in the
petition and other information available in our files, is substantial,
thereby indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. Our
evaluation of this information is presented below.
Summary of Common Species Information
The 39 species of springsnails included in the petition and
evaluated in this finding are endemic, aquatic macroinvertebrates of
Great Basin and Mojave Desert freshwater springs of Nevada, Utah, and
California (Table 1). All of the petitioned species are from the phylum
Mollusca, class Gastropoda, superorder Caenogastropoda (Bouchet and
Rocroi 2005, pp. 4-368). Thirty-four of the species are in the genus
Pyrgulopsis, family Hydrobiidae, and five species are in the genus
Tryonia, family Cochliopidae (Table 1) (Wilke et al. 2001, pp. 1-21).
Both in the petition and in our files, little to no information is
available on population numbers or population trends for the majority
of these springsnail species. Life history information for the 39
species is available in the petition, and in references cited in the
petition and this finding. In this finding, we included a short summary
of distribution information for each species.
[[Page 56610]]
Table 1--Names and Locations of 39 Springsnail Species Included in This Finding
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scientific name Common name Hydrographic area(s) County (Co.), state
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species for which substantial information indicating listing may be warranted was not presented or available:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pyrgulopsis aloba.................... Duckwater pyrg......... Railroad Valley North.. Nye Co., NV.
Pyrgulopsis anatine.................. Southern Duckwater pyrg Railroad Valley North.. Nye Co., NV.
Pyrgulopsis gracilis................. Emigrant pyrg.......... White River Valley..... Nye Co., NV.
Pyrgulopsis lockensis................ Lockes pyrg............ Railroad Valley North.. Nye Co., NV.
Pyrgulopsis montana.................. Camp Valley pyrg....... Meadow Valley Wash Lincoln Co., NV.
(Camp Valley).
Pyrgulopsis papillata................ Big Warm Spring pyrg... Railroad Valley North.. Nye Co., NV.
Pyrgulopsis villacampae.............. Duckwater Warm Spring Railroad Valley North.. Nye Co., NV.
pyrg.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species for which substantial information indicating listing may be warranted was presented or available:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pyrgulopsis avernalis................ Moapa pebblesnail...... Upper Muddy River Clark Co., NV.
Springs.
Pyrgulopsis breviloba................ Flag pyrg.............. Dry Lake and White Lincoln and Nye Cos.,
River. NV.
Pyrgulopsis carinifera............... Moapa Valley pyrg...... Upper Muddy River Clark Co., NV.
Springs.
Pyrgulopsis coloradensis............. Blue Point pyrg........ Black Mountains Area Clark Co., NV.
(Lake Mead).
Pyrgulopsis crystalis................ Crystal springsnail.... Amargosa Desert........ Nye Co., NV.
Pyrgulopsis deaconi.................. Spring Mountains pyrg.. Las Vegas Valley and Clark Co., NV.
Pahrump Valley.
Pyrgulopsis erythropoma.............. Ash Meadows pebblesnail Amargosa Desert........ Nye Co., NV.
Pyrgulopsis fairbanksensis........... Fairbanks springsnail.. Amargosa Desert........ Nye Co., NV.
Pyrgulopsis fausta................... Corn Creek pyrg........ Las Vegas Valley....... Clark Co., NV.
Pyrgulopsis hubbsi................... Hubbs pyrg............. Pahranagat Valley...... Lincoln Co., NV.
Pyrgulopsis isolatus................. Elongate gland Amargosa Desert........ Nye Co., NV.
springsnail.
Pyrgulopsis landyei.................. Landyes pyrg........... Steptoe Valley......... White Pine Co., NV.
Pyrgulopsis lata..................... Butterfield pyrg....... White River Valley..... Nye Co., NV.
Pyrgulopsis marcida.................. Hardy pyrg............. Cave Valley and White Lincoln, Nye, and White
River Valley. Pine Cos., NV.
Pyrgulopsis merriami................. Pahranagat pebblesnail. Pahranagat Valley and Lincoln and Nye Cos.,
White River Valley. NV.
Pyrgulopsis nanus.................... Distal gland Amargosa Desert........ Nye Co., NV.
springsnail.
Pyrgulopsis neritella................ Neritiform Steptoe Steptoe Valley......... White Pine Co., NV.
Ranch pyrg.
Pyrgulopsis orbiculata............... Sub-globose Steptoe Steptoe Valley......... White Pine Co., NV.
Ranch pyrg.
Pyrgulopsis peculiaris............... Bifid duct pyrg........ Snake Valley and Spring White Pine Co., NV;
Valley. Millard Co., UT.
Pyrgulopsis pisteri.................. Median gland Nevada Amargosa Desert........ Nye Co., NV.
pyrg.
Pyrgulopsis planulata................ Flat-topped Steptoe Steptoe Valley......... White Pine Co., NV.
pyrg.
Pyrgulopsis sathos................... White River Valley pyrg White River Valley..... Lincoln, Nye and White
Pine Cos., NV.
Pyrgulopsis serrata.................. Northern Steptoe pyrg.. Steptoe Valley......... Elko and White Pine
Cos., NV.
Pyrgulopsis sterilis................. Sterile Basin pyrg..... Ralston Valley and Nye Co., NV.
Stone Cabin Flat.
Pyrgulopsis sublata.................. Lake Valley pyrg....... Lake Valley............ Lincoln Co., NV.
Pyrgulopsis sulcata.................. Southern Steptoe pyrg.. Steptoe Valley......... White Pine Co., NV.
Pyrgulopsis turbatrix................ Southeast Nevada pyrg.. Las Vegas Valley, Clark and Nye Cos., NV.
Indian Springs,
Pahrump Valley,
Amargosa Flat, and
Frenchman Flat.
Tryonia angulata..................... Sportinggoods tryonia.. Amargosa Desert........ Nye Co., NV.
Tryonia clathrata.................... Grated tryonia......... Upper Muddy River Clark, Lincoln, and Nye
Springs, White River Cos., NV.
Valley, and Pahranagat
Valley.
Tryonia elata........................ Point of Rocks tryonia. Amargosa Desert........ Nye Co., NV.
Tryonia ericae....................... Minute tryonia......... Amargosa Desert........ Nye Co., NV.
Tryonia variegata.................... Amargosa tryonia....... Amargosa Desert........ Inyo Co., CA; Nye Co.,
NV.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary of Common Threats
The petition identified several potential threats common to most,
if not all, of the petitioned springsnail species: groundwater
development (withdrawal, extraction, pumping, etc.), spring
development, water pollution, recreation, grazing, invasive species,
global climate change, isolated populations, and inadequate regulatory
mechanisms (CBD et al. 2009, pp. 21-60). These threats are generally
described in the petition with little to no information in the petition
or available in our files that correlates the threats to existing or
probable impacts on the individual springsnail species. In this
section, we summarize these common threats and provide the rationale as
to whether or not information in the petition and available in our
files is substantial, thereby indicating that listing any of the 39
petitioned species may be warranted. Our conclusion for each species as
it relates to each of the five factors, as well as specific threat
information if available, is then summarized later in the finding in
species sections below.
[[Page 56611]]
Factor A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range
Groundwater Development
The petition identifies groundwater development (withdrawal,
extraction, pumping, etc.) as ``an overarching and imminent threat''
(CBD et al. 2009, p. 23) to the persistence of the petitioned
springsnail species and their aquatic habitats as this may reduce or
eliminate spring discharge, thus altering the springhead environment
and the specific conditions (e.g., flow, substrate, water temperature)
required by springsnails. As this threat relates to impacts to the
petitioned species, it is primarily characterized in the petition as
``unsustainable groundwater withdrawal rates'' from: (1) Existing water
rights and applications for water rights that exceed the amount of
perennial yield of a specific basin or sub-basin where springsnails
occur; and (2) existing and proposed groundwater development and
pumping projects in groundwater basin(s) where springsnails occur or
basin(s) hydrologically connected to other basins where springsnails
occur (CBD et al. 2009, pp. 23-32).
The petition presented significant information regarding
groundwater development as it relates to perennial yield versus
committed water resources within hydrographic basins where the
petitioned springsnails may occur. The information they provide is
referenced to the Nevada Division of Water Resources (NDWR) database
(http://water.nv.gov/). We accessed and reviewed the NDWR database on
January 12, 2010, and saved hard copies of pertinent information for
each basin where the petitioned springsnails may occur. Where we
discuss perennial yield, committed water resources, and effects of
groundwater development within this finding we are referring to
information we have reviewed from the NDWR database. The Nevada State
Engineer (NSE) approves and permits groundwater rights in Nevada, and
defines perennial yield as ``the amount of usable water from a ground-
water aquifer that can be economically withdrawn and consumed each year
for an indefinite period of time. It cannot exceed the natural recharge
to that aquifer and ultimately is limited to maximum amount of
discharge that can be utilized for beneficial use.'' In some basins,
system yield estimates may also be included with perennial yield
estimates. System yield is defined as ``the amount of usable
groundwater and surface water that can be economically withdrawn and
consumed each year for an indefinite period of time without depleting
the source.'' The NSE considers system yield with perennial yield
estimates in basins with ``significant groundwater discharges to
streams.'' The NSE estimates perennial yield for 256 basins and sub-
basins (areas) in Nevada, and may ``designate'' a groundwater basin,
meaning the basin ``is being depleted or is in need of additional
administration, and in the interest of public welfare, [the NSE may]
declare preferred uses (such as municipal, domestic) in such basins.''
Many of the hydrographic areas in which the petitioned springsnails
occur are ``designated'' by the NSE, and permitted groundwater rights
approach or exceed the estimated average annual recharge. Furthermore,
the petition provides evidence that such commitment of water resources
beyond perennial yield may result in detrimental impacts to spring and
stream conditions, and thereby could impact habitats and microhabitat
conditions of many of the petitioned species in the designated basins.
When groundwater extraction exceeds aquifer recharge it may result in
surface water level decline, spring drying and degradation, or the loss
of aquatic habitat (Zektser et al. 2005, pp. 396-397). Based on this
summary, groundwater development resulting from permitted groundwater
rights that approach or exceed perennial yield may be a potential
threat and is identified as such for specific species in the species
sections below.
As noted in the petition, several groundwater development projects
have been proposed by various entities and are at different stages of
planning and implementation. The petition asserts which springs and
springsnails would be affected by these groundwater development
projects (CBD et al. 2009, pp. 23-32). However, based on the
information in the petition and in our files, we determined for certain
springs and their associated petitioned springsnails there is not
substantial information indicating that they may be threatened by the
proposed groundwater projects because the basins in which groundwater
development is proposed do not have a hydrologic connection to the
springs and flow systems where the species occur (Welch et al. 2007,
pp. 71-79). These springs are upgradient and outside of the zone of
influence of the carbonate aquifer (e.g., in the alluvial aquifer or
mountain block aquifer). Therefore based on this summary, there is not
substantial information indicating that listing may be warranted for 9
of the 39 petitioned springsnail species because the proposed
groundwater projects in these systems are not potential threats. This
is appropriately noted for each specific species it applies to in the
species sections below.
For other systems, significant uncertainties still remain regarding
many of the groundwater development projects and these uncertainties
are factored into our evaluation of the information. These
uncertainties include, but are not limited to: (1) Timing of pending
applications for water rights not yet permitted by the NSE; (2) timing
of authorization by the NSE to use those existing, permitted water
rights that are required to perform testing, monitoring, or other
measures before they can be fully utilized; (3) outcome of protests,
lawsuits, and legal proceedings against water rights applications and
groundwater development projects; (4) progress of project planning,
timing of issuance of necessary permits (e.g., right-of-way permits,
National Environmental Policy Act compliance), and project analyses
that may correlate impacts to spring systems; (5) varying results of
different models being used to determine project impacts and timing of
projected impacts (e.g., some project impacts are projected to be 100-
200 years in the future); (6) availability of funding for construction
and implementation of projects, including monitoring; and (7) locations
of wells and other infrastructure in relation to the petitioned
species. Whether or not there is substantial information indicating
that listing may be warranted due to groundwater development from
existing and proposed projects is appropriately identified for the
specific species it applies to in the species sections below.
In addition to habitat impacts from groundwater development,
inadequate regulation of groundwater development is cited as a threat
in the petition (CBD et al. 2009, pp. 28-29, 57); therefore, as the
potential threat of groundwater development relates to regulatory
mechanisms, we analyzed this potential threat under Factor D below.
Spring Development, Grazing, and Recreation
The petition identifies spring development (e.g., capturing and
piping spring flow), grazing, and recreation as threats to the
persistence of the petitioned springsnails (CBD et al. 2009, pp. 33-
39). In general, all of these activities have been known to degrade
spring environments by decreasing or eliminating flow and altering
water quality, substrate condition, and vegetative cover, composition,
and
[[Page 56612]]
structure. This, in turn, decreases available habitat for species that
require flowing, high-quality water, such as springsnails. Sada and
Vinyard (2002, pp. 277 and 283) reviewed historical anthropogenic
changes in the aquatic biota of the Great Basin and found that water
flow diversions and livestock grazing in riparian areas likely
contributed to historical declines or losses of several springsnail
species. Yet, overall site disturbance from spring development and
grazing did not always equate to low numbers of springsnails, as some
sites classified as moderately to highly disturbed were also described
as having springsnails that were common or abundant (Sada 2006, p. 6).
In many cases, these activities have been occurring on the
landscape for some time, and for the majority of species, the petition
does not present specific information that there may be an increase in
the intensity of the activity or that the activity may expand into
additional occupied sites in the future. The petition does not directly
relate loss of springsnail populations or reduction in numbers of
individuals to these activities for 31 of the petitioned springsnail
species. In addition, State and Federal agencies, conservation
organizations, and private landowners are conducting management
actions, restoration, and planning activities that remove spring
developments, restore systems to a more natural state, and control or
reduce the impacts of livestock grazing and recreationists at springs
occupied by five of the petitioned springsnails. Specific information
pertaining to each of the petitioned species is included in the species
sections below. Based on this summary, there is not substantial
information to indicate that 26 of the petitioned springsnail species
may warrant listing due to spring development, grazing, and recreation
and this is noted in the individual species sections below. However,
for the remaining 8 petitioned springsnail species specific information
indicates that these activities may be potential threats, and as
appropriate, is noted below in the species sections.
The petition identifies invasive, nonnative species as a threat to
the persistence of the petitioned springsnails through: habitat loss
and degradation such as alteration of water quality, substrate
condition, or vegetative cover, composition, and structure; predation;
and competition (CBD et al. 2009, pp. 33-39). Since these potential
impacts of invasive species raised in the petition cross several of the
five factors, we analyzed this potential threat under Factor E.
Factor B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
The petition identifies improper collection for scientific,
educational and recreational purposes as a potential threat that could
contribute to the decline of the petitioned springsnails (CBD et al.
2009, p. 42). The petition indicates that unauthorized collection of
invertebrates was observed at one location where a petitioned
springsnail species occurs, but no information was included on whether
or not the petitioned springsnail species was collected or if the
invertebrate collection activity affected the springsnail population.
The petition also cites a location in central Arizona where population
sampling without replacement of aquatic organisms resulted in a stark
but temporary (1 year) decline in the population size of the
springsnail species sampled at that location (CBD et al. 2009, p. 42).
However, the petition provides no data or information that directly
relates overutilization or collection to loss of springsnail
populations or reduction in numbers of individuals for any of the
petitioned springsnails. We have no information in our files to
indicate that overutilization may be a threat to any of the petitioned
springsnail species. Therefore, we conclude there is not substantial
information indicating that listing may be warranted due to
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes for all of the 39 petitioned springsnail species
because these activities do not pose a potential threat.
