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

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:18 Oct 04, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM 05OCP3 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 61826 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR We will post all information received (b) Overutilization for commercial, on http://www.regulations.gov. This recreational, scientific, or educational Fish and Wildlife Service generally means that we will post any purposes; personal information you provide us (c) Disease or predation; 50 CFR Part 17 (see the Information Solicited section (d) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or [Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2011–0076; MO– below for more details). (e) Other natural or manmade factors 92210–0–0008] FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: affecting its continued existence. Listing Coordinator, U.S. Fish and Endangered and Threatened Wildlife Please include sufficient information Wildlife Service, Sacramento Fish and with your submission (such as full and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a Wildlife Office, 2800 Cottage Way, Petition To List 29 Mollusk Species as references) to allow us to verify any Room W–2605, Sacramento, CA 95825; scientific or commercial information Threatened or Endangered With telephone 916–414–6600; or facsimile Critical Habitat you include. 916–414–6712. If you use a If, after the status review, we AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, telecommunications device for the deaf determine that listing any of the 26 Interior. (TDD), please call the Federal species and subspecies of mollusk is ACTION: Notice of petition finding and Information Relay Service (FIRS) at warranted, we will propose critical initiation of status review. 800–877–8339. habitat (see definition in section 3(5)(A) SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: of the Act), as per section 4 of the Act, SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and to the maximum extent prudent and Wildlife Service announce a 90-day Information Solicited determinable at the time we propose to finding on a petition to list 29 mollusk When we make a finding that a list the species or subspecies. Therefore, species and subspecies as threatened or petition presents substantial within each of the geographical ranges endangered, under the Endangered information indicating that listing a currently occupied by the 26 species Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). species or subspecies may be warranted, and subspecies of mollusk, we also Based on our review, we find that the we are required to promptly review the request data and information on: petition presents substantial scientific status of the species or subspecies (1) What may constitute ‘‘physical or or commercial information indicating (status review). For the status review to biological features essential to the that listing 26 of the 29 species and be complete and based on the best conservation of the species;’’ subspecies may be warranted. available scientific and commercial (2) Where these features are currently Therefore, with the publication of this information, we request information on found; and notice, we are initiating a review of the the 26 petitioned species and subspecies (3) Whether any of these features may status of the 26 species and subspecies of mollusk for which we find substantial require special management to determine if listing any of them is information herein to indicate that considerations or protection. warranted. To ensure that the status listing as threatened or endangered may In addition, we request data and review is comprehensive, we are be warranted. We request such information on ‘‘specific areas outside requesting scientific and commercial the geographical area occupied by the data and other information regarding information from governmental agencies, Native American Tribes, the species’’ that are ‘‘essential to the these 26 species and subspecies. Based conservation of the species.’’ Please on the status review, we will issue a scientific community, industry, and any other interested parties. We seek provide specific comments and 12-month finding on the petition, which information as to what, if any, critical will address whether the petitioned information on: (1) The species’ or subspecies’ habitat you think we should propose for action is warranted, as provided in the designation if the species is proposed Act. biology, range, and population trends, including: for listing, and why such habitat meets DATES: To allow us adequate time to (a) Habitat requirements for feeding, the requirements of section 4 of the Act. conduct this review, we request that we Submissions merely stating support breeding, and sheltering; receive information on or before for or opposition to the action under (b) Genetics and (especially December 5, 2011. After this date, you consideration without providing reasons why they should or should not must submit information directly to the supporting information, although noted, be considered listable entities under Field Office (see FOR FURTHER will not be considered in making a section 4(a) of the Endangered Species INFORMATION CONTACT section below). determination. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act of 1973, as amended (Act) (16 Please note that we may not be able to Act directs that determinations as to U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) (see Listable Entity address or incorporate information that whether any species is an endangered or Evaluation, below); we receive after the above requested a threatened species must be made date. (c) Historical and current range ‘‘solely on the basis of the best scientific including distribution patterns; ADDRESSES: You may submit comments and commercial data available.’’ by one of the following methods: (d) Historical and current population You may submit your information • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// levels, and current and projected trends; concerning this status review by one of www.regulations.gov. Search for docket and the methods listed in the ADDRESSES [Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2011–0076] (e) Past and ongoing conservation section. If you submit information via and then follow the instructions for measures for the species, its habitat, or http://www.regulations.gov, your entire submitting comments. both. submission—including any personal • U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public (2) The factors that are the basis for identifying information—will be posted Comments Processing, Attn: [Docket No. making a listing determination for a on the Web site. If your submission is FWS–R8–ES–2011–0076]; Division of species or subspecies under section 4(a) made via a hardcopy that includes Policy and Directives Management; U.S. of the Act, which are: personal identifying information, you Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. (a) The present or threatened may request at the top of your document Fairfax Drive, MS 2042–PDM; destruction, modification, or that we withhold this personal Arlington, VA 22203. curtailment of its habitat or range; identifying information from public

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:18 Oct 04, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM 05OCP3 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 61827

