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