Factor C. Disease or Predation
The petition asserts the risk of predation and disease is increased
for springsnail populations with the invasion of exotic species, but
provides no supporting information. Natural predation of springsnails
by various taxa is also noted but no information is provided as to the
significance of this threat to springsnails or their populations. We
have no information in our files to indicate that disease and predation
may be threats to any of the petitioned springsnail species. Therefore,
based on this summary, there is not substantial information indicating
that listing may be warranted due to disease and predation for all of
the 39 petitioned springsnails species. In regard to invasive (exotic)
species, we address this potential threat under Factor E.
Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
The petitioned springsnails occur on private, Federal, and State
lands, and as such are subject to a variety of land management
strategies. The petition states that none of the 39 petitioned
springsnail species have legal protective status and asserts that all
are imperiled or critically imperiled (CBD et al. 2009, p. 47). The
petition maintains that, although Federal and State land management may
incorporate conservation for fish, wildlife and plant resources,
conservation for springsnails is often by default through other
species' conservation, is not generally given high priority, or is
limited by lack of funding or staff (CBD et al. 2009, pp. 47-56). In
addition, the petition asserts that an expired 1998 Memorandum of
Understanding among the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management,
National Park Service, Geological Survey, Fish and Wildlife Service,
Smithsonian Institution, and The Nature Conservancy, as well as State
wildlife conservation strategies/plans, State Natural Heritage
Programs, other conservation programs, habitat conservation plans, and
groundwater development stipulated agreements do not provide regulatory
protection to any of the petitioned springsnails (CBD et al. 2009, pp.
51-59). Furthermore, according to the petition, despite Federal or
State conservation programs, springsnails are threatened on State and
Federal lands by invasive species; overgrazing by cattle, feral horses,
and burros; spring development and groundwater pumping; and climate
change (CBD et al. 2009, pp. 48-52).
We do not consider land ownership and associated management
activities, memorandums of understanding, conservation strategies, or
other conservation agreements, plans, or programs to be regulatory
mechanisms since the conservation activities associated with these
types of documents are discretionary. Many of these agreements,
strategies, and plans were not intended to provide regulatory
protection, but rather to facilitate voluntary cooperation or
partnerships between and among agencies and entities to promote
conservation. If specific laws, statutes, permits, or other mechanisms
regulate specific activities and actions by landowners, entities, or
agencies that relate to a potential threat to the petitioned
springsnails, we have determined whether there is substantial
information regarding the inadequacy of those mechanisms in this
finding.
Specifically, the inadequate regulation of groundwater development
[[Page 56613]]
is considered a threat in the petition (CBD et al. 2009, p. 57).
Through various permit and approval mechanisms, the NSE regulates
groundwater rights in Nevada. In many hydrologic basins in Nevada where
the petitioned springsnails occur, the permitted groundwater usage
approaches or exceeds the estimated perennial yield of the basin. This
commitment of water resources by the NSE beyond perennial yield may
result in detrimental impacts to spring and stream condition in the
designated basins, and thereby could impact habitats and microhabitat
conditions of many of the petitioned species. For the springsnail
species where substantial information indicates that listing may be
warranted based on the inadequacy of this regulatory mechanism, it is
noted in the individual species sections below.
Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting its Continued
Existence
Nonnative and Invasive Species
The petition identifies invasive, nonnative species (fish,
invertebrates, amphibians, and vegetation) as a threat to the
persistence of the petitioned springsnails through: habitat loss and
degradation such as alteration of water quality, substrate condition,
or vegetative cover, composition, and structure; predation; and
competition (CBD et al. 2009, pp. 43-45). Since the potential impacts
of invasive species raised in the petition cross several of the five
factors, we have determined whether there is substantial information
regarding this potential threat under Factor E. As summarized above for
the common threats under Factor A, Sada and Vinyard (2002, pp. 277 and
283) found that nonnative species was one of several prevalent threats
to springsnail species of the Great Basin, and historical declines or
losses of several springsnail species, in some cases, have been
attributed to the introduction of nonnative species. Thirty-four of the
42 petitioned species were included in the study, but Sada and Vinyard
did not conclude that a population decline in any of the 34 species
occurred as a result of nonnative species introductions (Sada and
Vinyard 2002, pp. 284-287). Sada and Vinyard (2002, pp. 277 and 286-
287) did have sufficient information to confirm that major population
declines occurred in 1970 in 7 out of the 10 petitioned Amargosa Desert
species due to regional economic conditions and human immigration (see
species section for the Amargosa Desert for more information). At one
thermal spring system (Upper Muddy River) in southern Nevada, Sada
(2008, p. 69) observed that the niche overlap between the nonnative
red-rimmed melania (Melanoides tuberculata) and native springsnails
(Moapa pebblesnail, Moapa Valley pyrg, and grated tryonia) was small
and that competitive interactions were minor. The abundance of, or
habitat use by, the native springsnails was minimally affected by the
presence of the nonnative red-rimmed melania. Sada (2008, p. 69) states
that these observations provide insight into the potential impacts of
nonnative red-rimmed melania on native springsnails. The negative
impacts or influences of competition, or other life-history
interactions, may be negligible at other thermal springs as well, if
nonnative and native snail species utilize different temperatures,
substrates, and water velocities within the systems.
In many cases, nonnative species have been present on the landscape
for some time, and for 36 of the 39 springsnail species, the petition
does not present specific information that additional occupied
springsnail sites may be threatened by an increase or expansion of
nonnative species. The petition also does not correlate loss of
springsnail populations or reduction in numbers of individuals directly
to the introduction or presence of invasive, nonnative species for the
majority of species. Management actions and restoration activities have
been implemented by various agencies to avoid or reduce the potential
impacts of nonnative species to fish and wildlife resources in certain
areas. Some of these actions have occurred at springs with petitioned
springsnails; however, we are unaware of information supporting the
benefit or detriment of such actions to springsnails. If available,
specific nonnative species information pertaining to the petitioned
species or the springs systems they occupy is included in the species
section below. Therefore based on this summary, there is not
substantial information to indicate that listing may be warranted for
36 of the 39 petitioned springsnail species, due to threats from
nonnative and invasive species; this is reiterated for specific species
in the individual species sections below. However, for three of the
petitioned species, specific information regarding effects from
nonnative and invasive species is available to indicate a potential
threat, and as appropriate, is noted for specific species in those
species sections below.
Inherent Vulnerability of Isolated Populations and Limited Distribution
The petition asserts that springsnails are inherently vulnerable to
extirpation due to their isolation and limited distribution (CBD et al.
2009, p. 47). Local endemism is common in springsnails (Hershler and
Sada 2002, p. 225), with many of the species in the western United
States restricted to a single spring, spring complex, or drainage
system (Hershler 1998, p. 1; Hershler et al. 1999, p. 377, Liu et al.
2003, p. 2775). Additionally, the spring systems in which these species
are located are typically isolated and separated from other surface
waters by large expanses of dry land. This isolation and limited
distribution, coupled with low vagility, increases the vulnerability of
species or local populations of springsnails to extirpation from
stochastic demographic and natural events, and anthropogenic factors.
However, many springsnails have evolved and continue to persist in
isolation with limited distribution (Hershler and Sada 2002, p. 255).
Thus, for all 39 of the petitioned springsnail species, we do not find
substantial information indicating that isolation with limited
distribution, in and of itself, is a potential threat. For some of the
petitioned springsnail species, isolation and limited distribution are
aspects we considered in determining whether there is substantial
information that indicates that a natural or anthropogenic threat, or a
combination of threats, may be affecting a specific springsnail
species, and as appropriate, this is discussed for those specific
species in the species sections below.
Global Climate Change
The petition identified global climate change (CBD et al. 2009, p.
46) as a significant threat to the petitioned springsnail species ``due
to potential increased frequency and intensity of drought, altered
precipitation patterns, shifting ecological zones, decreased
groundwater levels and increasing demand for freshwater.'' Climate,
particularly temperature and precipitation, is a primary factor
affecting spring system structure, function, and dynamics in the Great
Basin and Mojave Desert. In general, spring ecosystems are adapted to
short-term climatic changes and the highly variable and unpredictable
climatic patterns characteristic of the Basin and Range Province.
Because springsnails are aquatic obligates with limited dispersal
ability, their presence in a spring is indicative of perennial water
[[Page 56614]]
that has likely persisted for thousands of years (Sada and Pohlmann
2006, p. 10), including through past climatic fluctuations.
In the long term, major and relatively rapid shifts in climatic
patterns that are characteristic predictions of global climate change
have the potential to cause large-scale changes to spring ecosystems.
Climate change has occurred over the past century in high northern
latitudes (increased precipitation) and areas below 10 degrees south
and 30 degrees north (decreased precipitation), with associated changes
in components of the hydrologic cycle (e.g., precipitation patterns,
snow melt, evaporation, soil moisture, and runoff) (Bates et al. 2008,
p. 3).
The petition did not provide climate change information specific to
Nevada, Utah, and California, or the basins and spring systems occupied
by the 39 petitioned springsnails species. Based on information in our
files, the recent projections of climate change in the Great Basin and
Mojave Desert over the next century include: increased temperatures,
with an increased frequency of extremely hot days in summer; more
variable weather patterns and more severe storms; more winter
precipitation in the form of rain, with potentially little change or
decreases in summer precipitation; and earlier, more rapid snowmelt
(United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) 1998, pp. 1-
4; Chambers and Pellant 2008, pp. 29-33). According to a report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Bates et al. 2008, p. 36),
higher temperatures and earlier snow melt due to climate change could
result in increased evapotranspiration and shifts in the timing or
amount of groundwater recharge and runoff (EPA 1998, pp. 1-4),
potentially resulting in decreased summer flows in springs and streams.
Compounding these issues could be increased water demand and
groundwater development for human consumption.
In summary, it is difficult to predict local climate change impacts
due to substantial uncertainty in trends of hydrological variables
(e.g., natural variability can mask long-term climate trends);
limitations in spatial and temporal coverage of monitoring networks;
and differences in the spatial scales of global climate models and
hydrological models (Bates et al. 2008, p. 3). Thus, while the
information in the petition and our files indicates that climate change
from a large-scale or regional level has the potential to affect spring
ecosystems in the Great Basin and Mojave Desert in the longterm, there
is much uncertainty and the information is unreliable at a finer scales
to predict what habitat attributes could be affected by climate change.
Given the current uncertainty and unreliability of information as
summarized above, we determine that there is not substantial
information indicating that listing may be warranted for all of the 39
petitioned springsnail species due to global climate change; this is
identified as such for specific species in the species sections below.
Species for Which Substantial Information was Not Presented
In this summary section, the springsnail species are grouped by
hydrographic areas or basins in alphabetical order for ease in
discussing common threats within those areas. Within each hydrographic
area, the springsnails are listed in alphabetical order by their
scientific name.
Railroad (Duckwater) Valley Northern Hydrographic Area Species
Pyrgulopsis aloba (Duckwater pyrg): known from two unnamed springs
northwest and southeast of Duckwater on tribal lands within the
Duckwater Reservation, Nye County, Nevada (Hershler 1998, p. 62).
Pyrgulopsis anatine (southern Duckwater pyrg): occurs at a single
spring southeast of Old Collins Spring on tribal lands within the
Duckwater Reservation, Nye County, Nevada (Hershler 1998, p. 64).
Pyrgulopsis lockensis (Lockes pyrg): known from one spring on
Lockes Ranch, State of Nevada lands, Nye County, Nevada (Hershler 1998,
p. 58).
Pyrgulopsis papillata (Big Warm Spring pyrg): occurs at Big Warm
Spring and Little Warm Spring on tribal lands within the Duckwater
Reservation, Nye County, Nevada (Hershler 1998, p. 59).
Pyrgulopsis villacampae (Duckwater Warm Spring pyrg): known from
Big Warm Spring and Little Warm Spring on tribal lands within the
Duckwater Reservation, Nye County, Nevada (Hershler 1998, p. 63).
Factor A: The petition states that groundwater development, spring
development, water pollution, recreation, and grazing are threats that
may affect the five petitioned Railroad Valley springsnails. The
petition mentions that groundwater resources in the Railroad Valley
Southern hydrographic area (173A) are over committed; however,
none of the five petitioned species of Railroad Valley springsnails
occur in that area. Rather, these species occur in the Railroad Valley
Northern hydrographic area. The perennial yield of the Railroad Valley
Northern hydrographic area (173B) is 75,000 acre-feet per year
(afy) (92,510,000 cubic-meters per year (m\3\/year)), and there are
24,943 afy (30,770,000 m\3\/year) committed; thus, the permitted
groundwater rights do not approach or exceed the estimated average
annual recharge in this hydrographic area. Based on the preceding
discussion, the information presented in the petition for these species
is incorrect, and there is no information providing evidence that
groundwater development may affect habitat for the five petitioned
Railroad Valley springsnails. Neither the petition, nor our files
contain substantial information indicating that listing the five
petitioned Railroad Valley springsnails may be warranted due to threats
from groundwater development.
The petition specifically cites a diversion (spring development) in
Big Warm Spring as a threat to the five Railroad Valley springsnails.
However, in 2006 and 2008, Big Warm Spring and Little Warm Spring
underwent extensive restoration efforts, including removal of the cited
diversion, which have reduced or eliminated the threats to the habitat
for these species (Poore 2008b, pp. 1-10). Through a Safe Harbor
Agreement and several grants from the Service's Partners for Fish and
Wildlife Program and through section 6 of the Act, conservation is
being implemented to avoid threats such as spring development, water
pollution, recreation, and grazing to Big Warm Spring and Little Warm
Spring (Service 2007, pp. 1-25; Service 2009, pp. 1-36). In 2005,
Lockes Ranch was purchased by the State of Nevada through a Recovery
Lands Acquisition grant for protection of the federally threatened
Railroad Valley springfish (Crenichthys nevadae). Although the State
does not regulate invertebrates, this purchase provides protection to
riparian habitat, spring systems, and associated wildlife. The State of
Nevada actively manages grazing and recreation, or has eliminated these
activities from portions of Lockes Ranch such that these past threats
to the species are reduced. In fall 2008, the four springs on Lockes
Ranch underwent extensive restoration, which included creation of a new
sinuous channel, improvement of existing channels, dewatering of a man-
made irrigation ditch that was previously used for stock watering, and
removal of nonnative vegetation surrounding the four spring systems
(Poore 2008a, pp. 1-4). The petition does not provide evidence
suggesting that these restoration efforts are beneficial or
[[Page 56615]]
detrimental to the petitioned Railroad Valley springsnail species.
In summary, these restoration activities and acquisition have
significantly reduced the threat of grazing and recreation, and
eliminated the threats associated with spring diversions. Based on the
preceding discussion we have determined that the information in the
petition and in our files does not present substantial information to
indicate that listing the Railroad Valley springsnail species, may be
warranted due to threats from spring development, water pollution,
recreation, and grazing.
Based on the above discussions, we have determined that the
petition does not present substantial information to indicate that
listing the Duckwater pyrg, southern Duckwater pyrg, Lockes pyrg, Big
Warm Spring pyrg, or the Duckwater Warm Spring pyrg as threatened or
endangered may be warranted due to the present or threatened
destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range.
Factors B and C: The petition asserts that the five Railroad Valley
petitioned springsnails are threatened by collection for scientific or
educational purposes and disease or predation. The petition does not
provide any information to indicate that collection, disease or
predation is impacting the any of the five Railroad Valley species or
to indicate these activities are occurring in, or are likely to occur
in their habitats. The petitioners offer no evidence of population
decline for any of the five Railroad Valley springsnail species as a
result of Factors B or C, and these species continue to persist in
their habitats. Therefore based on the preceding discussion and the
discussion in the ``Summary of Common Threats'' for Factors B and C, we
have determined that the information in the petition and in our files
does not present substantial information to indicate that listing the
Duckwater pyrg, southern Duckwater pyrg, Lockes pyrg, Big Warm Spring
pyrg, or the Duckwater Warm Spring pyrg may be warranted due to the
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific or educational
purposes and disease or predation.
