[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 119 (Thursday, June 24, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 33137-33142]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-13257]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2019-0055; FF09E22000 FXES11130900000 201]
RIN 1018-BD49
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removing the Kanab
Ambersnail From the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are
removing the Kanab ambersnail (Oxyloma haydeni kanabensis) from the
Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. This determination
is based on a thorough review of the best available scientific
information. Our review indicates that the Kanab ambersnail is not a
valid subspecies and therefore cannot be listed as an endangered entity
under the Endangered Species Act.
DATES: This rule is effective July 26, 2021.
ADDRESSES: This final rule, the supporting documents we used in
preparing this rule, and public comments we received are available on
the internet at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-
2019-0055. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf may
call the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Yvette Converse, Field Supervisor,
telephone: 801-975-3330. Direct all questions or requests for
additional information to: Kanab Ambersnail Questions, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service; Utah Ecological Services Field Office; 2369 Orton
Circle, Suite 50; West Valley City, Utah 84119. Persons who use a
telecommunications device for the deaf may call the Federal Relay
Service at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Previous Federal Actions
On November 15, 1991, we proposed to list the Kanab ambersnail as
an endangered species (56 FR 58020). The species' habitat was greatly
reduced in size and the population declined, due to preparations for
anticipated development. On April 17, 1992, we published a final rule
listing the Kanab ambersnail as an endangered species (57 FR 13657),
but as explained in that rule,
[[Page 33138]]
we did not designate critical habitat because we found that designation
would be not prudent due to a danger of over-collection or purposeful
harm or killing of snails if the locations of the snails were made
public on critical habitat maps. On October 12, 1995, we finalized the
Kanab ambersnail recovery plan (Service 1995, entire).
We completed a 5-year review of the species' status in July 2011
(Service 2011, entire). As of the time of the 2011 5-year review,
several genetic studies indicated that at least one of the three
populations identified as the Kanab ambersnail was potentially part of
a different species or subspecies, but we did not consider those
studies alone to be certain enough to recommend delisting at that time
(Miller et al. 2000, p. 8; Stevens et al. 2000, p. 7; Culver et al.
2007, p. 3; Service 2011, pp. 8-9). The subsequent publication of a
larger, more comprehensive study on the genetics of the Kanab
ambersnail and the Oxyloma genus (Culver et al. 2013, entire) resulted
in our proposed rule to delist Kanab ambersnail based on new taxonomic
information indicating that it was not a valid taxon, published in the
Federal Register on January 6, 2020 (85 FR 487). Please refer to that
proposed rule for a more detailed description of the Federal actions
concerning this species that occurred prior to November 26, 2019.
Species Description and Habitat Information
It is our intent to discuss only those topics directly related to
delisting the Kanab ambersnail in this rule. For more information on
the description, biology, ecology, and habitat of the Kanab ambersnail,
please refer to the final listing rule published in the Federal
Register on April 17, 1992 (57 FR 13657); the Kanab ambersnail recovery
plan (Service 1995); the most recent 5-year review for the Kanab
ambersnail completed in July 2011 (Service 2011); or any of the
documents referenced by this rule. The Service documents, personal
communications, and a list of cited literature are available as
supporting materials on http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No.
FWS-R6-ES-2019-0055.
The Kanab ambersnail (Oxyloma haydeni kanabensis) was taxonomically
identified as a terrestrial snail in the family Succineidae. Succineids
are usually referred to as ambersnails due to their mottled grayish-
amber to yellowish-amber colored shells (Sorensen and Nelson 2002, p.
5).
The Kanab ambersnail typically inhabits marshes and other wetlands
watered by springs and seeps at the base of sandstone or limestone
cliffs (Clarke 1991, pp. 28-29; Spamer and Bogan 1993, p. 296; Meretsky
et al. 2002, p. 309). Habitat vegetation can consist of cattail (Typha
domingensis), sedge (Juncus spp.), native crimson monkeyflower (Mimulus
cardinalis), watercress (Nasturtium officinale), native water sedge
(Carex aquatilis), and maidenhair fern (Adiantum capillus-veneris) (57
FR 13657, April 17, 1992; Stevens et al. 1997, p. 6; Sorensen 2005, p.