review. However, we cannot guarantee information presented in the petition we list 29 species and subspecies of that we will be able to do so. We will and determined that issuing an mollusk (the ‘‘petitioned mollusks’’); 15 post all hardcopy submissions on http:// emergency regulation temporarily of which have been formally described www.regulations.gov. listing the species as per section 4(b)(7) as species, 4 formally described as Information and supporting of the Act was not warranted. We also subspecies, and 10 that have not been documentation that we received and stated that we could not address their formally described. used in preparing this finding is petition at that time due to court orders Prior to making a determination of available for you to review at http:// and judicially approved settlement whether the petition presents www.regulations.gov, or by agreements for other listing and critical substantial information to indicate appointment, during normal business habitat determinations under the Act whether listing may be warranted, we hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife that required nearly all of our listing must address the question of whether Service, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife and critical habitat funding for fiscal the petition presents substantial Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION year 2008. information to indicate whether the CONTACT). On April 13, 2009, we received a petitioned mollusks are listable entities. signed e-mail from CBD providing Nineteen of the 29 petitioned mollusks Background updated taxonomic information are listable entities because they are Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires regarding some of the 32 petitioned formally described as species or that we make a finding on whether a mollusk species (Curry 2009, pp. 1–2). subspecies in recognized scientific petition to list, delist, or reclassify a The e-mail indicated that two of those journals. We may also consider some or species presents substantial scientific or species had been formally described all of the remaining 10 petitioned commercial information indicating that (see Listable Entity Evaluation, below), mollusks to be listable entities if the petitioned action may be warranted. two others had been combined into a information submitted with the petition We are to base this finding on single species that had been formally or in our files indicates that treatment information provided in the petition, described, and that three additional of these mollusks as listable entities supporting information submitted with petitioned species had been combined may be warranted. the petition, and information otherwise into a single species that had been The petition cited several documents available in our files. To the maximum formally described. The e-mail provided from Federal agencies demonstrating a extent practicable, we are to make this a citation to the article making these long history of treating these 10 finding within 90 days of our receipt of taxonomic changes, and asked us to petitioned mollusks as species (Burke et the petition and publish our notice of consider the revised species for listing al. 1999, Sect. 12, pp. 1–16; Burke et al. the finding promptly in the Federal as threatened or endangered under the 1999, Sect. 15, pp. 1–10; Furnish and Register. Act. We treated this e-mail as an Monthey 1999, Sect. 2, pp. 2–10; Our standard for substantial scientific amendment to the original petition. Furnish and Monthey 1999, Sect. 4, pp. or commercial information within the Therefore, the amended petition asks us 3–15; Furnish and Monthey 1999, Sect. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) with to list 29 species and subspecies of 5, pp. 1–8; Duncan 2005b, pp. 3–15; regard to a 90-day petition finding is mollusks. Duncan 2005c, pp. 1–19; Duncan 2005e, ‘‘that amount of information that would pp. 3–9; USDA and USDI 2007, pp. 92– lead a reasonable person to believe that Overview of the 29 Mollusk Species and 94, 250, 251, 257–259, 263, 264, 266– the measure proposed in the petition Subspecies 269). The documents describe each of may be warranted’’ (50 CFR 424.14(b)). The 29 species and subspecies of these 10 mollusks and their habitats. If we find that substantial scientific or mollusk included in the petition are The documents also include formal commercial information was presented, endemic (native and restricted) to the reviews of management actions taken by we are required to promptly conduct a Pacific Northwest, occurring in western the agencies, and their impacts on these species status review, which we Washington, Oregon, and Northern 10 mollusks (as well as on the 19 subsequently summarize in our 12- California. Fourteen of the petitioned formally described mollusks). Based on month finding. species and subspecies are aquatic and our review of the information in the 15 are terrestrial (13 land snails and 2 petition, we conclude the reports Petition History slugs). They exist primarily in small, present a clear indication that each of On March 17, 2008, we received a isolated populations, all of which are these 10 petitioned mollusks has been petition (dated March 13, 2008) from protected under the Northwest treated as a species by Federal land five conservation organizations: The Plan’s Survey and Manage Program. management agencies, even without Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), Fourteen of the species and subspecies formal description and recognition as a Conservation Northwest, the are known from 10 or fewer sites. species. Accordingly, we find that the Environmental Protection Information petition presents substantial Center, the Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Listable Entity Evaluation information indicating that the 10 Center, and Oregon Wild. The petition Section 3(16) of the Act defines the petitioned mollusks that have not yet asked us to list 32 species and term ‘‘species’’ to include ‘‘any been formally described may be species subspecies of snails and slugs subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, as defined by the Act and may thus be (mollusks) in the Pacific Northwest as and any distinct population segment of listable entities. Therefore, in addition threatened or endangered under the Act. any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife to the 19 formally described species and Additionally, the petition requested that which interbreeds when mature.’’ subspecies, we consider whether the we designate critical habitat concurrent Entities that meet the Act’s definition of petition presents scientific or with listing. The petition clearly a ‘‘species’’ can be considered for listing commercial information to indicate identified itself as a petition and under the Act and are, therefore, whether listing any of the 10 petitioned included the requisite identification referred to as ‘‘listable entities.’’ Listable mollusks that have not yet been information for the petitioners, as entities can then be listed if they are formally described may be warranted. required by 50 CFR 424.14(a). In a June determined to meet the definition of an This finding addresses 29 mollusk 27, 2008, letter to the petitioners, we endangered species or a threatened species and subspecies, as identified in responded that we had reviewed the species. The petitioner requested that the table below.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:18 Oct 04, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM 05OCP3 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 61828 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules

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 crateris ...... Yes ...... No. Dalles sideband ...... 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 ...... Trilobopsis roperi ...... Yes ...... Yes. Shasta hesperian ...... Vespericola shasta ...... Yes ...... Yes. Shasta pebblesnail ...... Flumenicola multifarius ...... Yes ...... Yes. ...... Monadenia troglodytes troglodytes ...... Yes ...... Yes. 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 2001 (Conservation Northwest v. Rey, p. 32). The ACS includes four Special Status Species Programs 2009, Case No. C–08–1067–JCC (W.D. components: Riparian reserves, key All of the petitioned mollusks are Wash.)). Many of the petition’s claims, watersheds, watershed analysis, and protected on Federal lands by the particularly as they relate to Factor D watershed restoration. Riparian reserves Northwest Forest Plan’s (NWFP’s) (existing regulatory mechanisms), are are comprised of aquatic features and Survey and Manage Program (U.S. related to the status of the Survey and their protected riparian buffers. Buffers Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Management Program, which had been differ in size, dependent on the type of U.S. Department of the Interior (USDI) discontinued at the time of the petition. aquatic habitat. Under the ACS, Federal 2007, pp. 92–94, 249–269). The Survey Many of the petitioned species are land managers establish requirements and Manage Program was developed recognized as sensitive species or as for timber management, road building, because of concerns that the NWFP special status species by the U.S. Forest grazing, and recreation management would not adequately protect many Service (USFS) and Bureau of Land within established riparian reserves. species that were rare, isolated, or rare Management (BLM), respectively (USDA The strategy identifies key watersheds and isolated, and that could be and USDI 2007, pp. 25, 92–94). We refer to be managed for at risk salmonids, or impacted by forest management to these programs collectively as special where high water quality is considered practices. The program was also status species programs. The goal of important. Information for managing developed to address concerns that these programs is to avoid the need to reserves and key watersheds is obtained additional management measures would list a given species under the and updated through systematic be required to conserve the species Endangered Species Act, but we do not procedures of watershed analysis, and (USDA and USDI 2001, p. 7). The have information in our files to show that information may also be used for program requires pre-disturbance exactly what this may entail with regard watershed restoration (USDA and USDI surveys and mitigation, strategic to any of the petitioned mollusks 1994, pp. 9, 10). surveys, management, and an annual addressed by a special status species Evaluation of Information for This species review (USDA and USDI 1994, program. Inclusion or removal of Finding p. 9; Olson et al. 2007, pp. iii, 1, 2). The individual species and subspecies in the Survey and Manage Program has not special status species program is left to Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) been managed continuously since 2001 the discretion of the agency’s regional and its implementing regulations at 50 due to a number of lawsuits and a 2007 decision makers (USDA and USDI 2007, CFR 424 set forth the procedures for decision to discontinue the program pp. 25, 65). adding a species to, or removing a (USDA and USDI 2007, pp. xi, xii, xx). The Aquatic Conservation Strategy species from, the Federal Lists of However, as result of a challenge to the (ACS) is a habitat management program Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 2007 decision, a settlement agreement established under the Northwest Forest and Plants. A species may be was finalized in July 2011 that Plan for protecting aquatic and riparian determined to be an endangered or a reinstated the Survey and Manage habitat on Federal land (USDA and threatened species due to one or more Program as it had been implemented in USDI 1994, pp. 9, 10; CBD et al. 2008, of the five factors described in section

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:18 Oct 04, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM 05OCP3 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 61829