Factor D: We have determined that the information in the petition
and in our files does not present substantial information to indicate
that listing the five Railroad Valley springsnails may be warranted due
to threats associated with Factors A, B, C, and E. It follows that the
adequacy or inadequacy of mechanisms to regulate any of these threats
is not at issue. Further, the petition does not present any additional
information that there are existing regulatory mechanisms designed to
protect the species that are inadequate. Therefore, we have determined
that the information in the petition and in our files does not present
substantial information to indicate that listing the Duckwater pyrg,
southern Duckwater pyrg, Lockes pyrg, Big Warm Spring pyrg, or the
Duckwater Warm Spring pyrg may be warranted due to the inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms.
Factor E: The petition states that inherent vulnerability of
isolated springsnail populations, invasive species, and global climate
change are threats that may affect the five Railroad Valley petitioned
springsnails. Specifically regarding invasive species and the five
Railroad Valley springsnails, the Service and NDOW are continuously
working to eradicate nonnative species in Big Warm Spring (Goldstein
and Hobbs 2009, pp. 1-14). Little Warm Spring and the spring system at
Lockes Ranch currently do not contain nonnative species that could
threaten the petitioned Railroad Valley springsnails, and it is unknown
if the two other unnamed springs where the petitioned Railroad Valley
springsnails are known to occur contain nonnative species. The petition
does not provide any information regarding the potential threat from
isolation and limited distribution. We do not consider isolation and
limited distribution, in and of itself, to be a threat to the five
Railroad Valley species. The petitioners offer no evidence of
population decline for any of the five Railroad Valley springsnail
species as a result of isolated populations, invasive species, and
global climate change under Factor E. The petitioned Railroad Valley
springsnails continue to persist in their habitats. Therefore, based on
the preceding discussion and discussion of isolated springsnail
populations, invasive species, and global climate change in the
``Summary of Common Threats,'' we have determined that the information
in the petition and in our files does not present substantial
information to indicate that listing the Duckwater pyrg, southern
Duckwater pyrg, Lockes pyrg, Big Warm Spring pyrg, or the Duckwater
Warm Spring pyrg may be warranted due to other natural or manmade
factors such as threats from isolation,, invasive species, and global
climate change.
Railroad Valley Summary: Based on our evaluation of the information
provided in the petition and available in our files, we have determined
that the petition does not present substantial information to indicate
that listing of the Duckwater pyrg, southern Duckwater pyrg, Lockes
pyrg, Big Warm Spring pyrg, or the Duckwater Warm Springs pyrg may be
warranted due to threats associated with any of the five factors.
Spring Valley (Meadow Valley Wash/Camp Valley) Hydrographic Area
Species
The Pyrgulopsis montana (Camp Valley pyrg) is known from a single
unnamed spring on private land in Camp Valley, Lincoln County, Nevada
(Hershler 1998, pp. 31-33; Garside and Schilling 1979, p. 46). Data
from the 1992 survey indicates that the Camp Valley pyrg was abundant
(abundant is the highest qualitative population description; e.g.
abundant > common > scarce > absent.) (Sada 2003, database record 701).
Factor A: The petition identifies groundwater development, spring
development, water pollution, recreation, and grazing as threats. The
petition incorrectly asserts that the unnamed spring where the Camp
Valley pyrg occurs is within the region of influence to be affected by
groundwater development projects (CBD et al. 2009, p. 89). The petition
cites generalized studies of that model future groundwater development
(Schaefer and Harrill 1995; Harrill and Prudic 1998; Deacon et al.
2007) to support its assertion that it will affect the Camp Valley pyrg
and its habitat. Schaefer and Harrill (1995, p. 7) indicated that, for
their analysis, the data that were used in their model were highly
generalized and that their assumptions were simplifications of the
actual system. In addition, the locations of proposed wells and the
pumping schedule were likely to be revised. Thus, their results were
only indications of potential generalized results and are not specific
to the Camp Valley pyrg. Harrill and Prudic (1998) and Deacon et al.
(2007) present overviews of the groundwater system in southern Nevada,
western Utah, and southeastern California; however, neither study
presents specific information regarding potential impacts to the Camp
Valley pyrg.
References cited in the petition regarding groundwater development
projects that petitioners use to assert that this activity is a
potential threat to the species (cited below) do not support the claims
in the petition that the Camp Valley pyrg or its habitat will be
affected by proposed groundwater development projects. The Camp Valley
pyrg occurs in an unnamed spring within the Spring Valley hydrographic
area (201), This hydrographic area was not identified as being
within the Region of Influence for two groundwater development projects
[[Page 56616]]
in Lincoln County (Lincoln County Land Act Groundwater Development and
Utility Right-of-Way Project (BLM 2008, pp. 3-12) and Kane Springs
Valley Groundwater Development Project (BLM 2008, pp. 3-10)). After
evaluating the hydrologic evidence presented, the NSE did not identify
the unnamed spring where the Camp Valley pyrg occurs as a location
where impacts will occur as a result of the groundwater development
(NDWR 2007, pp. 1-23; NDWR 2008, pp. 1-40). The Spring Valley
hydrographic area has not been classified as a ``Designated Groundwater
Basin'' by the NSE. The perennial yield of the Spring Valley
hydrographic area is 25,000 afy (30,840,000 m\3\/year), and there are
1,112 afy (1,372,000 m\3\/year) committed; thus, permitted groundwater
rights do not exceed the estimated average annual recharge. Based upon
the preceding discussion we have determined that the information in the
petition and in our files does not present substantial information to
indicate that listing the Camp Valley pyrg may be warranted due to
threats from groundwater development.
The unnamed spring where the Camp Valley pyrg occurs was assessed
as being heavily disturbed by cattle (ranking ranged from 1 if
undisturbed to 4 if heavily disturbed) during a 1992 survey (Hershler
1998, p. 33; Sada 2003, database record 701), however Sada showed that
the Camp Valley pyrg was abundant (Sada 2003, database record 701).
Based on this information, the species was abundant despite livestock
activity in its habitat. There is no indication that livestock activity
has or may increase in intensity or extent, or that the activity
ceased. Therefore, we have determined that the information in the
petition and in our files does not present substantial information that
listing may be warranted because grazing does not seem to be affecting
the species.
The petition does not present specific information with regard to
the potential threats of spring development, and groundwater water
development. Although the petition mentions water pollution, and
recreation it does not present any supporting information to its
assertions that these activities are impacting or are likely to impact
the Camp Valley pyrg or its habitat. Therefore, based on the preceding
discussion and the discussion of spring development, water pollution,
and recreation in the ``Summary of Common Threats'' section above, for,
we have determined that the information in the petition and in our
files does not present substantial information to indicate that listing
the Camp Valley pyrg may be warranted due to threats from spring
development, water pollution, or recreation.
We have determined that the petition does not present substantial
information to indicate that listing the Camp Valley pyrg as threatened
or endangered may be warranted due to the present or threatened
destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range
Factors B, C, and E: The petition proposes that collection for
scientific or educational purposes, disease or predation, invasive
species, inherent vulnerability of isolated springsnail populations,
and global climate change are threats. As discussed in the ``Summary of
Common Threats Section'' above, the petition does not provide any
specific information relative to the Camp Valley pyrg to indicate that
collection for scientific or education purposes, disease or predation,
invasive species, and global climate change are threats to the species.
The Camp Valley pyrg is currently known from one spring, and the extent
of springsnail surveys in the area is unknown. The petition (CBD et al.
2009, p. 89) does not provide any specific information regarding the
potential threat from isolation and limited distribution. We do not
consider isolation and limited distribution, in and of itself, to be a
threat to the Camp Valley pyrg. Therefore based on the preceding
discussion and the discussion of potential threats of overutilization,
disease or predation, invasive species, inherent vulnerability of
isolated springsnail populations, and global climate change in the
``Summary of Common Threats'' section above, we have determined that
the information in the petition and in our files does not present
substantial information to indicate that listing the Camp Valley pyrg
may be warranted due to overutilization for commercial, recreational,
scientific, or educational purposes, disease or predation, or other
natural or manmade factors such as threats from invasive species,
isolation, and global climate change.
Factor D: We have determined that the information in the petition
and in our files does not present substantial information to indicate
that listing the Camp Valley pyrg under Factors A, B, C, and E may be
warranted as detailed above.It follows that the adequacy or inadequacy
of mechanisms to regulate these threats is not at issue. Further, the
petition does not present any additional information that there are
existing regulatory mechanisms designed to protect the species that are
inadequate. Therefore, based on the preceding discussion we have
determined that the information in the petition and in our files does
not present substantial information to indicate that listing the Camp
Valley pyrg may be warranted due to the inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms.
Spring Valley Summary: Based on our evaluation of the information
provided in the petition and available in our files, we have determined
that the petition does not present substantial information to indicate
that listing of the Camp Valley pyrg may be warranted due to threats
associated with any of the five factors.
White River Valley Hydrographic Area Species
Pyrgulopsis gracilis (Emigrant pyrg): found on private land in
Emigrant Springs, Nye County, Nevada (Hershler 1998, pp. 45 and 47).
Emigrant Springs is located in White River Valley (HB 207).
Sada (2003, database record 734) identified that the Emigrant pyrg was
common at Emigrant Springs during a survey in 1992.
Factor A: The petition identifies groundwater development, spring
development, water pollution, recreation, and grazing as threats to the
Emigrant pyrg. The petition provided information (Schaefer and Harrill
1995; Harrill and Prudic 1998; Deacon et al. 2007) that broadly
describes predicted impacts of groundwater development to general
areas, but did not provide any information to indicate that groundwater
development is a potential threat to Emigrant Springs or the Emigrant
pyrg. The Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) is proposing to
withdraw groundwater from the Cave Valley hydrographic area
(180) (SNWA 2008, p. 1-1). There is evidence for a hydrologic
connection suggesting that groundwater may flow between Cave Valley and
White River Valley based on isotopic similarities of groundwater in
Cave Valley that emerge at Butterfield Springs and Flag Springs, but
not at Emigrant Springs where this springsnail species occurs (NDWR
2008, pp. 16-17). After evaluating all hydrological evidence presented,
the NSE did not identify Emigrant Springs as a location where impacts
will occur as a result of the groundwater development in Cave Valley
(NDWR 2008, pp. 16-17). The White River hydrographic area
(207) has not been classified as a ``Designated Groundwater
Basin'' by the NSE. The perennial yield of the White River hydrographic
area is 37,000 afy (45,640,000 m\3\/year), and there are 31,699 afy
(39,100,000 m\3\/year) committed; thus, permitted groundwater rights do
not exceed the estimated average annual recharge. Therefore, the
[[Page 56617]]
information in the petition does not provide reliable information that
groundwater providing habitat for the Emigrant pyrg will be affected
from current or by proposed groundwater development.. Based on the
above discussion we have determined that the information in the
petition and in our files does not present substantial information to
indicate that listing the Emigrant pyrg may be warranted due to
groundwater development.
A survey of Emigrant Springs (southernmost of the complex) in 1992
(Hershler (1998, p. 12; Sada 2003, database record X) described it as
highly impacted by cattle, but effects on the springsnail population
were not described. Springsnails were described as common during the
survey though it is unknown whether there were differences in abundance
of the sympatric Emigrant pyrg and Hardy pyrg. Sada (2005; as cited in
Golden et al. 2007, p. 162) indicated that the Emigrant pyrg was
common. We have no additional information, nor was any information
presented in the petition, on whether livestock activity has or may
increase in intensity or extent, or if it has ceased. The species
remains common in abundance despite this potential activity in its
habitat, which may suggest that grazing under past conditions and use
levels has not acted as a threat to the Emigrant pyrg. Therefore, we
have determined that the information in the petition and in our files
does not present substantial information to indicate that listing the
Emigrant pyrg may be warranted because grazing does not seem to be
affecting the species.
Although the petition mentions spring development, water pollution,
and recreation it does not present any supporting information to its
assertions that these activities are impacting or are likely to impact
the Emigrant pyrg, or its habitat. Therefore, based on this preceding
discussion we have determined that the information in the petition and
in our files does not present substantial information to indicate that
that listing the Emigrant pyrg may be warranted due to spring
development, water pollution, or recreation.
Factors B, C, and E: The petition proposes that collection for
scientific or educational purposes, disease or predation, invasive
species, inherent vulnerability of isolated springsnail populations,
and global climate change are threats to the Emigrant pyrg. The
petition does not cite any specific information (CBD et al. 2009, p.
114) correlating these potential threats with impacts to the Emigrant
pyrg or provide any specific information to indicate the activities are
occurring in or are likely to occur in its habitat at Emigrant Spring,
where the Emigrant pyrg occurs. The petition does not provide any
specific information regarding the potential threat from isolation and
limited distribution, and we do not consider isolation and limited
distribution, in and of itself, to be a threat to the Emigrant pyrg.
Therefore, based on the preceding discussion and the discussion of the
potential threats of overcollection, disease or predation, invasive
species, inherent vulnerability of isolated springsnail populations,
and global climate change in the ``Summary of Common Threats'' section
above, we have determined that the information in the petition and in
our files does not present substantial information to indicate that
listing the Emigrant pyrg may be warranted due to overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes, disease
or predation, or other natural or manmade factors such as threats from
invasive species, isolation, and global climate change.
Factor D: Since we have determined that the information in the
petition and in our files does not present substantial information to
indicate that listing the Emigrant pyrg may be warranted due to threats
associated with Factors A, B, C, and E as detailed above, the adequacy
or inadequacy of mechanisms to regulate these threats is not at issue.
Further, the petition does not present any additional information that
there are existing regulatory mechanisms designed to protect the
species that are inadequate. Therefore, based on the preceding
discussion we have determined that the information in the petition and
in our files does not present substantial information to indicate that
listing the Emigrant pyrg may be warranted due to the inadequacy of
regulatory mechanisms.
White River Valley Summary: Based on our evaluation of the
information provided in the petition and available in our files, we
have determined that the petition does not present substantial
information to indicate that listing of the Emigrant pyrg may be
warranted due to threats associated with any of the five factors.
Species for Which Substantial Information was Presented
In this summary section, the springsnail species are grouped by
hydrographic areas or basins in alphabetical order for ease in
discussing common threats within those areas. Within each hydrographic
area, the springsnails are listed in alphabetical order by their
scientific name.
Amargosa Desert Hydrographic Area Species
Ten species from the Amargosa Desert hydrographic area were
included in the petition. All but one of these species occur only in
Nye County, Nevada, and most are present on Service-managed lands at
Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge (NWR).
Pyrgulopsis crystalis (Crystal springsnail) is limited to Crystal
Pool (Hershler and Sada 1987, p. 801; Hershler 1994, p. 32) located in
Ash Meadows NWR.
Pyrgulopsis erythropoma (Ash Meadows pebblesnail) is distributed
primarily within Ash Meadows NWR among 6 springs and 5 spring brooks,
all of which are located within 0.5 kilometer (km) (0.3 mile (mi)) of
one another, at the Point of Rocks Spring complex (Hershler and Sada
1987, p. 795).
Pyrgulopsis fairbanksensis (Fairbanks springsnail) is restricted to
its type locality at Fairbanks Spring, within Ash Meadows NWR, where it
is common on the travertine at the spring orifice (Hershler and Sada
1987, p. 796).
Pyrgulopsis isolatus (elongate-gland springsnail) is restricted to
its type locality at an unnamed spring west of Carson Slough and south
of the claypits on private land (Hershler and Sada 1987, pp. 807 and
810).
Pyrgulopsis nanus (distal-gland springsnail) is known from four
small springbrooks within 10 km (6.2 mi) of one another (Hershler and
Sada 1987, p. 804) and is found primarily on public land. These springs
and their associated springbrooks include: Collins Ranch on Ash Meadows
NWR, Five Springs on private land and Ash Meadows NWR, North Collins
Ranch on Ash Meadows NWR, and Mary Scott Spring on BLM-managed land
(Service 1990, p. 10).