3). The Kanab ambersnail often inhabits dead and decaying litter and
live stems of plants (Service 2011, p. 11).
When the Kanab ambersnail was listed, we knew of two populations in
Utah (Three Lakes and Kanab Creek Canyon) and one population in Arizona
(Vasey's Paradise) (57 FR 13657, April 17, 1992). The Kanab Creek
Canyon population in Utah was extirpated by 1991, after dewatering of
the seep for livestock use severely reduced the available habitat.
Kanab ambersnails were last found there in 1990, when three individuals
were identified (Service 2011, p. 12). Currently, there are two
naturally occurring populations of Kanab ambersnails (Vasey's Paradise
in Arizona, and Three Lakes in Utah) and one introduced population
(Upper Elves Canyon in Arizona) established with individuals
translocated from Vasey's Paradise (Service 2011, p. 6).
The Vasey's Paradise population was discovered in 1991 (Spamer and
Bogan 1993, p. 47). Vasey's Paradise is a riverside spring located
approximately 33 miles (mi) (53 kilometers (km)) downstream of Lee's
Ferry on the Colorado River, in Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona
(Spamer and Bogan 1993, p. 37). Occupied and potential habitat at
Vasey's Paradise is 9,041 square feet (ft\2\) (840 square meters
(m\2\)) (Service 1995, p. ii). The population is protected by National
Park Service regulations and the presence of poison ivy, which deters
visitors (Stevens et al. 1997, p. 12; Sorensen 2016, pers. comm.).
Monitoring of the Vasey's Paradise population from 2007 to present
has relied on timed counts of live snails observed among the
traditionally sampled vegetation patches. The timed count sampling
provides a catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE) estimate of relative abundance
of the snails in each survey. Over the past decade, there have been
seasonal and annual variations in CPUE estimates of the Vasey's
Paradise population. Overall the relative abundance of this Kanab
ambersnail population has declined substantially from the levels
observed in the late 1990s and prior to 2002, when drought conditions
and reduced spring flow became particularly severe (Sorensen 2015, p.
10; Sorensen 2020, p. 1). This decline has continued since 2011
(Sorensen 2015, p. 10; Sorensen 2020, p. 1).
The most recent population estimate is from 2002, which estimated
3,124 individuals and noted that population numbers could be highly
variable from year to year (Gloss et al. 2005, p. 3). Fourteen
individuals were collected in 2008, for genetic analysis (Culver et al.
2013, p. 7). A survey in 2016 found only one snail, but search
conditions were difficult and time was limited (Sorensen 2016, pers.
comm.).
The Three Lakes population is a series of small ponds on private
land approximately 6 mi (10 km) northwest of Kanab, Utah (Clarke 1991,
p. 28; Service 1995, p. 3). Occupied and potential habitat is
approximately 4.94 acres (ac) (2 hectares (ha)) (Service 1995, p. 3).
Available habitat is wet meadow and marsh. The habitat was greatly
reduced in size and the population declined beginning in 1991, due to
preparations for anticipated development, which resulted in the
original emergency listing (57 FR 13657, April 17, 1992). The
development anticipated at the time of listing has not occurred, and
Kanab ambersnails were found there in 2008 (Culver et al. 2013, p. 6)
and 2016 (Sorensen 2016, pers. comm.).
A timed count survey of the Three Lakes population was conducted in
early October 2011 by Service, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, and
Arizona Fish and Game Department biologists. The Three Lakes Kanab
ambersnail population was robust with a CPUE estimate of 10.47 snails
per 10 minutes searched (Sorensen 2011, p. 14). In 2016, the land was
sold to Best Friends Animal Sanctuary, which has expressed a
willingness to preserve the habitat. A followup survey of the Three
Lakes Kanab ambersnail population was conducted by the same partners in
early May 2017, with an estimated CPUE of 158.75 snails per 10 minutes
searched (Sorensen 2017, pers. comm.).