4(a)(1) of the Act: (A) The present or grazing and logging (Oregon Natural reductions have already been threatened destruction, modification, or Heritage Information Center (ORNHIC) documented in the Columbia Gorge curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) 2004a, p. 2). The immediacy of the (Knowles et al. 2006, pp. 4545, 4546; Overutilization for commercial, primary threat (water diversions) is ISAB 2007, p. 12). This trend is recreational, scientific, or educational considered ‘‘moderate,’’ which means expected to continue, thereby further purposes; (C) Disease or predation; (D) the threat is likely to be operating reducing summer water availability The inadequacy of existing regulatory within 2 to 5 years of the ORNHIC (Field et al. 2007, pp. 620, 627; ISAB mechanisms; or (E) Other natural or publication in 2004 (Master et al. 2002, 2007, p. 15). Such a reduction in manmade factors affecting its continued pp. 14, 15, ORNHIC 2004a, p. 2). The available surface water may result in existence. cited source also mentions past impacts increased water diversions from In making this 90-day finding, we from road construction, logging and groundwater and springs, but the extent evaluated whether information grazing, but does not indicate the extent to which springs supporting the basalt regarding threats to each of the to which these pose present threats. The juga may be affected by potential petitioned mollusks, as presented in the petition notes, however, that documents increased water diversions is unclear. petition and other information available obtained through the Freedom of in our files, is substantial, thereby Information Act (FOIA) indicate that the Reduced snow runoff and lower flow indicating that the petitioned action species was detected at four timber sales levels may result in water temperature may be warranted. With one exception, and three road maintenance projects increases (Field et al. 2007, p. 620; ISAB all potential threats addressed in our (CBD et al. 2008, p. 55). Impacts to 2007, p. 16). Potential water analyses were alleged in the petition. springs in the Columbia Gorge due to temperature increases may be The exception is the potential impact of diversions, highway construction, and deleterious to the basalt juga, but the plans to raise the Shasta Dam on the logging are common on both private and extent to which springs supporting the Shasta sideband, Shasta chaparral and public lands, and likely to continue basalt juga may be affected by Wintu sideband; we addressed this (Frest and Johannes 1995a, p. 185). temperature increases is unclear, and potential threat based on information in Consequently, based on our this will likely depend on the size and our files. All supporting documents evaluation of the information presented depth of groundwater reservoirs, and on used were either cited in the petition or in the petition and in our files, we the flow rates of both groundwater and in our files. Substantial information determined the petition presents surface water into spring pools. need only be found for one of the five substantial information to indicate that However, watersheds fed by very large factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the listing the basalt juga may be warranted and deep groundwater systems are Act to reach a ‘‘substantial’’ finding for due to the present or threatened relatively uncommon in the Columbia a given petitioned mollusk. As destruction, modification, or Basin (ISAB 2007, p. 32). The basalt juga discussed above, we will conduct a 12- curtailment of its habitat or range. is dependent on cold, highly oxygenated month review of petitioned mollusks for Factors B and C: The petition did not water (Duncan 2005b, p. 11), so which a ‘‘substantial’’ finding is present any information, nor do we have temperature increases could be any information in our files, to indicate reached, and during that review we will deleterious. consider all available information that these factors may pose a threat to relating to all five factors. We ask that the species. The petition and our files also contain information relating to any of the five Factor D: The petition asserts that information indicating that climate factors be submitted per the instructions basalt juga is threatened by inadequate change is also expected to further listed above in the Information Solicited regulatory mechanisms associated with increase the frequency and intensity of section, regardless of whether a the Survey and Manage program, the wildfires in the Columbia Basin (ISAB substantial finding was determined for Special Status Species Program, and the 2007, p. 22; CDB et al. 2008, pp. 27, 28). that factor. Aquatic Conservation Strategy. The Wildfire affected much of the basalt basalt juga is currently considered a juga’s range in 1993 (Frest and Johannes Basalt juga (Juga (Oreobasis) n. sp. 2) special status species (USDA and USDI 1995a, p. 179; Duncan 2005b, p. 12; The basalt juga is believed to be 2007, p. 93). As a special status species, CDB et al. 2008, p. 55). The removal of limited to springs in the central and the basalt juga should receive special cover plants by wildfires can reduce eastern Columbia River Gorge in Oregon management consideration on Federal shading and increase soil erosion, and Washington (Duncan 2005b, pp. 9– lands; however, maintenance of special thereby increasing water temperatures 10). It has 28 known occurrences and species status is left to the discretion of and sedimentation in springs occupied has been documented on the Gifford- the Federal land managers. As discussed by the species. Pinchot and National above under ‘‘The Survey and Manage , in the Columbia River Gorge Program and Special Status Species Basalt juga Summary: Based on our National Scenic Area, and on private Programs,’’ the claims raised under the evaluation of the information presented land. Duncan (2005b, p. 8) reported it to petition relative to the discontinuation in the petition and in our files, we have be sensitive to water pollution, low of the Survey and Management Program determined that substantial information oxygen, increased water temperatures, no longer apply, because that program is exists to indicate that listing the basalt and sedimentation. Population numbers once again being implemented. juga may be warranted due to the are declining according to Frest and Factor E: The petition asserts that present or threatened destruction, Johannes (1995a, p. 179). basalt juga is threatened by climate modification or curtailment of its Factor A: The petition asserts that the change (CDB et al. 2008, pp. 26, 27). The habitat or range (Factor A) resulting basalt juga is threatened by highway and petition and our files contain from water pollution and diversions. railway development, logging, grazing, information indicating that climate Because we have found that the petition and water diversions (CBD et al. 2008, change is expected to cause significant presents substantial information p. 55). Information cited by the petition reductions in both the volume and indicating that listing the basalt juga supports these claims with regard to persistence of winter snowpack may be warranted, we are initiating a water diversions, and notes that some of throughout the western United States status review to determine whether those diversions are for purposes of (Knowles et al. 2006, p. 4545). Such listing under the Act is warranted.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:18 Oct 04, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM 05OCP3 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 61830 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules

Big Bar Hesperian (Vespericola lands; however, maintenance of special Canary Duskysnail (Colligyrus pressleyi) species status is left to the discretion of convexus) (previously referred to as The Big Bar hesperian is a terrestrial the Federal land managers. As discussed Lyogyrus n. sp. 3) snail known from 27 locations in the above under ‘‘The Survey and Manage The canary duskysnail is an aquatic Trinity National Forest, in Trinity Program and Special Status Species snail known from one (USDA and USDI County, California (Burke et al. 1999, Programs,’’ the claims raised under the 2007, p. 260) to seven sites (Hershler et Sect. 16 p. 1; USDA and USDI 2007, p. petition relative to the discontinuation al. 2003, p. 284) in the Pit River 93). It is an old-growth and riparian of the Survey and Management Program drainage in Shasta County, California. associate according to Frest and no longer apply, because that program is Of five population sites listed in the Johannes (1993, p. 40) and it is known once again being implemented. California Natural Diversity Database to inhabit forests of conifer and Factor E: The petition asserts that Big (CNDDB), one is located in the Lassen hardwood trees in permanently damp or Bar hesperian is threatened by fire, National Forest and another is in moist areas within 200 meters (m) (656 pesticide application, recreation, and McArthur-Burney Falls State Park feet (ft)) of seeps, springs, and stable invasive species (CBD et al. 2008, pp. (CNDDB 2008, pp. 2, 5). Others are on streams (Kelley et al. 1999, p. 73). 26, 69). The petition notes that part of private land. Because the CNDDB (2008, Factor A: The petition asserts that the the snail’s habitat was destroyed by fire pp. 2, 5) and Hershler et al. (2008, p. Big Bar hesperian is threatened by in 2001 (CBD et al. 2008, p. 69; USFWS 284) provide maps of known sites, and habitat alteration due to grazing and 2001, p. 2). Additional information cited because Hershler et al. (2008) is logging (CBD et al. 2008, p. 69). by the petition indicates that pesticides, published by a peer-reviewed journal, Information cited in the petition (Burke recreational activities involving motor we consider these sources to more et al. 1999, Sect. 16, pp. 1, 6) indicates vehicles, and invasive species may accurately reflect the actual number of that overgrazing may adversely impact negatively impact some populations, but sites occupied by the canary duskysnail. the species due to the potential for the source does not provide clear The canary duskysnail is known to trampling and the removal of vegetation information regarding the extent of inhabit cold, clear, well-oxygenated, necessary for food, shade, and these activities in the species’ range unpolluted water (Frest and Johannes subsurface dampness. However, neither (Burke et al. 1999, Sect. 16, pp. 1, 6). 1995b, p. 3; Furnish and Monthey 1999, the petition nor our files contained any The petition asserts that climate Sect. 4, p. 8). information about the presence of change could adversely affect the Big Factor A: The petition asserts that the grazing activities within the species’ Bar hesperian (CBD et al. 2008, p. 26). canary duskysnail’s habitat has been habitat that would allow us to assess the Information in our files indicates that severely degraded by human activities, likelihood of these types of impacts climate change is causing earlier including mining, logging, grazing, occurring. Burke et al. (1999, p. 6) also melting and significant reductions in chemical pollution, road and railroad indicate that removal of trees or downed snowpack throughout the western construction, and water diversions (CBD wood, such as through logging United States, including northern et al. 2008, p. 38). The petition also activities, may adversely affect the California (Kapnick and Hall 2010, pp. asserts that dams, diversions, and spring species due to increased sun and wind 3446, 3448). The consequent developments have caused historical exposure with resulting soil moisture lengthening of summer drought and habitat loss and these activities continue losses. Information cited in the petition associated increases in mean annual air to threaten the species. The petition indicated that habitat loss is occurring temperature are positively correlated cites the BLM’s management now and affecting the majority of the with increased tree mortality rates in recommendations for this species, species (Master et al. 2002, pp. 14, 15; old-growth forests, including forests in which indicate that the species is ORNHIC 2004b, p. 2). northern California (Van Mantgem et al. directly threatened by grazing and road Therefore, based on our evaluation of 2009, pp. 522, 523). Continuation of and railroad construction (both of which the information presented in the these trends could potentially result in cause water pollution and excessive petition and in our files, we have loss of the damp forest conditions sedimentation), and water diversions, determined the petition presents required by the Big Bar hesperian which lower water levels and decrease substantial information to indicate that (Burke et al. 1999, Sect. 16, pp. 5, 6); available habitat (Furnish and Monthey listing the Big Bar hesperian may be however, the exact extent of these 1999, Sect. 4, p. 14). The Pit River is warranted due to the present or potential changes upon the species is listed on the State of California’s list of threatened destruction, modification, or unknown. water quality limited segments because curtailment of its habitat or range. Big Bar hesperian Summary: Based on of organic enrichment and high nutrient Factors B and C: The petition did not our evaluation of the information levels from grazing and agriculture present any information, nor do we have presented in the petition and in our (California Environmental Protection any information in our files, to indicate files, we have determined the petition Agency (CEPA) 2002, p. 143), so water that these factors may pose a threat to presents substantial information to pollution may constitute a threat. In the species. indicate that listing the Big Bar their 2004 publication, the Oregon Factor D: The petition asserts that Big hesperian may be warranted due to the Natural Heritage Information Center Bar hesperian is threatened by present or threatened destruction, concluded that threats to the canary inadequate regulatory mechanisms modification or curtailment of its duskysnail are moderate to severe, and associated with the Survey and Manage habitat or range (Factor A) resulting imminent (ORNHIC 2004a, p. 2). program, the Special Status Species from grazing and logging activities. The petition also alleges that the Program, and the Aquatic Conservation Because we have found that the petition canary duskysnail faces threats from Strategy. The Big Bar hesparian is presents substantial information mining, logging, chemical pollution, currently considered a special status indicating that listing the Big Bar dams, spring and recreational species (USDA and USDI 2007, p. 93). hesparian may be warranted, we are development activities (CBD et al. 2008, As a special status species, the Big Bar initiating a status review to determine p. 38). Many of these are mentioned in hesperian should receive special whether listing under the Act is the BLM’s management management consideration on Federal warranted. recommendations (Furnish and

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:18 Oct 04, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM 05OCP3 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 61831

Monthey 1999, Sect. 4, p. 13), but that groundwater and springs, but the extent arid transition forests of Douglas-fir or document implies that these are to which springs supporting the canary ponderosa pine, often in depressions practices that have negatively impacted duskysnail may be affected by potential that allow slightly more moisture habitats of several mollusk species in increased water diversions is unclear. accumulation than surrounding areas the Pit River in the past, and does not Reduced snow runoff and lower flow (Burke et al. 1999, Sect. 12, pp. 8, 9; identify the activities as current threats. levels may also result in water Duncan 2005c, pp. 1, 9). The species is The document lists threats specifically temperature increases (Field et al. 2007, sometimes found in association with applicable to the canary duskysnail as pp. 620, 629). Although potential water schist talus (broken rock), according to grazing, spring diversions, and road and temperature increases could negatively Frest and Johannes (1995a, p. 113). railroad construction (Furnish and impact the canary duskysnail, this The number of known occupied sites Monthey 1999, Sect. 4, p. 14). species occurs in large, cold, perennial for this species has increased Additionally, the petition claims that springs, and the extent to which the significantly in recent years. In 1995 the recent proposals for relicensing springs that support the canary species was known from only a single hydroelectric developments on the Pit duskysnail may be affected by this location (Frest and Johannes 1995a, p. River pose imminent threats to existing potential threat is unclear. 113). In 1999, 14 sites were known, 7 of populations, but we were unable to The petition also states that those which had been destroyed by fire (Burke confirm that claim based on a review of petitioned species existing only in et al. 1999, Sect. 12, p. 6; ORNHIC the Final Environmental Impact small, isolated colonies are threatened 2004b, p. 1). By 2005, 97 sites had been Statement (FERC 2004a, pp. xvi–xviii). by increased vulnerabilities of small, identified (Duncan 2005c, p. 9), and by Based on our evaluation of the isolated populations to extinction from 2007 104 sites were known (USDA and information presented in the petition limited gene flow and stochastic USDI 2007, p. 93). Information in our and in our files, we have determined the (chance) events (CBD et al. 2008, pp. 28, files indicates that approximately 150 petition presents substantial 29). The petition provided no occupied sites were found during Forest information to indicate that listing the information, and we do not have Service surveys in 1999 and 2000 canary duskysnail may be warranted information in our files regarding the (Murphy 2000, p. 2), but it is not clear due to the present or threatened size of most local populations of this how many of these new sites, if any, are destruction, modification or curtailment species, which would affect their accounted for in the 104 sites that were of its habitat or range. susceptibility to inbreeding depression. generally known in 2007 (USDA and Factors B and C: The petition did not We also do not have information USDI 2007, p. 93). It also is not clear present any information, nor do we have regarding the likelihood of damaging how many of the sites found by Murphy any information in our files, to indicate stochastic events capable of threatening were occupied at the time by live snails that these factors may pose a threat to the species. The petition does not (Murphy 2000, p. 2; Tarr 2010, p. 2). the species. provide any information regarding the In sites containing live snails, the Factor D: The petition asserts that potential threat from isolation and number of individuals appears to be Canary duskysnail is threatened by limited distribution, and we do not inadequate regulatory mechanisms consider isolation and limited low. Duncan (2005c, p. 12) reported that associated with the Survey and Manage distribution, in and of itself, to be a most sites known in 2005 contained program, the Special Status Species threat to the canary duskysnail. only 1 individual, although a survey of Program, and the Aquatic Conservation Canary duskysnail Summary: Based 18 plots in the vicinity of an unreported Strategy. The Canary duskysnail is not on our evaluation of the information number of previously documented sites currently considered a special status presented in the petition and in our found a total of 186 snails, thereby species (USDA and USDI 2007, p. 93). files, we have determined the petition ‘‘suggesting that local populations may As discussed above under ‘‘The Survey presents substantial information to be somewhat more numerous than and Manage Program and Special Status indicate that listing the canary previously expected.’’ Species Programs,’’ the claims raised duskysnail may be warranted due to the Factor A: The petition asserts that under the petition relative to the present or threatened destruction, timber harvest is a threat to this species discontinuation of the Survey and modification or curtailment of its (CBD et al. 2008, p. 64). Logging may Management Program no longer apply, habitat or range (Factor A) resulting negatively impact this species by because that program is once again from railroad and road construction, causing soil compaction and being implemented. grazing, water diversions and water microhabitat alteration and large Factor E: The petition asserts that pollution. Because we have found that machinery used for logging can also climate change is a threat to the canary the petition presents substantial directly crush individual snails (Duncan duskysnail (CBD et al. 2008, pp. 26, 27). information indicating that listing the 2005c, p. 10). Frest and Johannes Information in our files indicates that canary duskysnail may be warranted, (1995a, p. 113) indicate that logging has climate change is causing significant we are initiating a status review to occurred and is likely to continue reductions in both the volume and determine whether listing under the Act throughout most of this species’ persistence of winter snowpack is warranted. potential range. According to the throughout the western United States, petition, National Forest Survey and including northern California (Knowles Chelan Mountainsnail (Oreohelix n. sp. Manage documents indicate that the et al. 2006, pp. 4545, 4546; Kapnick and 1) Chelan mountainsnail was detected at a Hall 2010, pp. 3446, 3454). The The Chelan mountainsnail is a timber sale and at a thinning and reduction and earlier melting of the terrestrial snail known from at least 104 prescribed burning project (CBD et al. snowpack is likely to continue, and this sites in or near the Wenatchee National 2008, p. 64). The prescribed burn may result in a reduction in the amount Forest in Chelan County, Washington presumably occurred on the Wenatchee of water that is available during summer (USDA and USDI 2007, pp. 93, 263, National Forest in 2005 (Duncan 2005c, months (Kapnick and Hall 2010, pp. 264). Eighty-six of those known sites are p. 12). The species appears to prefer 3446, 3454). Such a reduction in on Federal land. The Chelan areas with a somewhat more open available surface water may result in mountainsnail is known to inhabit canopy, thereby allowing for a more increased water diversions from grassy underbrush in, or adjacent to, lush grass understory (Duncan 2005c, p.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:18 Oct 04, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM 05OCP3 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 61832 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules

11), so it is not clear that tree removal, Factor E: The petition asserts that are initiating a status review to in and of itself, would pose a threat. high-intensity fire is a threat to this determine whether listing under the Act The petition also states that ingrowth species, because the species is adapted is warranted. to the historical low-intensity seasonal of understory vegetation may constitute Cinnamon Juga (Juga n. sp. 3) a threat by reducing habitat quality and fire regime, but not to modern fires increasing the risk of wildfire (CBD et (CBD et al. 2008, p. 63). The likelihood The cinnamon juga is an aquatic snail al. 2008, p. 63). Although Duncan of high-intensity fire in the future may known from four (USDA and USDI (2005c, p. 14) supports this claim, she be heightened by climate change 2007, p. 93) to eight sites (Frest and does not explain how such ingrowth (Westerling et al. 2006, pp. 940, 941). Johannes 1999, p. 90) in the Shasta would reduce habitat quality, nor does High-intensity fire may negatively Springs complex (a network of the author indicate whether such impact this species by removing habitat, hydrologically connected springs), on ingrowth is currently occurring or is directly killing individual snails, and the upper Sacramento River, Siskiyou likely to occur across the snail’s range. isolating remaining populations County, California. None of the sites are We address the risk of fire below under (Duncan 2005c, p. 14). The Tyee Fire of on Federal land (USDA and USDI 2007, Factor E. 1994 destroyed seven occupied sites, p. 258). It is believed to be restricted to Information in our files supports which as of 2005, were still not known large, cold, perennial springs with sand- claims by the petitioner that heavy to have been recolonized (Duncan cobble or basalt bedrock substrate grazing may negatively impact the 2005c, p. 9). (Furnish and Monthey 1999, Sect. 2, p. species by compacting soils and We do not have information in our 5). There is one record of an occurrence removing the snail’s grassy underbrush files to indicate that the effects of in the Sacramento River itself, but this habitat (Duncan 2005c, p. 14). climate change may pose a threat to the apparently involved a subaqueous According to Frest and Johannes (1995a, Chelan mountainsnail in other ways, spring (Frest and Johannes 1999, p. 90). p. 113) grazing has occurred and is since it is already adapted to relatively The species is dependent on high levels likely to continue to occur throughout arid habitats (Duncan 2005c, p. 11). of dissolved oxygen, and is sensitive to The petition lists recreational most of the species’ range. Road pollution, elevated temperatures, and activities such as off-road vehicle use as building and talus removal associated sedimentation, according to Furnish and a threat (CBD et al. 2008, p. 64), but we with road building and maintenance Monthey (1999, Sect. 2, p. 5). have no information in our files to have impacted at least one occupied site Factor A: The petition asserts that the indicate that such activities are by removing suitable habitat. These species may be threatened by water occurring or are likely to occur within activities had been ongoing for several diversions, grazing, and water pollution the range of the Chelan mountainsnail (CBD et al. 2008, p. 55). Information years in the early 1990s (Frest and to an extent that they may pose a threat Johannes 1995a, p. 113), and may to the species. cited by the petition and in our files reasonably be expected to continue in The petition also indicates that the indicates that diversions may adversely the future (Duncan 2005c, p. 10). We Chelan mountainsnail may be impact the species by removing habitat therefore determine there is substantial threatened by limited gene flow and reducing water flow (Frest and information in the petition and in our (inbreeding depression) and stochastic Johannes 1999, p. 90; Furnish and files to indicate that grazing and road (chance) events (CBD et al. 2008, pp. 28, Monthey 1999, Sect. 2, p. 7; USDA and building and maintenance activities 29). We consider the potential threat USDI 2007, p. 258). Our information may be threats to the Chelan from chance events to be low because also indicates that grazing may pose a mountainsnail, such that listing may be the Chelan mountainsnail is now known threat by polluting water, increasing warranted. from approximately 100 sites (USDA siltation, and raising water temperatures Factors B and C: The petition did not and USDI 2007, p. 93), and (Furnish and Monthey 1999, Sect. 2, p. present any information, nor do we have approximately 150 additional sites may 7; USDA and USDI 2007, p. 258). any information in our files, to indicate have been located (Murphy 2000, p. 2). Additionally, logging may pose a threat that these factors may pose a threat to Although population numbers at each to the species by increasing siltation in the species. site appear to be low (Duncan 2005c, p. occupied habitat (Furnish and Monthey Factor D: The petition asserts that 12) (which would tend to increase the 1999, Sect. 2, p. 7), and groundwater Chelan mountainsnail is threatened by possibility of inbreeding depression) withdrawal has caused the extinction or inadequate regulatory mechanisms (Lande 1999, pp. 11, 12), the petition local extirpation of ecologically similar associated with the Survey and Manage does not provide any information species by lowering water tables (USDA program, the Special Status Species regarding the potential threat from and USDI 2007, p. 258). Program, and the Aquatic Conservation isolation and limited distribution, and The petition also asserts that Strategy. The Chelan mountainsnail is we do not consider isolation and limited development may be a threat to the currently considered a special status distribution, in and of itself, to cinnamon juga, and notes that occupied species (USDA and USDI 2007, p. 93). constitute a threat to the Chelan springs have been negatively impacted As a special status species, the Chelan mountainsnail. by railroad construction (CBD et al. mountainsnail should receive special Chelan mountainsnail Summary: 2008, p. 56). The petition did not management consideration on Federal Based on our evaluation of the provide information and we did not find lands; however, maintenance of special information presented in the petition information in our files indicating that species status is left to the discretion of and in our files, we have determined the development is likely to impact the the Federal land managers. As discussed petition presents substantial cinnamon juga. We did not find above under ‘‘The Survey and Manage information to indicate that listing the information to indicate how past Program and Special Status Species Chelan mountainsnail may be warranted impacts from railroad development Programs,’’ the claims raised under the due to the present or threatened represent a present or continuing threat, petition relative to the discontinuation destruction, modification or curtailment except as discussed below under Factor of the Survey and Management Program of its habitat or range (Factor A) E with regard to road and trackside no longer apply, because that program is resulting from logging, grazing, and road spraying, and catastrophic chance once again being implemented. building and maintenance activities. We events.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:18 Oct 04, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM 05OCP3 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 61833