Pyrgulopsis pisteri (median-gland springsnail or Median-gland
Nevada pyrg) is located at Marsh Spring on BLM-managed land, North
Scruggs Springs on Ash Meadows NWR, and below School Springs in an
observation pond on Ash Meadows NWR, all within 2 km (1.2 mi) of each
other (Hershler and Sada 1987, p. 807).
Tryonia angulata (Sportinggoods tryonia) is common in three
springs, which include Fairbanks Spring on Ash Meadows NWR, Crystal
Pool on Ash Meadows NWR, and Big Spring on BLM land (Hershler and Sada
1987, pp. 811 and 817).
Tryonia elata (Point of Rocks tryonia) is found on travertine mound
in two small springs at Point of Rocks where it
[[Page 56618]]
is common in stream outflows in silted areas (Hershler and Sada 1987,
p. 831) on BLM land and Ash Meadows NWR.
Tryonia ericae (minute tryonia) occurs in North Scruggs Spring and
a spring north of Collins Ranch Spring, which are located within 4 km
(2.5 mi) of each other on Ash Meadows NWR (Hershler and Sada 1987, p.
830).
Tryonia variegata (Amargosa tryonia) occurs on private and public
land in at least 21 small springs in Nye County, Nevada, and 2 springs
in Inyo County, California (Hershler and Sada 1987, p. 826).
Factor A: The petition proposes groundwater development, spring
development, water pollution, recreation, and grazing are threats to
all 10 species of springsnails occurring in the Amargosa Desert
hydrographic area. The Amargosa Desert hydrographic area (230)
has been classified as a ``Designated Groundwater Basin'' by the NSE in
which permitted groundwater rights exceed the estimated average annual
recharge. The perennial yield of Amargosa Desert is 24,000 afy
(29,600,000 m\3\/year), and approximately 25,282 afy (31,180,000 m\3\/
year) are committed for use. When groundwater extraction exceeds
aquifer recharge, it may result in surface water level decline, spring
drying and degradation, or loss of aquatic habitat (Zektser et al.
2005, pp. 396-397). On July 16, 2007, the Nevada State Engineer issued
Ruling 5750 denying numerous water rights applications in the Amargosa
Valley, and finding that the groundwater basin is over-appropriated
(NDWR 2007, p. 22). On November 4, 2008, the Nevada State Engineer
issued Order 1197 further stipulating that any new applications for
water rights in the Amargosa Valley will be denied (NDWR 2008, p. 1).
Most groundwater monitoring wells in the Amargosa Valley have shown a
significant decline in water levels since 1992, especially in the
Amargosa Farms area (northwest of Ash Meadows). In some areas of
Amargosa Valley, groundwater pumping is currently occurring at about
twice the rate predicted to be sustainable. Water levels for some wells
in the Ash Meadows area were relatively stable 1992-2002 (USGS 2002,
pp. 1, 53 and 66). Mayer (2006, pp. 19 and 28) indicates groundwater
monitoring wells and spring discharges on the Refuge are currently
stable to slightly declining. The Service has permitted water rights
for 16,376 afy (20,200,000 m\3\/year) of annual spring discharge on Ash
Meadows NWR (Mayer 2005, pp. 2-3). This constitutes approximately 96
percent of the 17,025 afy (21,000,000 m\3\/year) annual discharge by
the springs and seeps at Ash Meadows (Mayer 2000, pp. 2-3), and offers
some protection for the springsnails and other aquatic species;
however, as previously noted, permitted groundwater rights exceed the
estimated average annual recharge in the hydrographic area where the 10
Amargosa Desert springsnails and their spring habitats occur. Based
upon the preceding discussion and additional rationale discussing
groundwater development in the ``Summary of Common Threats,'' we have
determined there is substantial information in the petition and our
files to indicate that listing the 10 Amargosa Desert springsnails may
be warranted due to threats from groundwater development.
The petition does not provide specific information regarding spring
development, recreation, and grazing as potential threats to the 10
Amargosa Desert springsnails. Based on information in our files, the
Service and other partnering agencies have completed and continue to
implement extensive efforts to restore wetland, riparian, and spring
systems and other protective measures (e.g., installation of boardwalks
and fencing in sensitive areas to manage use) at Ash Meadows NWR and on
BLM land within the Ash Meadows NWR boundary that benefit aquatic and
riparian species, including 9 of the Amargosa Desert species that occur
on the Ash Meadows NWR and on BLM land. These actions have reduced or
eliminated the potential threats from spring diversion, grazing, and
recreation for the springsnail populations on Ash Meadows NWR and on
BLM land within the Ash Meadows NWR boundary. In 1995, the Service
excluded grazing from springsnail habitats by constructing roughly 16
mi (25.7 km) of perimeter fencing around Ash Meadows NWR (including BLM
land within Ash Meadows NWR) and any trespass animals, such as burros,
cattle, or horses, are removed. It is unknown if the two springs in
California occupied by the Amargosa tryonia springsnail are grazed or
if fencing excludes grazing. The petition does not provide specific
information regarding water pollution as a potential threat to the 10
Amargosa Desert springsnails, nor is there any information in our files
regarding water pollution in the springs where the 10 Amargosa Desert
springsnails occur. Therefore, based on the preceding discussion and
additional rationale in the ``Summary of Common Threats,'' in which we
conclude the petition does not directly relate loss of springsnail
populations or reduction in numbers of individuals to these activities
for the majority of species, we have determined that the information in
the petition and our files does not indicate that spring development,
water pollution, recreation, and grazing may be threats to any of the
10 Amargosa Desert springsnails. However, we will further consider this
and any additional information on these activities received during our
status review for these species.
Factors B, C, and E: The petition proposes that collection for
scientific or educational purposes, disease or predation, inherent
vulnerability of isolated springsnail populations, and global climate
change are threats to all 10 Amargosa Desert springsnails. The petition
does not provide specific information regarding the potential threat
from isolation and limited distribution, and we do not consider
inherent vulnerability due to isolation and limited distribution, in
and of itself, as a threat to the 10 Amargosa Desert springsnails. As
discussed in the ``Summary of Common Threats'' section above, the
petition does not provide specific information, nor does the Service
have any information in its files regarding collection for scientific
or educational purposes, disease or predation for any of the petitioned
springsnails, including the 10 Amargosa Desert species. Additionally,
the petition does not contain specific information, nor does the
Service have specific information about the potential effects of global
climate change as potential threats to the 10 Amargosa Desert
springsnails due to the current uncertainty in model predictions.
Therefore, based on this and the preceding discussion in the ``Summary
of Common Threats,'' we have determined that there is not substantial
information in the petition and our files indicating that collection
for scientific or educational purposes, disease or predation, inherent
vulnerability of isolated springsnail populations, and global climate
change may be threats to any of the 10 Amargosa Desert springsnails.
However, we will further consider this and any additional information
on these activities and other potential threats received during our
status review for these species.
The petition further asserts that invasive species are a threat to
the 10 Amargosa Desert springsnails. Hershler and Sada (1987, pp. 778-
779 and 839-843) indicate that invasive species are present in the
springs. The nonnative red-rimmed melania is present in thermal springs
on Ash Meadows NWR and on BLM land within the Ash Meadows NWR boundary.
A study in the thermal, Upper Muddy River spring system of competition
from red-rimmed
[[Page 56619]]
melania suggest that this competition may not be a threat because there
are only minor niche overlap and interactions between native and
nonnative snails (Sada 2008, p. 69). Other nonnatives species (fish,
amphibians, crustaceans, and vegetation) have been present in the past
or currently exist in the springs on Ash Meadows NWR and on BLM land
within the Ash Meadows NWR boundary; however, the Service and its
partners have implemented and continue to implement ongoing management
actions and restoration activities to eradicate, manage, or reduce the
impacts of nonnative species at springs with springsnails on Ash
Meadows NWR and on BLM land within the Ash Meadows NWR boundary.
Information is not available in the petition or our files about the
status of any threat from nonnative species on private land. Based on
the preceding discussion and additional rationale regarding invasive
species in the ``Summary of Common Threats,'' we have determined that
there is not substantial information in the petition and our files
indicating that invasive species may be a threat to any of the 10
Amargosa Desert springsnails. However, we will further consider this
and any additional information on these potential threats received
during our status review for these species.
Factor D: The petition states that inadequate regulatory mechanisms
are a threat to the 10 Amargosa Desert springsnails due to the
permitting of groundwater rights by the NSE that exceed perennial
yield. Permitted groundwater rights in the Amargosa Desert hydrographic
area currently exceed the average annual recharge (see details under
Factor A above). Based on the preceding discussion and additional
rationale discussing regulatory mechanisms in the ``Summary of Common
Threats,'' we have determined that there is substantial information in
the petition and in our files to indicate that listing the 10 Amargosa
Desert springsnails may be warranted due to the inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms related to the permitting of groundwater rights
and use.
Amargosa Desert Summary: Based on our evaluation of the information
provided in the petition and available in our files, we have determined
that the petition presents substantial information to indicate that
listing of Crystal springsnail, Ash Meadows pebblesnail, Fairbanks
springsnail, elongate-gland springsnail, distal gland springsnail,
median-gland springsnail, sportinggoods tryonia, Point of Rocks
tryonia, minute tryonia, and Amargosa tryonia may be warranted due to
the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of
its habitat or range (Factor A) resulting from groundwater development
and the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms (Factor D) related
to the permitting of groundwater rights and use.
Black Mountains (Lake Mead) Hydrographic Area Species
Pyrgulopsis coloradensis (Blue Point pyrg) is found in Blue Point
Spring in Lake Mead National Recreation Area (National Park Service
managed lands), Clark County, Nevada (Hershler 1998, p. 29). Hershler
(1998, p. 29) described the population as occurring in limited
abundance and becoming increasingly scarce in the past decade. The Blue
Point pyrg was not located during intensive surveys between 1999 and
2001, and was believed to be extinct (Sada field notes 2001 as cited in
Sada 2002, pp. 2-3). The petition indicates that the Blue Point pyrg
was found during a survey in 2008 (CBD et al. 2009, p. 82).
Factor A: The petition proposes that groundwater development,
spring development, water pollution, recreation, and grazing are
threats to this species. The Black Mountains hydrographic area
(215) has been classified as a ``Designated Groundwater
Basin'' by the NSE in which permitted groundwater rights approach or
exceed the estimated average annual recharge. The perennial yield of
the Black Mountains hydrographic area is 1,300 afy (1,604,000 m\3\/
year) and system yield is 7,000 afy (8,634,000 m\3\/year), while 6,882
afy (8,489,000 m\3\/year) are committed for use--which is approaching
the estimated average annual recharge. When groundwater extraction
exceeds aquifer recharge, it may result in surface water level decline,
spring drying, and degradation or loss of aquatic habitat (Zektser et
al. 2005, pp. 396-397). Therefore, based on the preceding discussion
and additional rationale discussing groundwater development in the
``Summary of Common Threats,'' we have determined that there is
substantial information in the petition and in our files to indicate
that listing the Blue Point pyrg may be warranted due to threats from
groundwater development.
As discussed in the ``Summary of Common Threats'' section above,
the petition does not present any specific information, nor is there
any information in our files regarding spring development, water
pollution, recreation, and grazing as potential threats to the Blue
Point pyrg. Therefore, we have determined that there is not substantial
information in the petition and in our files indicating that spring
development, water pollution, recreation, and grazing may be threats to
the Blue Point pyrg. However, we will further consider this and any
additional information on these activities received during our status
review for this species.
Factors B and C: The petition proposes that collection for
scientific or educational purposes and disease or predation are threats
to the Blue Point pyrg. As discussed in the ``Summary of Common
Threats'' section, the petition does not present any specific
information, nor is there any information in our files regarding
collection for scientific or educational purposes and disease or
predation as potential threats to the Blue Point pyrg. Therefore, we
have determined that there is not substantial information in the
petition and in our files indicating that collection for scientific or
educational purposes and disease or predation may be threats to the
Blue Point pyrg. However, we will further consider this and any
additional information on these activities received during our status
review for this species.
Factor D: The petition states that inadequate regulatory mechanisms
are a threat to the Blue Point pyrg due to the permitting of
groundwater rights by the NSE that exceed perennial yield. Permitted
groundwater rights in the hydrographic area currently approach the
average annual recharge (see details under Factor A). Therefore, based
on this and the preceding discussion of regulatory mechanisms
pertaining to permitting of groundwater rights and use in the ``Summary
of Common Threats,'' we have determined that there is substantial
information in the petition and our files indicating that listing the
Blue Point pyrg may be warranted due to the inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms related to the permitting of groundwater rights
and use..
Factor E: The petition proposes that invasive species, inherent
vulnerability of isolated springsnail populations, and global climate
change are threats to the Blue Point pyrg. The petition does not
provide and specific information, nor is there any information in our
files, regarding global climate change as a potential threat to the
Blue Point pyrg. The petition does not provide any specific information
regarding the potential threat from isolation and limited distribution,
and we do not consider isolation and limited distribution, in and of
itself, to be a threat to the Blue Point pyrg.
[[Page 56620]]
Specifically regarding invasive species, Sada (2002, p. 4)
indicates that nonnative convict cichlids (Amatitlania nigrofacsciata)
are present and may feed on members of the macroinvertebrate community.
The nonnative red-rimmed melania is present in Blue Point Spring, and
its appearance coincided with declines of the Blue Point pyrg (Sada
2002, p. 2). A study in the thermal, Upper Muddy River spring system of
competition from red-rimmed melania suggests that this competition may
not be a threat because there are only minor niche overlaps and
interactions between native and nonnative snails (Sada 2008, p. 69).
This information suggests that the Blue Point pyrg's limited
distribution and isolation appear to make it more susceptible to other
potential natural or anthropogenic threats, including potential
predation by or other effects of nonnative species such as convict
cichlids. Therefore, based on the preceding discussion and the
discussion in the ``Summary of Common Threats,'' we have determined
that there is not substantial information in the petition and our files
indicating that inherent vulnerability of isolated springsnail
populations and global climate change may be threats to the Blue Point
pyrg. However, we have determined that there is substantial information
in the petition and our files to indicate that listing the Blue Point
pyrg may be warranted due to threats from invasive species.
Nevertheless, we will further consider this and any additional
information received on these potential threats during our status
review for this species.
Black Mountains Summary: Based on our evaluation of the information
provided in the petition and available in our files, we have determined
that the petition presents substantial information to indicate that
listing of the Blue Point pyrg may be warranted due to the present or
threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or
range (Factor A) resulting from groundwater development, the inadequacy
of existing regulatory mechanisms (Factor D) related to the permitting
of groundwater rights and use, and other natural or manmade factors
affecting its survival (Factor E) from the introduction or presence of
invasive species.
Cave Valley and White River Valley Hydrographic Area Species
Pyrgulopsis lata (Butterfield pyrg) is found in Butterfield Springs
on private land in Nye County, Nevada (Hershler 1998, p. 43).
Pyrgulopsis marcida (Hardy pyrg) is located in several springs or
spring complexes in Nye, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties, Nevada
(Hershler 1998, pp. 48-50; Golden et al. 2007, p. 162). Sada (2003,
database records 723, 726, 734, 735 and 737) reported that the Hardy
pyrg was common at Emigrant Springs, Arnoldson Spring, Hardy Spring,
and Silver Spring. The species is also present at Butterfield Springs.
Pyrgulopsis sathos (White River Valley pyrg) occurs in Flag Springs
(north and middle), Nye County, Nevada; Camp Spring, Lincoln County,
Nevada; and Lund Spring, Arnoldson Spring, Preston Big Spring, and
Nicholas Spring, White Pine County, Nevada (Hershler 1998, p. 39;
Golden et al. 2007, p. 160).