Upper Elves Canyon is located approximately 83 mi (134 km)
downstream of Vasey's Paradise on the Colorado River, in Grand Canyon
National Park, Arizona (Sorensen 2016, p. 1). Occupied and potential
habitat is adjacent to a perennial seep and is 1,068 ft\2\ (99.2 m\2\)
(Sorensen 2005, p. 3). This population is protected by National Park
Service regulations, as well as by its inaccessibility (Service 2011,
p. 7). This population was established by the Arizona Fish and Game
Department between 1998 and 2002, by
[[Page 33139]]
translocating 340 individuals from the Vasey's Paradise population.
Since 2005, this population has been considered self-sustaining with an
estimated population of approximately 700 individuals (Sorensen 2005,
p. 9). Between 2009 and 2015, timed count surveys of the translocated
population at Upper Elves Chasm were conducted by Arizona Game and Fish
Department, National Park Service biologists, and volunteers. Surveys
over this timeframe documented a small but relatively stable Kanab
ambersnail population at the site, with CPUE estimates between 0.85 to
4.15 snails per 10 minutes searched (Sorensen 2015, p. 12).
Taxonomy
Kanab ambersnails were first collected in 1909, by James Ferriss
from an area called ``The Greens,'' a vegetated seep approximately 6 mi
(10 km) north of Kanab in Kanab Creek Canyon, Utah (57 FR 13657, April
17, 1992; Service 1995, p. 2). However, ambersnails have not been found
at the type locality since 1991 (Meretsky et al. 2002, p. 314; Culver
et al. 2013, p. 6).
The snails collected by James Ferriss in 1909 were initially placed
in the species Succinea hawkinisi, but Pilsbry (1948, p. 797) placed
them in Oxyloma and created the subspecies kanabensis under the species
haydeni (57 FR 13657, April 17, 1992). The subspecies kanabensis
classification was considered to be temporary at the time, and the
author recommended that the taxonomic status be reconsidered in the
future (Pilsbry 1948, p. 798; Clarke 1991, p. 23; 57 FR 13657, April
17, 1992).
We have assessed all available genetic information for the Kanab
ambersnail (Miller et al. 2000, entire; Stevens et al. 2000, entire;
Culver et al. 2013, entire). Since the listing of Kanab ambersnail in
1992 (57 FR 13657; April 17, 1992) and the publication of the Kanab
ambersnail recovery plan in 1995 (Service 1995, entire), several
studies on subspecies distribution, morphological characteristics, and
genetic relationships to other Oxyloma species have been completed. We
briefly describe these studies below. At this time, these studies
represent the best scientific information available in order for us to
analyze the Kanab ambersnail's distribution and taxonomic changes.
Various analyses can be done to determine genetic structure of a
species, including analyses of: (1) Mitochondrial DNA, which is rapidly
evolving and useful to determine recent populations; (2) nuclear
microsatellite DNA, which has high amounts of genetic variation and can
be used to look at populations within a species; (3) nuclear DNA, which
is inherited equally from both parents (unlike mitochondrial DNA, which
is inherited maternally); and (4) amplified fragment length
polymorphisms (AFLP), which are used to sample multiple loci across the
genome.
Miller et al. (2000) used AFLP to determine intra- and inter-
population genetic information for four Oxyloma species in Utah and
Arizona. Among these, two Niobrara ambersnail (Oxyloma haydeni haydeni)
locations were studied at Indian Gardens (Arizona) and Minus Nine Mile
Spring (Arizona), and two Kanab ambersnail populations were studied at
Three Lakes (Utah) and Vasey's Paradise (Arizona) (Miller et al. 2000,
pp. 1845-1946). From this study, the ambersnail population at Three
Lakes appears more closely related to the Niobrara ambersnail
population at Indian Gardens than to the ambersnail population at
Vasey's Paradise (Miller et al. 2000, p. 1852). Upper Elves Canyon was
not included in this study.