Based on our evaluation of the perennial springs, and the extent to petition and in our files indicates that information presented in the petition which the springs that support the diversions may adversely affect the and in our files, we have determined the cinnamon juga may be affected by this species by removing and disturbing petition presents substantial potential threat is unclear. habitat; road construction and information to indicate that listing the The restriction of the cinnamon juga maintenance may disrupt flows and cinnamon juga may be warranted due to to only eight known sites in the same produce sediment; and logging may the present or threatened destruction, general area leaves it potentially increase soil erosion and decrease modification, or curtailment of its susceptible to catastrophic chance shading (Frest and Johannes 1995a, p. habitat or range. events, such as the 1991 train 185; Furnish and Monthey 1999, Sect. 4, Factors B and C: The petition did not derailment and subsequent spill of the pp. 13, 14; Duncan 2005b, pp. 11, 12). present any information, nor do we have herbicide metam sodium into the nearby Such modifications are relatively any information in our files, to indicate upper Sacramento River at Cantara Bend common in the Columbia Gorge, and that these factors may pose a threat to (Furnish and Monthey 1999, Sect. 2, p. because they leave less undisturbed the species. 8). Runoff from normally scheduled habitat in small springs (such as those Factor D: The petition asserts that road and trackside herbicide spraying preferred by the Columbia duskysnail) cinnamon juga is threatened by may also impact the species (Frest and their relative ecological impacts tend to inadequate regulatory mechanisms Johannes 1999, p. 90). be larger (Frest and Johannes 1995a, p. associated with the Survey and Manage Although the petition states that 185). The petitioners state that this snail program, the Special Status Species ‘‘recreation’’ may also constitute a threat was detected at 15 timber sales and 7 Program, and the Aquatic Conservation (CBD et al. 2008, p. 56) we found no road maintenance projects (CBD et al. Strategy (CBD et al. 2008 p. 29). The supporting information in the petition 2008, p. 57). Three of the timber sales cinnamon juga is not currently or our files to indicate which included specified mitigation measures considered by the USFS or BLM to be recreational activities might be to protect the species. a special status species (USDA and involved, or how they might pose a The petition also alleges that there are USDI 2007, pp. 93, 258). It is also threat to the species. threats from dams and grazing (CBD et unlikely to receive significant protection Cinnamon juga Summary: Based on al. 2008, p. 57), but we did not find from the Aquatic Conservation Strategy our evaluation of the information information in the petition or our files (ACS), since the ACS only applies to presented in the petition and in our to indicate that these activities Federal lands (USDA and USDI 1994, p. files, we have determined the petition constitute continuing threats. 9; CBD et al. 2008, p. 32), and the presents substantial information to Based on our evaluation of the cinnamon juga is not known to occur on indicate that listing the cinnamon juga information presented in the petition such lands (USDA and USDI 2007, p. may be warranted due to the present or and in our files, we determined the 258). As discussed above under ‘‘The threatened destruction, modification or petition presents substantial Survey and Manage Program and curtailment of its habitat or range information to indicate that listing the Special Status Species Programs,’’ the (Factor A) resulting from water Columbia duskysnail may be warranted claims raised under the petition relative diversion and groundwater withdrawal, due to the present or threatened to the discontinuation of the Survey and grazing, and logging activities. We are destruction, modification, or Management Program no longer apply, initiating a status review to determine curtailment of its habitat or range. because that program is once again whether listing under the Act is Factors B and C: The petition did not being implemented. warranted. present any information, nor do we have Factor E: The petition asserts that any information in our files, to indicate climate change is a threat to the Columbia Duskysnail (Lyogyrus n. sp. 1) that these factors may pose a threat to cinnamon juga (CBD et al. 2008, p. 26). The Columbia duskysnail is an the species. Climate change is causing significant aquatic snail known from 64 sites in the Factor D: The petition asserts that reductions in both the volume and central and eastern Columbia Gorge in Columbia duskysnail is threatened by persistence of winter snowpack Multnomah, Clackamas and Hood River inadequate regulatory mechanisms throughout the western United States, Counties, Oregon, and Klickitat and associated with the Survey and Manage including northern California (Knowles Skamania Counties, Washington (Frest program, the Special Status Species et al. 2006, pp. 4545, 4546; Kapnick and and Johannes 1999, p. 70; Duncan Program, and the Aquatic Conservation Hall 2010, pp. 3446, 3454). The 2005b, p. 9; USDA and USDI 2007, p. Strategy. The Columbia duskysnail is reduction and earlier melting of 93). Fifty-two of the sites are on Federal currently considered a special status snowpack is likely to continue, and this land (USDA and USDI 2007, p. 93). It is species (USDA and USDI 2007, p. 93). may result in a reduction in the amount believed to be restricted to soft- As a special status species, the of water that is available during summer bottomed, slow-flowing areas of cold, Columbia duskysnail should receive months (Kapnick and Hall 2010, pp. well oxygenated springs and spring- special management consideration on 3446, 3454). Such a reduction in influenced streams tributary to the Federal lands; however, maintenance of available surface water may also result Columbia River (Duncan 2005b, p. 10). special species status is left to the in increased water diversions from The Columbia duskysnail often occurs discretion of the Federal land managers. groundwater and springs, but the extent in very small springs, according to Frest As discussed above under ‘‘The Survey to which springs supporting the and Johannes (1995a, p. 185). All and Manage Program and Special Status cinnamon juga may be affected by Lyogyrus species are believed to be Species Programs,’’ the claims raised potential increased water diversions is intolerant of oxygen deficits, elevated under the petition relative to the unclear. Reduced snow runoff and water temperatures, and sedimentation discontinuation of the Survey and lower flow levels may also result in (Duncan 2005b, pp. 10, 11). Management Program no longer apply, water temperature increases (Field et al. Factor A: The petition asserts that this because that program is once again 2007, pp. 620, 629). Although potential species may be threatened by water being implemented. water temperature increases could diversions, road and railroad Factor E: The petition asserts that negatively impact the cinnamon juga, construction, and logging (CBD et al. climate change is a threat to the this species occurs in large, cold, 2008, p. 57). Information cited by the Columbia duskysnail (CBD et al. 2008,

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:18 Oct 04, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM 05OCP3 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 61834 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules

p. 26). Climate change is causing depression or stochastic events may indicates that populations on Mount significant reductions in both the threaten the species. Hood may be threatened by loss of volume and persistence of winter Columbia duskysnail Summary: woody debris and removal of tree snowpack throughout the western Based on our evaluation of the canopy due to logging (Duncan 2005d, United States, including northern information presented in the petition p. 9), which may reduce the suitability California (Knowles et al. 2006, pp. and in our files, we have determined the of microclimate habitat. Therefore, we 4545, 4546; Kapnick and Hall 2010, pp. petition presents substantial have determined that the petition 3446, 3454). The reduction and earlier information to indicate that listing the presents substantial information to melting of the snowpack is likely to Columbia duskysnail may be warranted indicate that listing the Columbia continue, and this may result in a due to the present or threatened Oregonian may be warranted due to the reduction in the amount of water that is destruction, modification or curtailment present or threatened destruction, available during summer months of its habitat or range (Factor A) modification, or curtailment of its (Kapnick and Hall 2010, pp. 3446, resulting from water diversions, road habitat or range. 3454). Such a reduction in available construction and maintenance, and Factors B and C: The petition did not surface water may result in increased logging activities. We are initiating a present any information, nor do we have water diversions from groundwater and status review to determine whether any information in our files, to indicate springs, but the extent to which springs listing under the Act is warranted. that these factors may pose a threat to supporting the Columbia duskysnail the species. Columbia Oregonian (Cryptomastix Factor D: The petition asserts that may be affected by potential increased hendersoni) water diversions is unclear. Reduced Columbia Oregonian is threatened by snow runoff and lower flow levels may The Columbia Oregonian is a inadequate regulatory mechanisms terrestrial snail known from 22 to 45 also result in water temperature associated with the Survey and Manage sites (Duncan 2005d, pp. 6, 7; USDA increases (Field et al. 2007, pp. 620, program, the Special Status Species and USDI 2007, p. 92). Seventeen or 18 629). Although potential water Program, and the Aquatic Conservation locations are on Federal land, in the temperature increases could negatively Strategy (CBD et al. 2008, p. 26). The Mount Hood National Forest, Clackamas impact the Columbia duskysnail, the Columbia Oregonian is currently County, Oregon (Duncan 2005d, p. 7; extent to which the springs that support considered a special status species USDA and USDI 2007, p. 92). The the Columbia duskysnail may be (USDA and USDI 2007, p. 93). As a remaining locations are in the vicinity affected by this potential threat is special status species, the Columbian of the Columbia River in Wasco and unclear. Oregonian should receive special Sherman Counties, Oregon, and in management consideration on Federal Climate change is also expected to Klickitat County, Washington (Duncan lands; however, maintenance of special further increase the frequency and 2005d, p. 6). The snail is believed to species status is left to the discretion of intensity of wildfires in the Columbia inhabit the semiarid habitat along the the Federal land managers. As discussed Basin (ISAB 2007, p. 22). Removal of Columbia River by inhabiting moist above under ‘‘The Survey and Manage cover plants by a wildfire could threaten microclimates along the margins of Program and Special Status Species the Columbia duskysnail by reducing streams, seeps, and springs (Kelley et al. Programs,’’ the claims raised under the shading and increasing soil erosion, 1999, p. 9; Duncan 2005d, p. 7). In the petition relative to the discontinuation thereby increasing water temperatures Mount Hood National Forest, the of the Survey and Management Program and sedimentation in springs occupied Columbia Oregonian is known to occur no longer apply, because that program is by the species. A conservation in moist areas under closed canopy once again being implemented. assessment for the Columbia duskysnail forests of western hemlock (Burke et al. Factor E: The petition asserts that the commissioned by the USFS and BLM 1999, Sect. 2, p. 7). Its population trends Columbia Oregonian is threatened by lists ‘‘fires’’ as a threat (Duncan 2005b, (numbers of both sites and individuals) climate change, fire, roadside spraying p. 12). are downward, according to ORNHC of pesticides, invasive species, and The same conservation assessment (2004c, p. 2). recreation (CBD et al. 2008, pp. 26, 41). lists ‘‘recreation’’ as a threat (Duncan Factor A: The petition asserts that the The petition and our files contain 2005b, p. 12), but does not elaborate on Columbia Oregonian is threatened by information indicating that climate the specific activities referred to or how habitat loss due to development, change could cause significant they may threaten the species. The logging, grazing, and agriculture, as well reductions in both the volume and petition also states that recreation is a as by water pollution, diversions, and persistence of winter snowpack threat, and claims that the Columbia impoundments (CBD et al. 2008, p. 41). throughout the western United States duskysnail was detected at two Information cited by the petition and in (Knowles et al. 2006, p. 4545). Such recreational projects (CBD et al. 2008, p. our files indicates that Columbia reductions have already been 57). Oregonian populations near the documented in the Columbia Gorge and The petition also states generally that Columbia River may be threatened by in the vicinity of Mt. Hood (Knowles et the species is threatened by ‘‘spraying’’ loss of habitat and groundwater al. 2006, pp. 4545, 4546). The reduction (presumably of pesticides) and by the withdrawals due to urban development, and earlier melting of the snowpack is vulnerability of small isolated and by loss of perennial flow of nearby likely to continue, and this may result populations to inbreeding depression springs and streams due to agricultural in earlier and more severe drying of and deleterious chance events (CBD et diversions and impoundments (Frest soils (Westerling et al. 2006, p. 942). al. 2008, pp. 28, 29, 57). We did not find and Johannes 1995a, p. 89; Duncan Because this species requires moist information to indicate that pesticide 2005d, p. 9). Information presented in microclimates (Duncan 2005d, p. 7), a spraying occurs in the vicinity of the the petition also indicates that grazing reduction in soil moisture could Columbia duskysnail at levels that may may threaten these populations, due to threaten the species. threaten the species. We also did not impacts from trampling and pollution Climate change is also expected to find information to indicate that (Frest and Johannes 1995a, p. 89; further increase the frequency and Columbia duskysnail populations are so Duncan 2005d, p. 9). Additionally, intensity of wildfires in the Columbia small and isolated that inbreeding information presented in the petition Basin (ISAB 2007, p. 22). Large fires

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:18 Oct 04, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM 05OCP3 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 61835