Factor A: The petition proposes that groundwater development,
spring development, water pollution, recreation, and grazing are
threats. The perennial yield of the White River hydrographic area is
37,000 (afy) (45,640,000 m\3\/year), and there are 31,699 afy
(39,100,000 m\3\/year) committed; thus, permitted groundwater rights do
not exceed the estimated average annual recharge. However, SNWA is
proposing to develop 134,000 afy (165,288,100 m\3\/year) of groundwater
from the Cave Valley hydrographic area (180) (SNWA 2008, p. 1-
1). There is evidence for a hydrologic connection suggesting that
groundwater may flow between Cave Valley and White River Valley based
on isotopic similarities of groundwater in Cave Valley that emerge at
Butterfield Springs and Flag Springs, where these three springsnail
species occur (NDWR 2008, pp. 16-17). The NSE expressed concern for
potential impacts to these springs from groundwater development in Cave
Valley (NDWR 2008, p. 17). Based on the preceding discussion, we have
determined that there is substantial information in the petition and
our files to indicate that listing the Butterfield pyrg, Hardy pyrg,
and White River Valley pyrg may be warranted due to threats from
groundwater development.
As discussed in the ``Summary of Common Threats'' section above,
the petition does not present specific information, nor is there any
information in our files regarding spring development, water pollution,
recreation, and grazing as potential threats to the any of the
petitioned springsnail species, which includes the Butterfield pyrg,
Hardy pyrg, and White River Valley pyrg. Therefore, we have determined
there is not substantial information in the petition and our files
indicating that spring development, water pollution, recreation, and
grazing may be threats to the Butterfield pyrg, Hardy pyrg, and White
River Valley pyrg. However, we will further consider this and any
additional information on these activities received during our status
review for this species.
Factors B, C, and E: The petition proposes that collection for
scientific or educational purposes, disease or predation, invasive
species, inherent vulnerability of isolated springsnail population, and
global climate change are threats to the Butterfield pyrg, Hardy pyrg,
and White River Valley pyrg. The petition does not provide any specific
information regarding the potential threat from isolation and limited
distribution, and we do not consider isolation and limited
distribution, in and of itself, to be a threat to the Butterfield pyrg,
Hardy pyrg, and White River Valley pyrg. As discussed in the ``Summary
of Common Threats'' section above, the petition does not provide any
specific information, nor is there any information in our files
regarding collection for scientific or educational purposes, disease or
predation, invasive species, and global climate change as potential
threats to any of the petitioned springsnail species, which includes
the Butterfield pyrg, Hardy pyrg, and White River Valley pyrg.
Therefore, we have determined that there is not substantial information
in the petition and our files indicating that collection for scientific
or educational purposes, disease or predation, invasive species,
inherent vulnerability of isolated springsnail populations, and global
climate change may be threats to the Butterfield pyrg, Hardy pyrg, and
White River Valley pyrg. However, we will further consider this and any
additional information on these activities and other potential threats
received during our status review for this species.
Factor D: The petition states that inadequate regulatory mechanisms
are a threat to the Butterfield pyrg, Hardy pyrg, and White River
Valley pyrg due to the permitting of groundwater rights by the NSE. The
NSE expressed concern for potential impacts to Butterfield Springs and
Flag Springs, where the three springsnail species occur, from the
proposed groundwater development by SNWA in the Cave Valley
hydrographic area (see details under Factor A). Based on the preceding
discussion, we have determined there is substantial information in the
petition and in our files to indicate that listing the Butterfield
pyrg, Hardy pyrg, and White River Valley pyrg due to the inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms related to permitting of groundwater
rights and use .
Cave Valley Summary: Based on our evaluation of the information
provided
[[Page 56621]]
in the petition and available in our files, we have determined that the
petition presents substantial information to indicate that listing of
the Butterfield pyrg, Hardy pyrg, and White River Valley pyrg may be
warranted due to the present or threatened destruction, modification,
or curtailment of its habitat or range (Factor A) resulting from
groundwater development and the inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms (Factor D) related to the permitting of groundwater rights
and use.
Dry Lake Valley and White River Valley Hydrographic Area Species
Pyrgulopsis breviloba (Flag pyrg) is found at the Flag Springs
complex (North, Middle, and South springs), Nye County, Nevada; and
Meloy Spring, Lincoln County, Nevada (Hershler 1998, p. 39; Golden et
al. 2007, pp. 161-162).
Factor A: The petition proposes that groundwater development,
spring development, water pollution, grazing, and recreation are
threats to the Flag pyrg. The perennial yield of the White River
hydrographic area is 37,000 (afy) (45,640,000 m\3\/year), and there are
31,699 afy (39,100,000 m\3\/year) committed; thus, permitted
groundwater rights do not exceed the estimated average annual recharge.
The perennial yield of the Dry Lake Valley hydrographic area is 12,700
afy (15,670,000 m\3\/year), and there are 1,066 afy (1,315,000 m\3\/
year) committed; thus, permitted groundwater rights do not exceed the
estimated average annual recharge. However, SNWA is proposing to
develop 134,000 afy (165,288,100 m\3\/year) of groundwater from the
Cave Valley hydrographic area (180) (SNWA 2008, p. 1-1). There
is evidence for a hydrologic connection suggesting that groundwater may
flow between Cave Valley and White River Valley based on isotopic
similarities of groundwater in Cave Valley that emerge at Butterfield
Springs and Flag Springs (NDWR 2008, pp. 16-17). The NSE expressed
concern for potential impacts to these springs from groundwater
development in Cave Valley (NDWR 2008, p. 17), and a large proportion
of habitat of Flag pyrg occurs at Flag Springs. Therefore, based on the
preceding discussion, we have determined there is substantial
information in the petition and in our files to indicate that listing
the Flag pyrg may be warranted due to threats from groundwater
development .
As discussed in the ``Summary of Common Threats'' section, the
petition does not present any specific information, nor is there any
information in our files regarding spring development, water pollution,
grazing, and recreation as potential threats to the Flag pyrg.
Therefore, we have determined that there is not substantial information
in the petition and our files indicating that spring development, water
pollution, grazing, and recreation may be threats to the Flag pyrg.
However, we will further consider this and any additional information
on these activities received during our status review for this species.
Factors B, C, and E: The petition proposes that collection for
scientific or educational purposes, disease or predation, invasive
species, inherent vulnerability of isolated springsnail populations,
and global climate change are threats to the Flag pyrg. The petition
does not provide specific information regarding the potential threat
from isolation and limited distribution, and we do not consider
isolation and limited distribution, in and of itself, to be a threat to
the Flag pyrg. As discussed in the ``Summary of Common Threats''
section above, the petition does not provide specific information, nor
is there any information in our files, regarding collection for
scientific or educational purposes, disease or predation, invasive
species, and global climate change as potential threats to any of the
petitioned springsnail species, which includes the Flag pyrg.
Therefore, we have determined that there is not substantial information
in the petition and our files indicating that collection for scientific
or educational purposes, disease or predation, invasive species,
inherent vulnerability of isolated springsnail populations, and global
climate change may be threats to the Flag pyrg. However, we will
further consider this and any additional information on these
activities and other potential threats received during our status
review for this species.
Factor D: The petition states that inadequate regulatory mechanisms
are a threat to the Flag pyrg due to the permitting of groundwater
rights by the NSE. The NSE expressed concern for potential impacts to
Flag Springs, where the species occurs, from the proposed groundwater
development by SNWA in the Cave Valley hydrographic area (see details
under Factor A). Based on the preceding discussion, we have determined
there is substantial information in the petition and in our files to
indicate that listing the Flag pyrg may be warranted due to the
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms related to the permitting
of groundwater rights and use.
Dry Lake Valley Summary: Based on our evaluation of the information
provided in the petition and available in our files, we have determined
that the petition presents substantial information to indicate that
listing of the Flag pyrg may be warranted due to the present or
threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or
range (Factor A) resulting from groundwater development and the
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms (Factor D) related to the
permitting of groundwater rights and use.
Lake Valley Hydrographic Area Species
Pyrgulopsis sublata (Lake Valley pyrg) is found in Wambolt Springs,
Lincoln County, Nevada (Hershler 1998, p. 57). Golden et al. (2007, p.
133) indicate that there are at least six spring sources, of which they
focused their attention at two. During surveys in 1992, Sada (2003,
database record 717) described Lake Valley pyrg as common. During
surveys in 2004, Golden et al. (2007, p. 136) observed that Lake Valley
pyrg was common at one spring head and scarce 5-15 meter (m) (16 feet
(ft)-49 ft) downstream. Brief surveys of the remaining springs by
Golden et al. 2007, p. 136) showed that springsnails were scarce at one
and absent from the remaining four. Golden et al. (2007, p. 137) found
that Lake Valley pyrg was the fourth most dominant taxa in the
macroinvertebrate samples collected at springs they surveyed.
Factor A: The petition proposes that groundwater development,
spring development, water pollution, recreation, and grazing are
threats to the Lake Valley pyrg. The Lake Valley hydrographic area
(183) has been classified as a ``Designated Groundwater
Basin'' by the NSE in which permitted groundwater rights exceed the
estimated average annual recharge. The perennial yield of Lake Valley
is 12,000 afy (14,800,000 m\3\/year), while 21,868 afy (26,970,000
m\3\/year) are committed for use. When groundwater extraction exceeds
aquifer recharge it may result in surface water level decline, spring
drying and degradation or loss of aquatic habitat (Zektser et al. 2005,
pp. 396-397). A berm (spring development) is present at the complex and
was potentially created to pool water (Golden et al. 2007, p. 137).
Pooling of water can alter springsnail habitat conditions from flowing
to standing water. Therefore, based on the preceding discussion and the
discussion of groundwater and spring development in the ``Summary of
Common Threats,'' we have determined there is substantial information
in the petition and our files to indicate that listing the Lake Valley
pyrg may be warranted due to threats
[[Page 56622]]
from groundwater development and spring development.
As discussed in the ``Summary of Common Threats'' section above,
the petition does not present any specific information, nor is there
any information in our files regarding water pollution and recreation
as potential threats to any of the petitioned springsnail species,
which includes the Lake Valley pyrg. Specifically regarding grazing,
Golden et al. (2007, p. 137) described the two springs surveyed as
slightly disturbed indicating that livestock were prevalent, but damage
to habitat was minimal. Therefore, based on the preceding discussion
and the discussion of water pollution, recreation, and grazing in the
``Summary of Common Threats,'' we have determined that there is not
substantial information in the petition and our files indicating that
water pollution, recreation, and grazing may be threats to the Lake
Valley pyrg. However, we will further consider this and any additional
information on these activities received during our status review for
this species.
Factors B, C, and E: The petition proposes that collection for
scientific or educational purposes, disease or predation, invasive
species, inherent vulnerability of isolated springsnail populations,
and global climate change are threats to the Lake Valley pyrg. The
petition does not provide any information regarding the potential
threat from isolation and limited distribution, and we do not consider
isolation and limited distribution, in and of itself, to be a threat to
the Lake Valley pyrg. As discussed in the ``Summary of Common Threats''
section above, the petition does not provide any information, nor is
there any information in our files regarding collection for scientific
or educational purposes, disease or predation, invasive species, and
global climate change as potential threats to any of the petitioned
springsnail species, which includes the Lake Valley pyrg. Therefore, we
have determined that there is not substantial information in the
petition and our files indicating that collection for scientific or
educational purposes, disease or predation, invasive species, inherent
vulnerability of isolated springsnail populations, and global climate
change may be threats to the Lake Valley pyrg. However, we will further
consider this and any additional information on these activities and
other potential threats received during our status review for this
species.
Factor D: The petition states that inadequate regulatory mechanisms
are a threat to the Lake Valley pyrg due to the permitting of
groundwater rights by the NSE that exceed perennial yield. Permitted
groundwater rights in the hydrographic area currently exceed the
average annual recharge (see details under Factor A). Based on this and
the discussion of regulatory mechanisms related to the permitting of
groundwater rights and use in the ``Summary of Common Threats,'' we
have determined there is substantial information in the petition and
our files to indicate that listing the Lake Valley pyrg may be
warranted due to the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms
related to the permitting of groundwater rights and use.
Lake Valley Summary: Based on our evaluation of the information
provided in the petition and available in our files, we have determined
that the petition presents substantial information to indicate that
listing of Lake Valley pyrg may be warranted due to the present or
threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or
range (Factor A) resulting from groundwater development and spring
development, and due to the inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms (Factor D) related to the permitting of groundwater rights
and use.
Las Vegas Valley, Indian Springs, Pahrump Valley, Amargosa Flat, and
Frenchman Flat Hydrographic Areas Species
Pyrgulopsis deaconi (Spring Mountains pyrg) is found on Federal
land at Kiup Spring, Red Spring, and Willow Spring, Clark County,
Nevada (Hershler 1998, p. 25; Sada and Nachlinger 1998, p. 15). A
population described as scarce is also present at Rainbow Spring (Sada
and Nachlinger 1998, p. 28 as confirmed by Sada (2002, p. 2)).
Previously unknown populations were documented at Horse Spring 1 and 2
in the late 1990s and early 2000s (Sada 2002, p. 2). A population at
Manse Spring in Nye County, Nevada, has been extirpated (Sada 2002, p.
4).
Sada (2002, p. 3) surveyed areas in Clark County for the Spring
Mountains pyrg between 1999 and 2001, and described their estimated
abundance in occupied habitat. The Spring Mountains pyrg was described
as abundant at Horse Spring 1 and 2; common at Red Spring; and scarce
at Kiup Spring and Rainbow Spring. In 2001, the Spring Mountains pyrg
was repatriated to Willow Spring from Lost Canyon Creek. Springsnails
were found during surveys in 2002 at Willow Spring, but no collections
were made to identify species (Sada 2002, p. 6).
Factor A: The petition proposes that groundwater development,
spring development, water pollution, recreation, and grazing are
threats to the Spring Mountains pyrg. The Pahrump Valley (162)
and Las Vegas Valley (212) hydrographic areas have each been
classified as a ``Designated Groundwater Basin'' by the NSE in which
permitted groundwater rights exceed the estimated average annual
recharge. The perennial yield of Pahrump Valley hydrographic area is
12,000 afy (14,800,000 m\3\/year), while 62,740 afy (77,390,000 m\3\/
year) are committed for use. The perennial yield of Las Vegas Valley
hydrographic area is 25,000 afy (30,840,000 m\3\/year), while 92,406
afy (114,000,000 m\3\/year) are committed for use. When groundwater
extraction exceeds aquifer recharge it may result in surface water
level decline, spring drying and degradation or loss of aquatic habitat
(Zektser et al. 2005, pp. 396-397). Sada (2002, p. 4) reported that the
extirpation of the Spring Mountains pyrg from Manse Spring is believed
to coincide with its drying in 1975, which occurred as a result of
localized groundwater development (Soltz and Naiman 1978, p. 24).
Therefore, based on this and the discussion of groundwater development
in the ``Summary of Common Threats'' section, above, we have determined
there is substantial information in the petition and our files to
indicate that listing the Spring Mountains pyrg may be warranted due to
threats from groundwater development.
The springsnail population at Willow Spring (on Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) lands, not Willow Creek on Forest Service lands) was
extirpated between 1992 and 1995 as a result of spring diversion and
channel modification for recreation (Sada and Nachlinger 1996, pp. 17
and 29; Sada 2002, p. 4). In 2001, Willow Spring was restored,
including a boardwalk to protect the spring, and the Spring Mountains
pyrg was repatriated using individuals from Lost Canyon Creek. Red
Spring had a high level of use by the public in the past (Sada and
Nachlinger 1996, p. 29). Recreationists may have dammed and diverted
stream flow from the spring (Putnam and Botsford 2002, as cited in CBD
et al. 2009, p. 87). Areas around Red Spring have been restored,
including the installation of a boardwalk to limit further disturbance.