Stevens et al. (2000) used mitochondrial DNA and morphological
analysis to distinguish Succineidae (Oxyloma, Catinella, and Succinea)
populations in the United States and Canada. The authors collected over
450 samples from seven U.S. States and Canadian provinces, including
from 63 different populations or locations of snails (Stevens et al.
2000, p. 4). Determining Oxyloma species based on morphology was shown
to be inaccurate (Stevens et al. 2000, pp. 4-5, 42). Vasey's Paradise
did not cluster with the Three Lakes ambersnail population or the two
sampled Niobrara ambersnail populations, leading the authors to suggest
Vasey's Paradise might represent a unique species (Stevens et al. 2000,
p. 41). However, a later, more comprehensive study found that Vasey's
Paradise clustered closely enough with samples from other surrounding
Oxyloma populations for them all to be considered part of the same
Oxyloma species (Culver et al. 2013, p. 57).
In this most recent and detailed peer-reviewed study, ambersnails
were collected from 12 locations in Arizona and Utah, with each
location providing at least 14 ambersnail specimens (Culver et al.
2013, p. 5). Samples consisted of Kanab ambersnail, Niobrara
ambersnail, blunt ambersnail (Oxyloma retusum), undescribed species of
Oxyloma, and individuals from Catinella (used to provide an outgroup
comparison) (Culver et al. 2013, p. 6). This study included samples
from all three extant populations identified as Kanab ambersnail.
Between the Oxyloma populations, shell morphology did not have the
variation usually associated with different species, leading the
authors to state that none of the 12 populations sampled was
reproductively isolated from the others (Culver et al. 2013, p. 52).
This information supports the finding that the three populations
identified as Kanab ambersnail do not alone comprise a discrete taxon.
Genetic results indicated that there was gene flow among all the
populations sampled, most likely due to short- or long-distance
dispersals from other populations (Culver et al. 2013, p. 57).
Additionally, Kanab ambersnail samples from Vasey's Paradise did not
cluster with the other two Kanab ambersnail populations (Culver et al.
2013, pp. 51, 55). The authors concluded that the three populations of
Kanab ambersnail are not a valid subspecies of Oxyloma haydeni and
should instead be considered part of the same taxa as the ambersnails
from the eight other populations of Oxyloma in Utah and Arizona that
were sampled for comparison (Culver et al. 2013, entire). This study
declined to positively identify a species-level taxon for these 11
populations of ambersnail, due to lack of genetic information on the
genus (Culver et al. 2013). The primary author stated later that her
expert opinion was they should all, including those previously
identified as Kanab ambersnail, be considered Niobrara ambersnail
(Oxyloma hadenyi) (Culver 2016, pers. comm.). The authors stated that
specimens from the type locality of the Niobrara ambersnail in Nebraska
could be examined for comparison to verify this conclusion (Franzen
1964, p. 73; Culver et al. 2013, p. 57; Culver 2016, pers. comm.), but
to date, no such analysis has been done.
The above-described Culver et al. (2013) study was released as a
United States Geological Survey (USGS) Scientific Investigations
Report, and the review approach was similar to that of manuscripts
published by scientific journals. The report was initially reviewed by
five reviewers and required subsequent revision. The report received an
additional review following revision due to the complex subject matter.
The response to reviewer comments and subsequent revised manuscript
were reviewed by another independent geneticist to ensure that the
author adequately addressed issues and comments brought up by reviewers
(Sorensen 2014, pers. comm.). The subsequent revision that occurred
after 2011 resulted in more genetic information added to the final 2013
manuscript, which further substantiated
[[Page 33140]]
the authors' findings (Sorensen 2014, pers. comm). As a result, we have
a high level of confidence in the results of the Culver et al. (2013)
genetic study.
For the Kanab ambersnail to be considered a distinct subspecies,
nuclear and mitochondrial DNA tests should show that the three
populations cluster together when compared to other populations of
ambersnails (Culver et al. 2013, p. 55). However, the Vasey's Paradise
population does not cluster with the other two Kanab ambersnail
populations and the degree of variation shown in Vasey's Paradise from
the other populations is not unique enough to constitute a subspecies
on its own, as it shares markers with several nearby populations of
non-listed Oxyloma snails (Stevens et al. 2000, p. 41; Culver et al.
2013, pp. 55-57).
The genetic uniqueness in Vasey's Paradise may be attributable to
flooding, which can erode away ideal vegetation or habitat, leaving
only a few individuals able to survive and reestablish the population
at that site, creating genetic bottlenecks. Genetic diversity at these
types of sites will often be lower than at sites that have experienced
short- or long-distance dispersals (Culver et al. 2013, p. 55).
Furthermore, ambersnails have the ability to self-reproduce, allowing
for colonization of new areas by only one individual. This ability may
explain how many genetically distinct populations of Oxyloma developed
in a relatively short time period (Culver et al. 2013, p. 56). At least
one or more bottleneck events in the past, likely due to flooding,
caused unusual population genetic events (Culver et al. 2013, p. 55).
Overall, these studies show that shell morphology and anatomical
characteristics that were once considered diagnostic do not alone
reliably correspond with the results from genetic analyses of
Succineidae snails (Hoagland and Davis 1987, p. 519; Pigati et al.
2010, p. 523). Samples originally identified as different species or
subspecies based on physical differences are consistently found to be
related closely enough to qualify as members of the same species based
on genetic studies (Culver et al. 2013, entire; Miller et al. 2000,
entire; Stevens et al. 2000, entire). Traditionally, shell morphology,
such as their slender and drawn-out spire and short shell aperture, was
used to distinguish the Kanab ambersnail from other members of Oxyloma
(Pilsbry 1948, pp. 797-798). However, shell shape can vary as much
within a population as within a species (Hoagland and Davis 1987, p.
519). Therefore, it is important to consider other factors such as
genetics, anatomy, and habitat to determine a species within Oxyloma
(Hoagland and Davis 1987, p. 519; Sorensen and Nelson 2002, p. 5).
In addition to shell morphology, reproductive anatomy (phallus
shape) was previously a main determining factor of the Oxyloma genus
(Miller et al. 2000, p. 1853). However, anatomical descriptions used to
classify the Kanab ambersnail had no quantifying factors, such as
prostate gland length, and soft tissues were difficult to measure
objectively (Pilsbry 1948, p. 798; Culver et al. 2013, pp. 52-53). It
is difficult to achieve standard anatomical measurements with
repeatability because of the flexibility and elasticity of soft tissues
(Culver et al. 2013, p. 18). Overall, anatomical characteristics have
been found to vary greatly within Oxyloma (Culver et al. 2013, p. 52).
There have been at least two instances when a species of snail was
placed in the wrong genus due to relying solely on the reproductive
anatomy (Johnson et al. 1986, p. 105; Miller et al. 2000, p. 1853). In
another case, variation in anatomical structure was found in the blunt
ambersnail, leading the authors to conclude that the species was not
restricted geographically as initially believed (Franzen 1963, p. 94).
Previous Oxyloma studies have used only one or two specimens to
determine the species' taxonomic status, which makes it difficult to
properly assess the true status (Hoagland and Davis 1987, p. 515).
Standards for quantifying anatomy are minimal and not descriptive
enough, with the use of such words as small, medium, and large, which
are vague terms and not measurable (Hoagland and Davis 1987, p. 478).
Anatomical characteristics should not be the only factor to determine a
species within Oxyloma, even with an understanding of the individual
and geographical variation (Franzen 1963, p. 83). Variation between
populations, anatomical differences among individuals, overlapping
habitat, and minimal repeatability with measurements of anatomical
features make it difficult to rely on anatomical descriptions to
determine species classification (Franzen 1964, p. 80; Sorensen and
Nelson 2002, pp. 4-5). Overall, reproductive anatomy is likely not a
good species indicator in snails; instead, genetic relationships
provide the most reliable method of classifying taxa.