Based on the preceding discussion, we have determined there is
substantial information in the petition and our files to indicate
recreation may be a threat to the Spring Mountains pyrg, but there is
not substantial information in the petition and our files indicating
spring
[[Page 56623]]
development may be a threat to the Spring Mountains pyrg. As discussed
in the ``Summary of Common Threats Section'' above, the petition does
not present any specific information, nor is there any information in
our files regarding water pollution and grazing as potential threats to
the Spring Mountains pyrg. Therefore, we have determined that there is
not substantial information in the petition and our files indicating
water pollution, grazing, and spring development may be threats to the
Spring Mountains pyrg. However, we will further consider this and any
additional information on these activities received during our status
review for this species.
Factors B, C, and E: The petition proposes that collection for
scientific or educational purposes, disease or predation, invasive
species, inherent vulnerability of isolated springsnail populations,
and global climate change are threats to the Spring Mountains pyrg. The
petition does not provide any specific information regarding the
potential threat from isolation and limited distribution, and we do not
consider isolation and limited distribution, in and of itself, to be a
threat to the Spring Mountains pyrg. As discussed in the ``Summary of
Common Threats'' section above, the petition does not provide any
specific information, nor is there any information in our files
regarding collection for scientific or educational purposes, disease or
predation, invasive species, and global climate change as potential
threats to the Spring Mountains pyrg. Therefore, we have determined
that there is not substantial information in the petition and our files
indicating that collection for scientific or educational purposes,
disease or predation, invasive species, inherent vulnerability of
isolated springsnail populations, and global climate change may be
threats to the Spring Mountains pyrg. However, we will further consider
this and any additional information on these activities and other
potential threats received during our status review for this species.
Factor D: The petition states that inadequate regulatory mechanisms
are a threat to the Spring Mountains pyrg due to the permitting of
groundwater rights by the NSE that exceed perennial yield. Permitted
groundwater rights in the hydrographic areas currently exceed the
average annual recharge (see details under Factor A). Based on this and
the discussion of regulatory mechanisms related to the permitting of
groundwater rights and use in the ``Summary of Common Threats above,''
we have determined there is substantial information in the petition and
our files to indicate that listing the Spring Mountains pyrg may be
warranted due to the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms
related to the permitting of groundwater rights and use.
Spring Mountains Pyrg Summary: Based on our evaluation of the
information provided in the petition and available in our files, we
have determined that the petition presents substantial information to
indicate that listing of the Spring Mountains pyrg may be warranted due
to the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment
of its habitat or range (Factor A) resulting from groundwater
development and recreation, and due to the inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms (Factor D) related to the permitting of
groundwater rights and use.
Pyrgulopsis fausta (Corn Creek pyrg) is found at Corn Creek Springs
on the Desert NWR, Clark County, Nevada (Hershler 1998, p. 23).
Factor A: The petition proposes that groundwater development,
spring development, water pollution, recreation, and grazing are
threats to the Corn Creek pyrg. The Las Vegas Valley hydrographic area
(212) has been classified as a ``Designated Groundwater
Basin'' by the NSE in which permitted groundwater rights exceed the
estimated average annual recharge. The perennial yield of Las Vegas
Valley hydrographic area is 25,000 afy (30,840,000 m\3\/year), while
92,406 afy (114,000,000 m\3\/year) are committed for use. When
groundwater extraction exceeds aquifer recharge it may result in
surface water level decline, spring drying and degradation, or loss of
aquatic habitat (Zektser et al. 2005, pp. 396-397). Based on this and
the preceding discussion of groundwater development in the ``Summary of
Common Threats,'' we have determined there is substantial information
in the petition and our files to indicate that listing the Corn Creek
pyrg may be warranted due to threats from groundwater development.
Development of the springs at and near Corn Creek Springs dates
back to the early 1900s. Reduction in abundance of the Corn Creek pyrg
from when it was first collected (Hershler 1998, p. 23) was attributed
to the historical lining of the main outflow of Corn Creek Springs with
cement, which eliminated all but 5 m (16.4 ft) of Corn Creek pyrg
habitat (Sada 2002, p. 4). This past spring development action impacted
the abundance of the Corn Creek pyrg. Estimates of abundance from
surveys conducted at two springs at Corn Creek between 1999 and 2001
indicated that the Corn Creek pyrg was scarce at both springs and that
the species was restricted to estimated 5-m and 1-m (16.4-ft and 3.3-
ft) lengths of habitat in each spring, respectively (Sada 2002, p. 3).
However, in 2002, the Service removed the channel modifications and
restored the springs. Sada (2002, p. 4) projected the abundance of the
Corn Creek pyrg would increase as habitat stabilized, thereby removing
the past impacts of spring development, and anecdotal observations
support this, although formal surveys for the Corn Creek pyrg have not
been conducted since the restoration. Based on the preceding discussion
regarding the current habitat conditions and conservation management,
which have alleviated the threat of spring development, we have
determined that there is not substantial information in the petition
and our files indicating that spring development may be a threat to the
Corn Creek pyrg. However, we will further consider this and any
additional information on this activity received during our status
review for this species.
As discussed in the ``Summary of Common Threats'' section above,
the petition does not present any specific information, nor is there
any information in our files regarding water pollution, recreation, and
grazing as potential threats to any of the petitioned springsnail
species, which includes the Corn Creek pyrg. Therefore, we have
determined that there is not substantial information in the petition
and our files indicating that water pollution, recreation, and grazing
may be threats to the Corn Creek pyrg. However, we will further
consider this and any additional information on these activities
received during our status review for this species.
Factors B, C, and E: The petition proposes that collection for
scientific or educational purposes, disease or predation, invasive
species, inherent vulnerability of isolated springsnail populations,
and global climate change are threats. The petition does not provide
any specific information regarding the potential threat from isolation
and limited distribution, and we do not consider isolation and limited
distribution, in and of itself, to be a threat to the Corn Creek pyrg.
As discussed in the ``Summary of Common Threats'' section above,the
petition does not provide any specific information, nor is there any
information in our files regarding collection for scientific or
educational purposes, disease or predation, invasive species, and
global climate change as potential threats to any of the petitioned
springsnails, which includes the Corn Creek pyrg. Therefore, we have
determined that
[[Page 56624]]
there is not substantial information in the petition and our files does
indicating that collection for scientific or educational purposes,
disease or predation, invasive species, inherent vulnerability of
isolated springsnail populations, and global climate change may be
threats to the Corn Creek pyrg. However, we will further consider this
and any additional information on these activities and other potential
threats received during our status review for this species.
Factor D: The petition states that inadequate regulatory mechanisms
are a threat to the Corn Creek pyrg due to the permitting of
groundwater rights by the NSE that exceed perennial yield. Permitted
groundwater rights in the hydrographic area currently exceed the
average annual recharge (see details under Factor A). Therefore, based
on this and the discussion of regulatory mechanisms related to the
permitting of groundwater rights and use in the ``Summary of Common
Threats'' section above, we have determined there is substantial
information in the petition and our files to indicate that listing the
Corn Creek pyrg may be warranted due to the inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms related to the permitting of groundwater rights
and use.
Corn Creek Pyrg Summary: Based on our evaluation of the information
provided in the petition and available in our files, we have determined
that the petition presents substantial information to indicate that
listing the Corn Creek pyrg may be warranted due to the present or
threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or
range (Factor A) resulting from groundwater development, and due to the
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms (Factor D) related to the
permitting of groundwater rights and use.
Pyrgulopsis turbatrix (Southeast Nevada pyrg) is found in
approximately 10 spring or creek areas around the Spring Mountains of
southern Nevada in Clark and Nye Counties, Nevada; Grapevine Springs in
Amargosa Flat of Nye County, Nevada; and Cane Spring in Frenchman Flat,
Nye County, Nevada. The Southeast Nevada pyrg is one of the most widely
distributed springsnail species in southern Nevada (Sada 2002, p. 4).
This species has previously been misidentified as or confused with
Pyrgulopsis micrococcus (Oasis Valley springsnail (Hershler 1998, p.
53)).
Factor A: The petition proposes that groundwater development,
spring development, water pollution, recreation, and grazing are
threats to the Southeast Nevada pyrg. The Indian Springs Valley
(161), Pahrump Valley (162), and Las Vegas Valley
(212) hydrographic areas each have been classified as
``Designated Groundwater Basin'' by the NSE in which permitted
groundwater rights exceed the estimated average annual recharge. The
perennial yield of Indian Springs Valley hydrographic area is 500 afy
(616,700 m\3\/year), while 1,380 afy (1,702,000 m\3\/year) are
committed for use. The perennial yield of Pahrump Valley hydrographic
area is 12,000 afy (14,800,000 m\3\/year), while 62,740 afy (77,390,000
m\3\/year) are committed for use. The perennial yield of Las Vegas
Valley hydrographic area is 25,000 afy (30,840,000 m\3\/year), while
92,406 afy (114,000,000 m\3\/year) are committed for use. When
groundwater extraction exceeds aquifer recharge it may result in
surface water level decline, spring drying, and degradation or loss of
aquatic habitat (Zektser et al. 2005, pp. 396-397). Based on this and
the discussion of groundwater development in the ``Summary of Common
Threats,'' we have determined there is substantial information in the
petition and our files to indicate that listing the Southeast Nevada
pyrg may be warranted due to threats from groundwater development.
Horseshutem Springs has been highly impacted by ungulate grazing
and water diversion (Sada and Nachlinger 1996, p. 22; Hershler 1998, p.
53), but the Southeast Nevada pyrg remains common (Sada 2002, p. 3).
Sada (2002, p. 4) observed levels of ungulate grazing disturbance at
Horseshutem Springs and Grapevine Springs that may have reduced the
levels of springsnail abundance but appeared insufficient to extirpate
populations. Based on the preceding discussion, we have determined
there is substantial information in the petition and our files to
indicate that listing the Southeast Nevada pyrg may be warranted due to
threats from grazing.
At Grapevine Springs one of four populations was extirpated when
one of the springs dried as a result of a diversion (spring
development) between 1992 and 1995 (Sada and Nachlinger 1996, p. 17).
The population at Willow Spring (on BLM lands) was extirpated between
1992 and 1995 as a result of spring development (diversion and channel
modification) for recreation (Sada and Nachlinger 1996, p. 17; Sada
2002, p. 4). In 2001, Willow Spring was restored, including a boardwalk
to protect the spring, and the Southeast Nevada pyrg was repatriated
using individuals from Lost Canyon Creek. Springsnails were found
during surveys in late 2002 at Willow Spring, but no collections were
made to identify species (Sada 2002, p. 6). Based on the preceding
discussion, we have determined there is substantial information in the
petition and our files to indicate that listing the Southeast Nevada
pyrg may be warranted due to threats from spring development and
recreation.
The petition does not present any specific information, nor is
there any information in our files regarding water pollution as a
potential threat to the Southeast Nevada pyrg. Therefore, we have
determined that there is not substantial information in the petition
and our files indicating that water pollution may be a threat to the
Southeast Nevada pyrg. However, we will further consider this and any
additional information on this activity received during our status
review for this species.
Factors B, C, and E: The petition proposes that collection for
scientific or educational purposes, disease or predation, invasive
species, inherent vulnerability of isolated springsnail populations,
and global climate change are threats to the Southeast Nevada pyrg. The
petition does not provide any specific information regarding the
potential threat from isolation and limited distribution, and we do not
consider isolation and limited distribution, in and of itself, to be a
threat to the Southeast Nevada pyrg. As discussed in the ``Summary of
Common Threats'' section above, the petition does not provide any
specific information, nor is there any information in our files
regarding collection for scientific or educational purposes, disease or
predation, invasive species, and global climate change as potential
threats to any of the petitioned springsnails, which includes the
Southeast Nevada pyrg. Therefore, we have determined that there is not
substantial information in the petition and our files indicating that
collection for scientific or educational purposes, disease or
predation, invasive species, inherent vulnerability of isolated
springsnail populations, and global climate change may be threats to
the Southeast Nevada pyrg. However, we will further consider this and
any additional information on these activities and other potential
threats received during our status review for this species.
Factor D: The petition states that inadequate regulatory mechanisms
are a threat to the Southeast Nevada pyrg due to the permitting of
groundwater rights by the NSE that exceed perennial yield. Permitted
groundwater rights in the hydrographic areas currently exceed the
average annual recharge (see details
[[Page 56625]]
under Factor A). Therefore, based on this and the discussion of
regulatory mechanisms related to the permitting of groundwater rights
and use in the ``Summary of Common Threats'' section above, we have
determined there is substantial information in the petition and our
files to indicate that listing the Southeast Nevada pyrg may be
warranted due to the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms
related to the permitting of groundwater rights and use.
Southeast Nevada Pyrg Summary: Based on our evaluation of the
information provided in the petition and available in our files, we
have determined that the petition presents substantial information to
indicate that listing of the Southeast Nevada pyrg may be warranted due
to the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment
of its habitat or range (Factor A) resulting from groundwater
development, spring development, recreation, and grazing, and due to
the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms (Factor D) related to
the permitting of groundwater rights and use.
Pahranagat Valley Hydrographic Area Species
Pyrgulopsis hubbsi (Hubbs pyrg) is found on private land at Hiko
Spring and Crystal Springs in Lincoln County, Nevada (Hershler 1998, p.
35; Golden et al. 2007, p. 197). Springsnails were not observed at Hiko
Spring during surveys in 2000 (Sada 2003, database records) or 2006 and
may be extirpated there (Golden et al. 2007, pp. 197-198). At Crystal
Springs, Hubbs pyrg was abundant during 1992 surveys (Sada 2003,
database record 804 and 805), but scarce during surveys in 2006 (Golden
et al. 2007, pp. 197-198).
Pyrgulopsis merriami (Pahranagat pebblesnail) is found in four
springs in Nevada including: Ash Springs in Pahranagat Valley, Lincoln
County (Hershler 1994, p. 41); and Hot Creek Spring, Moon River Spring,
and Moorman Spring of White River Valley, Nye County (Hershler 1998, p.
31). Of the public lands surveyed, Golden et al. (2007, p. 198)
described Pahranagat pebblesnail as common to scarce at two spring
heads in Ash Springs, absent in much of the pool area, and common in a
stretch 60 m (197 ft) downstream to an area discharging to private
property. Pahranagat pebblesnail was common in Hot Creek Spring, Moon
River Spring, and Moorman Spring during 1992 surveys (Sada 2003,
database record 806). Springsnails were scarce throughout most, but
common in a few, areas of Hot Creek Spring during 2006 surveys (Golden
et al. 2007, p. 162).
Factor A: The petition asserts that groundwater development, spring
development, water pollution, recreation, and grazing are threats to
the Hubbs pyrg and Pahranagat pebblesnail. The SNWA is proposing to
develop groundwater from the Cave Valley (180), Dry Lake
Valley (181), and Delamar Valley (182) hydrographic
areas, (SNWA 2008, p. 1-1). There is evidence suggesting a hydrologic
connection between these basins and the Pahranagat Valley as discussed
in NSE ruling 5875 (NSE 2008, p. 18). However, groundwater
development model scenarios indicate that potential effects may not
express themselves at down-gradient springs in Pahranagat Valley for
centuries (NSE 2008, pp. 22-23). In addition, a monitoring and
mitigation plan is required as a condition of approval (NSE 2008, p.
23). Based on the preceding discussion, we have determined that there
is not substantial information in the petition and our files indicating
that groundwater development may be a threat to the Hubbs pyrg or the
Pahranagat pebblesnail. However, we will further consider this and any
additional information on this activity received during our status
review for this species.
Golden et al. (2007, p. 200) observed that Hiko Spring, Crystal
Springs, and Ash Springs were highly disturbed by water diversions
(spring development) and recreation. Sada and Vinyard (2002, p. 286)
identified water diversion at Crystal Springs as a threat to the Hubbs
pyrg. Based on this information, coupled with the available population
abundance information for Hubbs pyrg and Pahranagat pebblesnail as
cited above, we have determined that there is substantial information
in the petition and in our files indicating that listing the Hubbs pyrg
and Pahranagat pebblesnail may be warranted due to threats from spring
development and recreation.
As discussed in the ``Summary of Common Threats'' section above,
the petition does not present any specific information, nor is there
any information in our files, regarding water pollution and grazing as
potential threats to any of the petitioned springsnails, which includes
the Hubbs pyrg and Pahranagat pebblesnail. Therefore, we have
determined that there is not substantial information in the petition
and our files indicating that water pollution and grazing may be
threats to the Hubbs pyrg and Pahranagat pebblesnail. However, we will
further consider this and any additional information on these
activities received during our status review for this species.
Factors B, C, and D: The petition proposes that collection for
scientific or educational purposes, disease or predation, and
inadequate regulatory mechanisms are threats to the Hubbs pyrg and
Pahranagat pebblesnail. The petition does not provide specific
information, nor is there any information in our files regarding
collection for scientific or educational purposes, disease or
predation, and inadequate regulatory mechanisms as potential threats to
the Hubbs pyrg and Pahranagat pebblesnail. Therefore, based on this and
the discussion in the ``Summary of Common Threats,'' we have determined
that there is not substantial information in the petition and our files
indicating that collection for scientific or educational purposes,
disease or predation, and inadequate regulatory mechanisms may be
threats to the Hubbs pyrg and Pahranagat pebblesnail. However, we will
further consider this and any additional information on these
activities and other potential threats received during our status
review for this species.
Factor E: The petition proposes that invasive species, inherent
vulnerability of isolated springsnail populations, and global climate
change are threats to the Hubbs pyrg and Pahranagat pebblesnail.
Nonnative, invasive species (fish, invertebrates, amphibians and
vegetation) are present--and in some locations are the dominant
species--in Ash Springs, Hiko Spring, and Crystal Springs, which may be
affecting the Hubbs pyrg and Pahranagat pebblesnail (Golden et al.
2007, pp. 184-199). Presence of nonnative species in these three
springs, particularly nonnative fishes, has resulted in extirpations
and negative interactions with native fish species, although the
information in the petition and in our files does not directly
correlate presence of nonnative species with impacts to the Hubbs pyrg
and Pahranagat pebblesnail (Golden et al. 2007, p. 194). Based on the
information in the petition and in our files, we are unable to identify
any single potential threat that is affecting the abundance of the
Hubbs pyrg and Pahranagat pebblesnail, and it is likely that their
abundance is being affected by a combination of threats, including
nonnative species. Therefore, we have determined there is substantial
information in the petition and our files to indicate that listing the
Hubbs pyrg and Pahranagat pebblesnail may be warranted due to potential
threats from invasive species.
[[Page 56626]]
The petition asserts that inherent vulnerability of isolated
springsnail populations and global climate change are threats to the
Hubbs pyrg and Pahranagat pebblesnail. The petition does not provide
any specific information regarding the potential threat from isolation
and limited distribution, and we do not consider isolation and limited
distribution, in and of itself, to be a threat to the Hubbs pyrg and
Pahranagat pebblesnail. The petition does not provide any specific
information, nor is there any information in our files regarding global
climate change as a potential threat to the Hubbs pyrg and Pahranagat
pebblesnail. Based on this and the discussion in the ``Summary of
Common Threats,'' we have determined that there is not substantial
information in the petition and our files indicating that inherent
vulnerability of isolated springsnail populations and global climate
change may be threats to the Hubbs pyrg and Pahranagat pebblesnail.
However, we will further consider this and any additional information
on this and other potential threats received during our status review
for this species.
Pahranagat Valley Summary: Based on our evaluation of the
information provided in the petition and available in our files, we
have determined that the petition presents substantial information to
indicate that listing of the Hubbs pyrg and Pahranagat pebblesnail may
be warranted due to the present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range (Factor A)
resulting from spring development and recreation, and due to other
natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence (Factor E)
resulting from invasive species.
Ralston Valley and Stone Cabin Flat Hydrographic Areas Species
Pyrgulopsis sterilis (Sterile Basin pyrg) is known from two springs
on private lands, Hunts Canyon Ranch and Sidehill Spring, Nye County,
Nevada (Hershler 1998, p. 54).
Factor A: The petition states that groundwater development, spring
development, water pollution, recreation, and grazing are threats that
may affect the Sterile Basin pyrg. The Stone Cabin Flat (149)
and Ralston Valley (141) hydrographic areas each have been
classified as ``Designated Groundwater Basins'' by the NSE. The
permitted groundwater rights in the Stone Cabin Flat hydrographic area
exceed the estimated average annual recharge. The perennial yield of
Stone Cabin Flat hydrographic area is 2,000 afy (2,467,000 m\3\/year),
while 11,532 afy (14,220,000 m\3\/year) are committed. The permitted
groundwater rights in the Ralston Valley hydrographic area do not
exceed, but are approaching the estimated average annual recharge with
the perennial yield at 6,000 afy (7,401,000 m\3\/year), and 4,415 afy
(5,446,000 m\3\/year) are committed. When groundwater extraction
exceeds aquifer recharge it may result in surface water level decline,
spring drying, and degradation or loss of aquatic habitat (Zektser et
al. 2005, pp. 396-397). Based upon this and the discussion of
groundwater development in the ``Summary of Common Threats'' section
above, we have determined there is substantial information in the
petition and our files to indicate that listing the Sterile Basin pyrg
may be warranted due to threats from groundwater development.
The petition asserts spring development, water pollution,
recreation, and grazing are threats to the Sterile Basin pyrg. As
discussed in the ``Summary of Common Threats'' section above, the
petition does not present any specific information, nor is there any
information in our files regarding spring development, water pollution,
recreation, and grazing as potential threats to the Sterile Basin pyrg.
Therefore, we have determined that there is not substantial information
in the petition and our files indicating that spring development, water
pollution, recreation, and grazing may be threats to the Sterile Basin
pyrg. However, we will further consider this and any additional
information on these activities received during our status review for
this species.
Factors B, C, and E: The petition states that collection for
scientific or educational purposes, disease or predation, invasive
species, inherent vulnerability of isolated springsnail populations,
and global climate change are threats that may affect the Sterile Basin
pyrg. The petition provides little information regarding the potential
threat from isolation and limited distribution, and we do not consider
isolation and limited distribution, in and of itself, to be a threat to
the Sterile Basin pyrg. As discussed in the ``Summary of Common
Threats'' section above, the petition does not provide any specific
information, nor is there any information in our files regarding
collection for scientific or educational purposes, disease or
predation, invasive species, and global climate change as potential
threats to the Sterile Basin pyrg. Therefore, we have determined that
here is not substantial information in the petition and our files
indicating that collection for scientific or educational purposes,
disease or predation, invasive species, and global climate change may
be threats to the Sterile Basin pyrg. However, we will further consider
this and any additional information on these activities and other
potential threats received during our status review for this species.
Factor D: The petition states that inadequate regulatory mechanisms
are a threat to the Sterile Basin pyrg due to the permitting of
groundwater rights by the NSE that exceed perennial yield. Permitted
groundwater rights in the hydrographic areas currently approach or
exceed the average annual recharge (see details under Factor A). Based
on this and the discussion of regulatory mechanisms related to the
permitting of groundwater rights and use in the ``Summary of Common
Threats'' section above, we have determined there is substantial
information in the petition and our files to indicate that listing the
Sterile Basin pyrg may be warranted due to the inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms related to the permitting of groundwater rights
and use.
Ralston Valley Summary: Based on our evaluation of the information
provided in the petition and available in our files, we have determined
that the petition presents substantial information to indicate that
listing of the Sterile Basin pyrg may be warranted due to the present
or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat
or range (Factor A) resulting from groundwater development, and due to
the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms (Factor D) related to
the permitting of groundwater rights and use.
Snake Valley and Spring Valley Hydrographic Area Species
Pyrgulopsis peculiaris (bifid duct pyrg) occurs at 6 sites in
Millard County, Utah, and two sites in White Pine County, Nevada
(Hershler 1998, p. 110).
Factor A: The petition states that groundwater development, spring
development, agricultural development, water pollution, recreation, and
grazing are threats to the bifid duct pyrg. The Snake Valley
(195) and Spring Valley (184) hydrographic areas are
not classified as ``Designated Groundwater Basins'' by the NSE. The
permitted groundwater rights in the Snake Valley hydrographic area do
not exceed the estimated average annual recharge. The perennial yield
of Snake Valley hydrographic area is 25,000 afy (30,840,000 m\3\/year),
and there are 10,720 afy (13,220,000 m\3\/year) committed. However, the
permitted groundwater rights in the Spring Valley
[[Page 56627]]
hydrographic area exceed the estimated average annual recharge. The
perennial yield of the Spring Valley hydrographic area is 80,000 afy
(98,680,000 m\3\/year), and there are 86,085 afy (106,200,000 m\3\/
year) committed. When groundwater extraction exceeds aquifer recharge
it may result in surface water level decline, spring drying, and
degradation or loss of aquatic habitat (Zektser et al. 2005, pp. 396-
397). Based upon this and the discussion of groundwater development in
the ``Summary of Common Threats'' section above, we have determined
there is substantial information in the petition and our files to
indicate that listing the bifid duct pyrg may be warranted due to
threats from groundwater development.
The petition states that spring development, agricultural
development, water pollution, recreation, and grazing are threats to
the bifid duct pyrg. As discussed in the ``Summary of Common Threats''
section above, the petition does not present any specific information,
nor is there any information in our files regarding spring development,
agricultural development, water pollution, recreation, and grazing as
potential threats to the bifid duct pyrg. Therefore, we have determined
that there is not substantial information in the petition and our files
indicating that spring development, agricultural development, water
pollution, recreation, and grazing may be threats to the bifid duct
pyrg. However, we will further consider this and any additional
information on these activities received during our status review for
this species.
Factors B, C, and E: The petition states that collection for
scientific or educational purposes, disease or predation, invasive
species, inherent vulnerability of isolated springsnail populations,
and global climate change are threats to the bifid duct pyrg. The
petition does not provide any specific information regarding the
potential threat from isolation and limited distribution, and we do not
consider isolation and limited distribution, in and of itself, to be a
threat to the bifid duct pyrg. As discussed in the ``Summary of Common
Threats'' section above, the petition does not present any specific
information, nor is there any information in our files regarding
collection for scientific or educational purposes, disease or
predation, invasive species, and global climate change as potential
threats to any of the petitioned springsnail species, which includes
the bifid duct pyrg. Therefore, we have determined that there is not
substantial information in the petition and our files indicating that
collection for scientific or educational purposes, disease or
predation, invasive species, inherent vulnerability of isolated
springsnail populations, and global climate change may be threats to
the bifid duct pyrg. However, we will further consider this and any
additional information on these activities and other potential threats
received during our status review for this species.
Factor D: The petition states that inadequate regulatory mechanisms
are a threat to the bifid duct pyrg due to the permitting of
groundwater rights by the NSE that exceed perennial yield. Permitted
groundwater rights in the Spring Valley hydrographic area currently
exceed the average annual recharge (see details under Factor A). Based
on this and the discussion of regulatory mechanisms relating to the
permitting of groundwater rights and use in the ``Summary of Common
Threats,'' we have determined there is substantial information in the
petition and our files to indicate that listing the bifid duct pyrg may
be warranted due to the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms
relating to the permitting of groundwater rights and use.
Snake Valley Summary: Based on our evaluation of the information
provided in the petition and available in our files, we have determined
that the petition presents substantial information to indicate that
listing of bifid duct pyrg may be warranted due to the present or
threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or
range (Factor A) resulting from groundwater development, and due to
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms (Factor D) relating to the
permitting of groundwater rights and use.
Steptoe Valley Hydrographic Area Species
Pyrgulopsis landyei (Landyes pyrg) occurs at one rheocrene spring
(flowing directly out of the ground, typically under pressure) north-
northwest of Steptoe Ranch, White Pine County, Nevada (Hershler 1998,
p. 70).
Pyrgulopsis neritella (neritiform Steptoe Ranch pyrg) occurs at two
rheocrene springs located on private land north of Steptoe Ranch, White
Pine County, Nevada (Hershler 1998, p. 70).
Pyrgulopsis orbiculata (sub-globose Steptoe Ranch pyrg) is
restricted to two springs in White Pine County, Nevada (Hershler 1998,
p. 68).
Pyrgulopsis planulata (flat-topped Steptoe pyrg) occurs on private
land at one spring northwest of Clark Spring, White Pine County, Nevada
(Hershler 1998, p. 66).
Pyrgulopsis serrata (northern Steptoe pyrg) occurs at Twin Springs
and springs south of Currie in Steptoe Valley, Elko County, Nevada, and
at Indian Ranch Spring and Indian Creek in Steptoe Valley, White Pine
County (Hershler 1998, p. 71). The species also occurs at 10 springs in
northern Steptoe Valley (Sada 2006, p. i).
Pyrgulopsis sulcata (southern Steptoe pyrg) occurs at two spring
complexes in White Pine County, Nevada (Hershler 1998, p. 67).
Factor A: The petition asserts that these six Steptoe Valley
springsnail species are threatened by groundwater development, spring
development, water pollution, recreation, and grazing (Hershler 1998,
p. 70; Sada and Vinyard 2002, p. 277). The Steptoe Valley hydrographic
area (179) has been classified as a ``Designated Groundwater
Basin'' by the NSE in which permitted groundwater rights approach or
exceed the estimated average annual recharge. The perennial yield of
Steptoe Valley is 70,000 afy (86,340,000 m\3\/year), and approximately
97,000 afy (119,600,000 m\3\/year) are committed for use. When
groundwater extraction exceeds aquifer recharge, it may result in
surface water level decline, spring drying, and degradation or loss of
aquatic habitat (Zektser et al. 2005, pp. 396-397). Therefore, based on
this and the discussion of discussing groundwater development in the
``Summary of Common Threats,'' we have determined there is substantial
information in the petition and our files to indicate that listing the
six petitioned springsnail species of the Steptoe Valley may be
warranted due to threats from groundwater development.
Within Steptoe Valley, surveys for springsnails were conducted in
the early 1990s in springs near Bassett Lake (Sada 2006, p. i). These
surveys found all six petitioned Steptoe Valley springsnail species.
Due to potential groundwater pumping by the previously proposed White
Pine Energy Project (application is no longer active), Sada (2006, p.
i) surveyed 44 springs in Steptoe Valley in 2005 that were located
within the zone of potential impact by the energy project. It was noted
that all of the springs surveyed were moderately to highly disturbed
due to spring diversion and livestock trampling (2006, p. 4). Ten of
the 44 springs were occupied by northern Steptoe pyrgs, which were
scarce at 3 sites, common at 6 sites, and abundant at 1 site (Sada
2006, p. 5 and Table 6). The surveys conducted in the 1990s did not
include any of the 44 springs surveyed by Sada in 2005, where 10
previously unrecorded populations of the northern Steptoe pyrg were
found. Although Sada (2006, pp. i-27) states that the springs surveyed
in 2005 were degraded and had variable
[[Page 56628]]
levels of occupation by the northern Steptoe pyrg, it is not clear
whether these activities have resulted in the loss of or decline in
springsnail populations in the Steptoe Valley. Based on the preceding
discussion, we have determined that there is not substantial
information in the petition and our files indicating that spring
development and grazing may be threats to the six petitioned
springsnail species of the Steptoe Valley. However, we will further
consider this and any additional information on these activities
received during our status review for this species.
The petition also claims that the springsnails of Steptoe Valley
are threatened by the proposed White Pine Energy Station (BLM 2008,
Volumes 1 through 4); however, the White Pine Energy project
application is currently withdrawn, and the future of the project is
uncertain; therefore, there is not substantial information indicating
that this project may threaten these six Steptoe Valley springsnail
species.