In summary, these analyses present multiple interpretations of the
taxonomy of the Kanab ambersnail, none of which correlates to that of
our original listing. Although the exact taxonomy of the genus Oxyloma
and its constituent species remains uncertain, it is clear that the
populations designated as the Kanab ambersnail do not make up, together
or separately, a valid subspecies. The 1992 final listing rule for the
Kanab ambersnail (57 FR 13657; April 17, 1992) relied on the best
available information at the time, and included only snails found in
Vasey's Paradise in Arizona and Three Lakes and Kanab Creek in Utah.
This situation has changed with the addition of the 2013 genetic study
of the Oxyloma genus in Utah and Arizona (Culver et al. 2013, entire).
The various published and unpublished genetics reports described
above offer different conclusions about how Succineid snails should be
classified, particularly within the genus Oxyloma. However, none of the
genetic studies provides support for Oxyloma haydeni kanabensis as a
valid subspecies. Additionally, available genetic evidence suggests
that at least one population identified as Kanab ambersnail is more
closely related to other nearby Oxyloma populations than it is to the
other two Kanab ambersnail populations.
Therefore, we are delisting the Kanab ambersnail due to new
taxonomic information that indicates that it is not a valid taxon,
based on the best available science. The currently listed entity for
the Kanab ambersnail, restricted to Vasey's Paradise and Upper Elves
Canyon, Arizona, and Three Lakes, Utah, is not a valid taxonomic
subspecies. We are unable to evaluate the populations identified as the
Kanab ambersnail relative to the larger entity because the larger
entity has not yet been defined from a taxonomic perspective. If we had
additional updated information available about the taxonomy of the
Oxyloma genus, we would conduct a status assessment of the larger
entity, but in this case we do not have enough information to conduct
that analysis. We do not consider the absence of information on the
larger taxonomy of a group to be sufficient reason to keep an invalid
subspecies listed as endangered.
Summary of Comments and Recommendations
In the proposed rule published in the Federal Register on January
6, 2020 (85 FR 487), we requested that all interested parties submit
written comments on our proposal to delist the Kanab ambersnail by
March 6, 2020. We also contacted appropriate Federal and State
agencies, scientific experts and organizations, and other interested
parties and invited them to comment on the proposal.
[[Page 33141]]
Newspaper notices inviting general public comment were published in the
Salt Lake Tribune and Saint George News. We did not receive any
requests for a public hearing. All substantive information provided
during the comment period was either incorporated directly into this
final rule or is addressed below.
Peer Reviewer Comments
In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the
Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270) and our August 22, 2016
memorandum updating and clarifying the role of peer review of listing
actions under the Act (USFWS 2016, entire), we solicited expert opinion
from seven knowledgeable individuals with scientific expertise and
familiarity with the Kanab ambersnail, its habitat, its taxonomy, its
biological needs and potential threats, or principles of conservation
biology. We received responses from five peer reviewers. The purpose of
peer review is to ensure that our listing determinations are based on
scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analyses.
We reviewed and addressed all comments we received from the peer
reviewers for substantive issues and new information regarding the
proposed delisting of the Kanab ambersnail. The peer reviewers provided
additional information, clarifications, and suggestions to improve the
final rule, which we include in this rule or address in the responses
to comments below. One of the reviewers expressed support for the
proposed action. The other four did not state support or opposition to
the proposed changes. All reviewers found that, with their suggested
changes: The proposed rule was accurate; we provided adequate analysis
to support our proposed determination; there were no significant
oversights, omissions, or inconsistencies; our conclusions were logical
and supported by the evidence provided; and we included all pertinent
literature to support our arguments, assumptions, and conclusions.
All changes suggested by reviewers were incorporated into the text
of this final rule. Such changes include additional details of
population monitoring at all populations, an explanation of the
rigorous review process for USGS reports, and a clarification on how
shell morphology supports the conclusions in the Culver et al. 2013
study. Other minor editorial clarifications and corrections were also
made based on peer reviewer comments.
Public Comments
We received seven letters from the public that provided comments on
the proposed rule. Two of the commenters expressed their support for
the proposed delisting and corroborated information we supplied in the
rule. Four commenters expressed their opposition to it. Of these four,
none presented substantive information to support their opposition. In
all cases, the opposition was based on the importance of protecting
rare species and ecosystems. While we agree that protecting rare
species and the habitats in which they occur is important, it is not a
relevant factor in this determination because Kanab ambersnail is not a
valid taxon and is being delisted on that basis.
One commenter provided some additional historical background
regarding the naming and sampling of certain ambersnail sites mentioned
in the proposed rule, but stated that this information did not affect
the validity of the proposed action. We agree and thank the commenter
for the additional detail and have added it to the record, but do not
include it in our final rule as it does not impact our conclusions on
taxonomy.
Delisting Determination
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing
regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for listing,
reclassifying, or removing species from the Federal Lists of Endangered
and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. ``Species'' is defined by the Act
as including any species or subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants,
and any distinct population segment of vertebrate fish or wildlife that
interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). We may delist a species
according to 50 CFR 424.11(e) if the best available scientific and
commercial data indicate that: (1) The species is extinct; (2) the
species does not meet the definition of an endangered or a threatened
species; or (3) the listed entity does not meet the statutory
definition of a species.
For the Kanab ambersnail, we conclude that the existing best
available scientific information demonstrates that Oxyloma haydeni
kanabensis does not represent a valid taxonomic entity and, therefore,
does not meet the definition of ``species'' as defined in section 3(16)
of the Act. Therefore, Oxyloma haydeni kanabensis no longer warrants
listing under the Act. The Kanab ambersnail does not require a post-
delisting monitoring plan because the requirements for a monitoring
plan do not apply to species that are delisted for not meeting the
statutory definition of a species.
Effects of This Rule
This rule revises 50 CFR 17.11(h) to remove the Kanab ambersnail
from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. Because no
critical habitat was ever designated for this subspecies, this rule
does not affect 50 CFR 17.95.
The prohibitions and conservation measures provided by the Act no
longer apply to the snail previously identified as the Kanab
ambersnail. Interstate commerce, import, and export of the snails
previously identified as the Kanab ambersnail are not prohibited under
the Act. In addition, Federal agencies are no longer required to
consult under section 7 of the Act on actions that may affect the
snails previously identified as Kanab ambersnail or their habitat.
Required Determinations
National Environmental Policy Act
We have determined that environmental assessments and environmental
impact statements, as defined under the authority of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not be
prepared in connection with regulations pursuant to section 4(a) of the
Act. We published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination
in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).
Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994
(Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal
Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments), and the Department of the
Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with
Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights,
Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act),
we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with
Tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge
that tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal
public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make
information available to Tribes.
The populations that were listed as Kanab ambersnail do not occur
on
[[Page 33142]]
Tribal land. We have determined that while no Tribes will be directly
affected by this action, the delisting may result in changes to the
flow regime for the Colorado River in and adjacent to the Grand Canyon.
Several Tribes have an historic affiliation with the Grand Canyon and
could be affected by flow changes, should they occur. The potentially
impacted Tribes are the Chemehuevi, the Colorado River Indian Tribes,
the Hualapai, the Hopi, the Kaibab Band of Paiute, the San Carlos
Apache, the San Juan Southern Paiute, the Navajo, and the Zuni. These
Tribes were notified in advance of the publication of the proposed rule
and have been informed of the finalization of the delisting.
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited in this rule is available
on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R6-
ES-2019-0055 or upon request from the Utah Ecological Services Field
Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Authors
The primary authors of this rule are staff members of the Service's
Utah Ecological Services Field Office.
Signing Authority
The Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, approved this
document and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document
to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as
an official document of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Martha
Williams, Principal Deputy Director Exercising the Delegated Authority
of the Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, approved this document
on June 14, 2021, for publication.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we hereby amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I,
title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS
0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245, unless
otherwise noted.
Sec. 17.11 [Amended]
0
2. Amend Sec. 17.11(h) by removing the entry for ``Ambersnail, Kanab''
under SNAILS from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.
Anissa Craghead,
Acting Regulations and Policy Chief, Division of Policy, Economics,
Risk Management, and Analytics, Joint Administrative Operations, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-13257 Filed 6-23-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P