The petition does not present any specific information, nor is
there any information in our files regarding water pollution and
recreation as potential threats to the six Steptoe Valley springsnail
species. Therefore, based on this and the discussion in the ``Summary
of Common Threats'' section above, we have determined that there is not
substantial information in the petition and our files indicating that
water pollution, and recreation may be threats to the six Steptoe
Valley springsnail species. However, we will further consider this and
any additional information on these activities received during our
status review for this species.
Factors B, C, and E: The petition states that collection for
scientific or educational purposes, disease or predation, invasive
species, inherent vulnerability of isolated springsnail populations,
and global climate change are threats that may impact the six Steptoe
Valley springsnail species. The petition does not provide any specific
information regarding the potential threat from isolation and limited
distribution, and we do not consider isolation and limited
distribution, in and of itself, to be a threat to the six Steptoe
Valley springsnail species. As discussed in the ``Summary of Common
Threats'' section above, the petition does not present any specific
information, nor is there any information in our files regarding
collection for scientific or educational purposes, disease or
predation, invasive species, and global climate change as potential
threats to the six Steptoe Valley springsnail species. Therefore, we
have determined that there is not substantial information in the
petition and our files indicating that collection for scientific or
educational purposes, disease or predation, invasive species, inherent
vulnerability of isolated springsnail populations, and global climate
change may be threats to the six Steptoe Valley springsnail species.
However, we will further consider this and any additional information
on these activities and other potential threats received during our
status review for this species.
Factor D: The petition states that inadequate regulatory mechanisms
are a threat to the six Steptoe Valley springsnails due to the
permitting of groundwater rights by the NSE that exceed perennial
yield. Permitted groundwater rights in the hydrographic area currently
exceed the average annual recharge (see details under Factor A).
Therefore, based on this and discussion of regulatory mechanisms
related to the permitting of groundwater rights and use in the
``Summary of Common Threats'' section above, we have determined there
is substantial information in the petition and our files to indicate
that listing the six Steptoe Valley springsnail species may be
warranted due to the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms
related to the permitting of groundwater rights and use.
Steptoe Valley Summary: Based on our evaluation of the information
provided in the petition and available in our files, we have determined
that the petition presents substantial information to indicate that
listing of the Landyes pyrg, neritiform Steptoe Ranch pyrg, sub-globose
Steptoe Ranch pyrg, flat-topped Steptoe pyrg, northern Steptoe pyrg,
and southern Steptoe pyrg may be warranted due to the present or
threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of their habitat
or range (Factor A) resulting from groundwater development, and due to
the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms (Factor D) related to
the permitting of groundwater rights and use.
Upper Muddy River Springs Hydrographic Area Species
Pyrgulopsis avernalis (Moapa pebblesnail) is documented at more
than five spring locations in Moapa Valley, Clark County, Nevada
(Hershler 1994, pp. 19-21; Service 1995, pp. 15-16; Hershler 1998, pp.
29-30; Sada 2008, p. 60). The documented spring locations in the Moapa
Valley are found within an approximately 1.5-km (0.9-mi) radius
(Hershler 1994, p. 19).
Pyrgulopsis carinifera (Moapa Valley pyrg) occurs at more than five
spring locations in Moapa Valley, Clark County, Nevada (Hershler 1994,
pp. 26-27; Hershler 1998, p. 31; Sada 2008, p. 60). The documented
spring locations are found in an approximately 1.5-km (0.9-mi) radius.
Factor A: Potential threats to the Moapa pebblesnail and Moapa
Valley pyrg identified in the petition are groundwater development,
spring development, water pollution, recreation, and grazing. The Upper
Muddy River Springs hydrographic area (219) has been
classified as a ``Designated Groundwater Basin'' by the NSE in which
permitted ground water rights exceed the estimated average annual
recharge. The perennial yield of the Upper Muddy River Springs is 100-
36,000 afy (123,300-44,410,000 m\3\/year), while approximately 14,558
afy (17,960,000 m\3\/year) are committed for use. Since 1998, there has
been a small and widespread decline in carbonate aquifer water levels
in the Upper Muddy River Springs area because of groundwater pumping
(Mayer and Congdon 2007, p. 13). When groundwater extraction exceeds
aquifer recharge, it may result in surface water level decline, spring
drying, and degradation or loss of aquatic habitat (Zektser et al.
2005, pp. 396-397). Regarding spring development, Sada (2008, p. 69)
reported that reduced habitat quality and heterogeneity caused by
diversions, channelization, and siltation resulted in reductions of
springsnails (including the Moapa pebblesnail and Moapa Valley pyrg)
such that they were scarce or absent at 85 percent of the springbrooks
where they historically occurred at Warm Springs.
The Service and other partnering agencies have completed, and
continue to implement extensive efforts to restore the spring systems
in the Upper Muddy River Springs area and to reduce or eliminate past
spring diversion impacts to aquatic species including springsnails;
however, not all of the impacts of spring diversion have been removed
or reduced. Therefore, based on the preceding discussion, we have
determined there is substantial information in the petition and our
files to indicate that listing the Moapa pebblesnail and Moapa Valley
pyrg may be warranted due to threats from groundwater development and
spring development.
The petition states that water pollution, recreation, and grazing
are potential threats to the Moapa pebblesnail and Moapa Valley pyrg.
As discussed in the ``Summary of Common Threats'' section, above the
petition does not present any specific
[[Page 56629]]
information, nor is there any information in our files regarding water
pollution, recreation, and grazing as potential threats to the Moapa
pebblesnail and Moapa Valley pyrg. Therefore, we have determined there
is not substantial information in the petition and our files indicating
that water pollution, recreation, and grazing may be threats to the
Moapa pebblesnail and Moapa Valley pyrg.
Factors B and C: The petition asserts collection for scientific or
educational purposes and disease or predation as potential threats to
the Moapa pebblesnail and Moapa Valley pyrg. The petition did not
present any specific information, nor is there any information in our
files regarding collection for scientific or educational purposes, and
disease or predation as potential threats to the Moapa pebblesnail and
Moapa Valley pyrg. Therefore, we have determined that there is not
substantial information in the petition and our files indicating that
collection for scientific or educational purposes and disease or
predation may be threats to the Moapa pebblesnail and Moapa Valley
pyrg. However, we will further consider this and any additional
information on these activities and other potential threats received
during our status review for this species.
Factor D: The petition states that inadequate regulatory mechanisms
are a threat to the Moapa pebblesnail and Moapa Valley pyrg due to the
permitting of groundwater rights by the NSE that exceed perennial
yield. Permitted groundwater rights in the hydrographic area currently
approach the average annual recharge (see details under Factor A).
Based on this and the discussion of regulatory mechanisms related to
the permitting of groundwater rights and use in the ``Summary of Common
Threats,'' we have determined there is substantial information in the
petition and our files to indicate that listing the Moapa pebblesnail
and Moapa Valley pyrg may be warranted due to the inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms related to the permitting of groundwater
rights and use.
Factor E: The petition asserts that invasive species, inherent
vulnerability of isolated populations, and global climate change are
potential threats to the Moapa pebblesnail and Moapa Valley pyrg.
Specifically regarding invasive species, a study in the thermal, Upper
Muddy River spring system of competition from the invasive red-rimmed
melania suggests that this may not be a threat because there is only a
minor niche overlap between nonnative snails and the native Moapa
pebblesnail and Moapa Valley pyrg (Sada 2008, p. 69). The petition does
not provide any specific information regarding other invasive species
in the springs occupied by the Moapa pebblesnail and Moapa Valley pyrg.
The petition does not provide any specific information regarding the
potential threat from isolation and limited distribution, and we do not
consider isolation and limited distribution, in and of itself, to be a
threat to the Moapa pebblesnail and Moapa Valley pyrg. The petition
does not provide any specific information, nor is there any information
in our files regarding global climate change as a potential threat to
the Moapa pebblesnail and Moapa Valley pyrg. Therefore, based on the
preceding discussion, we have determined that there is not substantial
information in the petition and our files indicating that invasive
species, inherent vulnerability of isolated springsnail populations,
and global climate change may be threats to the Moapa pebblesnail and
Moapa Valley pyrg. However, we will further consider this and any
additional information on these activities and other potential threats
received during our status review for this species.
Upper Muddy River Springs Summary: Based on our evaluation of the
information provided in the petition and available in our files, we
have determined that the petition presents substantial information to
indicate that listing of the Moapa pebblesnail and Moapa Valley pyrg
may be warranted due to the present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range (Factor A)
resulting from groundwater development and spring development, and due
to the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms (Factor D)
permitting groundwater rights and use.
Upper Muddy River Springs, White River Valley, and Pahranagat Valley
Hydrographic Areas Species
Tryonia clathrata (grated tryonia) is found in approximately 12
spring systems in Clark, Lincoln, and Nye Counties, Nevada (Hershler,
1999, pp. 331-332).
Factor A: The petition proposes that groundwater development,
spring development, water pollution, recreation, and grazing are
threats to the grated tryonia. The grated tryonia occurs in springs in
the Upper Muddy River Springs hydrographic area (219), which
has been classified as a ``Designated Groundwater Basin'' by the NSE
where permitted groundwater rights exceed the estimated average annual
recharge. The perennial yield of the Upper Muddy River Springs area is
100-36,000 afy (123,300-44,410,000 m\3\/year), while approximately
14,558 afy (17,960,000 m\3\/year) are committed for use. Since 1998,
there has been a small and widespread decline in carbonate aquifer
water levels in the Upper Muddy River Springs area because of
groundwater pumping (Mayer and Congdon 2007, p. 13). When groundwater
extraction exceeds aquifer recharge, it may result in surface water
level decline, spring drying, and degradation or loss of aquatic
habitat (Zektser et al. 2005, pp. 396-397). Based on the preceding
discussion, we have determined there is substantial information in the
petition and our files to indicate that listing the grated tryonia may
be warranted due to threats from groundwater development.
Regarding spring development, Sada (2008, p. 69) reported that
reduced habitat quality and habitat heterogeneity caused by diversions,
channelization, and siltation resulted in reductions of springsnails
(including the grated tryonia) such that they were scarce or absent at
85 percent of the springbrooks where they historically occurred at Warm
Springs. The Service and other partnering agencies have completed and
continue to implement extensive efforts to restore the spring systems
in the Upper Muddy River Springs Area and reduce or eliminate past
spring diversion impacts to aquatic species including springsnails;
however, not all of the impacts of spring diversion have been removed
or reduced. Golden et al. (2007, p. 200) observed that Crystal Springs,
where grated tryonia are also found, was highly disturbed by diversion.
Golden et al. (2007, p. 197) did not document grated tryonia at Crystal
Springs during their surveys. Therefore, based on the preceding
discussion, we have determined there is substantial information in the
petition and our files to indicate that listing the grated tryonia may
be warranted due to threats from spring development.
The petition asserts that water pollution, recreation, and grazing
are threats to the grated tryonia. As discussed in the ``Summary of
Common Threats'' section above, the petition does not present any
specific information, nor is there any information in our files
regarding water pollution, recreation, and grazing as potential threats
to the grated tryonia. Therefore, we have determined there is not
substantial information in the petition and our files indicating that
water pollution, recreation, and grazing may be threats to the grated
tryonia. However, we will further consider this and any additional
information on these
[[Page 56630]]
activities received during our status review for this species.
Factors B, C, and E: The petition proposes that collection for
scientific or educational purposes, disease or predation, invasive
species, inherent vulnerability of isolated springsnail populations,
and global climate change are threats to the grated tryonia.
Specifically regarding invasives, a study in the thermal, Upper Muddy
River spring system of competition from the invasive red-rimmed melania
suggests that this may not be a threat because there is only a minor
niche overlap between nonnative snails and the native grated tryonia
(Sada 2008, p. 69). The petition does not provide any specific
information regarding other invasive species in the springs occupied by
the grated tryonia. The petition does not provide any specific
information regarding the potential threat from isolation and limited
distribution, and we do not consider isolation and limited
distribution, in and of itself, to be a threat to the grated tryonia.
As discussed in the ``Summary of Common Threats'' section above, the
petition does not provide any specific information, nor is there any
information in our files regarding collection for scientific or
educational purposes, disease or predation, and global climate change
as potential threats to any of the petitioned springsnails, which
includes the grated tryonia. Therefore, we have determined that there
is not substantial information in the petition and our files indicating
collection for scientific or educational purposes, disease or
predation, invasive species, inherent vulnerability of isolated
springsnail populations, and global climate change may be threats to
the grated tryonia. However, we will further consider this and any
additional information on these activities and other potential threats
received during our status review for this species.
Factor D: The petition states that inadequate regulatory mechanisms
are a threat due to the permitting of groundwater rights by the NSE
that exceed perennial yield. Permitted groundwater rights in the Upper
Muddy River Springs hydrographic area currently approach the average
annual recharge (see details under Factor A). Based on this and
additional rationale discussing regulatory mechanisms in the ``Summary
of Common Threats,'' we have determined there is substantial
information in the petition and our files to indicate that listing the
grated tryonia may be warranted due to the inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms related to the permitting of groundwater rights
and use.
Grated Tryonia Summary: Based on our evaluation of the information
provided in the petition and available in our files, we have determined
that the petition presents substantial information to indicate that
listing of the grated tryonia may be warranted due to the present or
threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or
range (Factor A) resulting from groundwater development and spring
development, and due to the inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms (Factor D) related to the permitting of groundwater rights
and use.
Finding
We reviewed and evaluated 39 of the 42 petitioned springsnail
species, based on the information in the petition and the literature
cited in the petition. We have evaluated the information to determine
whether the sources cited support the claims made in the petition
relating to the five listing factors. We also reviewed reliable
information readily available in our files.
On the basis of our evaluation of the petition under section
4(b)(3)(A) of the Act, we find that the petition does not present
substantial scientific or commercial information that listing may be
warranted for 7 species: Pyrgulopsis gracilis (Emigrant pyrg),
Pyrgulopsis montana (Camp Valley pyrg), Pyrgulopsis aloba (Duckwater
pyrg), Pyrgulopsis anatine (southern Duckwater pyrg), Pyrgulopsis
lockensis (Lockes pyrg), Pyrgulopsis papillata (Big Warm Spring pyrg),
Pyrgulopsis villacampae (Duckwater Warm Spring pyrg).
We find that the petition presents substantial scientific or
commercial information that listing the remaining 32 of the 39 species
that we evaluated as threatened or endangered under the Act may be
warranted. Because we have found that the petition presents substantial
information that listing these 32 species may be warranted, we are
initiating status reviews (12-month findings) to determine whether
listing any of these 32 species under the Act is warranted.
We previously determined that emergency listing of any of the 39
species is not warranted. However, if at any time we determine that
emergency listing of any of the 39 petitioned species is warranted, we
will initiate an emergency listing.
The petition also requests that critical habitat be designated for
the species concurrent with final listing under the Act. If we
determine in our 12-month finding, following the status review of the
species, that listing is warranted, we will address the designation of
critical habitat in the subsequent proposed rule.
The ``substantial information'' standard for a 90-day finding
differs from the Act's ``best scientific and commercial data'' standard
that applies to a status review to determine whether a petitioned
action is warranted. A 90-day finding does not constitute a status
review under the Act. In 12-month findings, we will determine whether a
petitioned action is warranted after we have completed thorough status
reviews of the species, which is conducted following a substantial 90-
day finding. Because the Act's standards for 90-day and 12-month
findings are different, as described above, a substantial 90-day
finding does not mean that the 12-month findings will result in a
warranted finding.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited is available on the Internet at
Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2011-0001 at http://www.regulations.gov and upon
request from the Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
Author
The primary authors of this document are the staff members of the
Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Authority
The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: August 22, 2011.
Gregory E. Siekaniec,
Deputy Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-23272 Filed 9-12-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P