may pose a threat to the species by National Forests (Kelley et al. 1999, p. have no additional information to directly killing snails and degrading 57; Duncan 2004, pp. 7, 9). The Crater indicate that there may be habitat- useable habitat (Duncan 2005d, p. 9). Lake tightcoil has been found in related threats across the now-larger Modern fires can effectively sterilize wetland areas in perennially moist known range of this species. large areas of snails (Frest and Johannes forested areas; often in non-acidic fens Factors B and C: The petition did not 1995a, p. 55). For example, major brush or sedge habitats near open water present any information, nor do we have fires impacted known occupied sites in (Duncan 2004, pp. 7, 8). This subspecies any information in our files, to indicate 1994 (Frest and Johannes 1995a, p. 89). has been found at elevations ranging that these factors may pose a threat to Water pollution from roadside from 838 to 1,950 m (2,750 to 6,400 ft) the species. herbicide spraying may also threaten the (Duncan 2004, p. 8). Sites are generally Factor D: The petition asserts that species, which is dependent on clean in areas that experience snow cover for Crater Lake tightcoil is threatened by water from seeps, springs, and streams long periods (Duncan 2004, p. 8). inadequate regulatory mechanisms to maintain moist microhabitats (Frest Factor A: The petition states that associated with the Survey and Manage and Johannes 1995a, p. 89; Duncan habitat-based threats to the Crater Lake program, the Special Status Species 2005d, pp. 3, 7, 9). tightcoil include water diversions from Program, and the Aquatic Conservation The petition states that ‘‘recreation’’ meadow habitats, logging, grazing, Strategy. This mollusk is currently threatens the species, but does not heavy equipment operation, and considered a special status species specify the type of recreation or the ‘‘construction’’ (presumably of roads) (USDA and USDI 2007, p. 93). As a nature of the threat (CBD et al. 2008, p. (CBD et al. 2008, p. 65). The petition special status species, the Crater Lake 41). Two documents cited by the cites three supporting documents, but tightcoil should receive special petition are used to support the two of them (Frest and Johannes 2000, management consideration on Federal petition’s claim, but they fail to specify p. 226; and Burke et al. 1999, Sect. 13, lands; however, maintenance of special the nature of the recreation or threat p. 1) were written when the subspecies species status is left to the discretion of (Frest and Johannes 1995a, p. 89; was only known from three to eight the Federal land managers. As discussed Duncan 2005d, p. 9). We do not have sites. The third document cited by the above under ‘‘The Survey and Manage information in our files to indicate that petition, a conservation assessment Program and Special Status Species recreational activities pose a threat to (Duncan 2004, pp. 9), indicates that 160 Programs,’’ the claims raised under the the species. occupied sites were known at the time, petition relative to the discontinuation The petition also states that the but its summary of threats is nearly of the Survey and Management Program Columbia Oregonian is threatened by identical (with minor changes) to the no longer apply, because that program is nonnative species (CBD et al. 2008, p. threats description of Burke et al. (1999, once again being implemented. 41). Burke et al. (1999, Sect. 2, p. 8) Sect. 13, p. 1). The preface of Duncan The petition also states that this notes that ‘‘[n]onnative plants and 2004 (p. 3) indicates that the purpose of mollusk is threatened by the Western may be a threat and should be that document was to convert Oregon Plan Revision (WOPR), a set of managed when a need is identified,’’ but management recommendations revisions to the Northwest Forest Plan does not otherwise indicate that originally made for the Survey and proposed for BLM lands in western nonnative plants or animals are Manage Program (such as those Oregon (CBD et al. 2008, p. 34). currently affecting the persistence or produced by Burke et al. (1999)) into However, the BLM withdrew this survival of the Columbia Oregonian in conservation assessments fitted to the proposal in 2009 (USDA 2009, p. 1). We any of its known locations. We do not Special Status/Sensitive Species are unaware of any plans to reinstate the have information in our files to indicate Program (SSSP). There is no indication WOPR, therefore we do not have that nonnative species may be a threat that the hundreds of newly documented information to assess if or how the to the Columbia Oregonian. occupied locations of the subspecies WOPR may impact the species. Columbia Oregonian Summary: Based were taken into account when repeating Factor E: The petition asserts that on our evaluation of the information the threats assessment of Burke et al. climate change is a threat to the Crater presented in the petition and in our (1999, Sect. 13, p. 1) in the 2004 Lake tightcoil (CBD et al. 2008, p. 26). files, we have determined the petition conservation assessment (Duncan 2004, The petition and our files contain presents substantial information to p. 4). information indicating that climate indicate that listing the Columbia Two years after the completion of change is expected to cause significant Oregonian may be warranted due to the Duncan’s (2004) report, 49 additional reductions in both the volume and present or threatened destruction, occupied sites were identified (USDA persistence of winter snowpack modification or curtailment of its and USDI 2007, p. 264). The new throughout the western United States habitat or range (Factor A) resulting occurrences increased the known (Knowles et al. 2006, p. 4545). Such from water diversions and number of occupied sites by 25 percent, reductions have already been impoundments, as well as to and also expanded the known documented in the Oregon Cascades groundwater withdrawals, grazing and distribution, indicating that the (Knowles et al. 2006, pp. 4545, 4546). If logging activities. We are initiating a subspecies straddles the Cascade reduced snowpack results in a reduction status review to determine whether Mountains with a relatively continuous of soil moisture, the Crater Lake listing under the Act is warranted. distribution. The following year (2007), tightcoil, which requires perennially the environmental impact statement for moist habitat (Duncan 2004, p. 8), could Crater Lake Tightcoil (Pristiloma the removal of the Survey and Manage be impacted. However, neither the arcticum crateris) program concluded that there is petition nor our files contain any The Crater Lake tightcoil is small sufficient habitat to support stable information about the extent soil drying terrestrial snail known from 209 sites in populations of this species in the area could occur within the Crater Lake the Oregon Cascades (USDA and USDI covered by the Northwest Forest Plan, tighcoil’s habitat or what impact that 2007, p. 93). All occupied sites occur on in the absence of both Survey and drying would have to the species. Federal land, including Crater Lake Manage and Special Species Status The petition states that the Crater National Park, and the Umpqua, programs (USDA and USDI 2007, pp. Lake tightcoil may be threatened by fire Winema, Deschutes, and Mount Hood xiv, 93, 264) (see Factor D, below). We and recreational activities that compact

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:18 Oct 04, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM 05OCP3 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 61836 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules

the substrate, such as snowmobiling and threatened destruction, modification, or The petition also asserts that the off-road vehicles (CBD et al. 2008, pp. curtailment of its habitat or range. Dalles sideband may be threatened by 26, 27, 65). However, the subspecies Factor B: The petition states that the fire (CBD et al. 2008, p. 61). Climate appears well distributed on both sides Dalles sideband is threatened by change is expected to further increase of the Cascade Mountains (USDA and overcollection (CBD et al. 2008, p. 61). the frequency and intensity of wildfires USDI 2007, p. 264), and is known from Although Burke et al. (1999, Sect. 9, p. in Oregon, particularly in the Oregon over 200 sites. And, any potential threat 1) does mention overcollection as a Cascades (Westerling et al. 2006, pp. from recreational activities would likely potential threat, they do not provide 940, 942). Large fires may pose a threat be dispersed relative to the species’ information explaining the nature or to the species by directly killing snails range. While fire and recreational extent of collection activities. Currently, and degrading occupied habitat (Duncan activities could impact individual areas 98 occupied sites are known (USDA and 2005a, p. 4). (Burke et al. 1999, Sect. 13, p. 1; Duncan USDI 2007, p. 93), as compared to the The petition indicates that the Dalles 2004, p. 11), we do not have information 15 occupied sites known when the sideband may be threatened by limited in our files to indicate that they may Burke et al. (1999, Sect. 9, p. 1) report gene flow (inbreeding depression) and pose threats to the subspecies given the was published. We do not have stochastic (chance) events (CBD et al. high number and wide distribution of information in our files to indicate 2008, pp. 28, 29). We consider the threat known occurrences. whether the level of collection activities from chance events to be very low Crater Lake Tightcoil Summary: The referenced by Burke et al. (1999, Sect. 9, because the species is known from 98 reinstatement of the Survey and Manage p. 1) may be a threat to the species, locations. The petition does not present Program, the withdrawal of the WOPR given the increased number of known any information regarding the level of proposal, and the discovery of over 200 occupied sites. gene flow, nor do we have any well-distributed additional occupied Factor C: The petition did not present information in our files regarding the sites since 2000 (when several of the any information, nor do we have any level of gene flow between those sites, petition’s cited sources were written), information in our files, to indicate that or the species’ susceptibility to have addressed the concerns raised by this factor may pose a threat to the inbreeding depression. The petition also states that the Dalles the petition. Based on our evaluation of species. sideband is threatened by pesticide the information presented in the Factor D: The petition asserts that application and recreation activities petition and in our files, we have Dalles sideband is threatened by (CBD et al. 2008, p. 61). Although Burke determined the petition does not inadequate regulatory mechanisms et al. (1999, Sect. 9, p. 1) do mention present substantial information to associated with the Survey and Manage these activities as potential threats, they indicate that listing the Crater Lake program, the Special Status Species do so based on the conclusion that such tightcoil may be warranted. Program, and the Aquatic Conservation activities often constitute threats for Strategy. The Dalles sideband is Dalles Sideband (Monadenia fidelis land snails in general, rather than based currently considered a special status minor) on information specific to the Dalles species (USDA and USDI 2007, p. 93). sideband. The Dalles sideband is a small, As a special status species, this mollusk Dalles Sideband Summary: Based on terrestrial snail known from 98 should receive special management our evaluation of the information occupied sites distributed along the consideration on Federal lands; presented in the petition and in our Columbia Gorge and Deschutes River in however, maintenance of special species files, we have determined the petition Wasco County, Oregon, and Klickitat status is left to the discretion of the presents substantial information to County, Washington (Kelly et al. 1999, Federal land managers. As discussed indicate that listing the Dalles sideband p. 37). Ninety-seven of the occupied above under ‘‘The Survey and Manage may be warranted due to the present or sites are on Federal land (USDA and Program and Special Status Species threatened destruction, modification or USDI 2007, p. 93). During the summer Programs,’’ the claims raised under the curtailment of its habitat or range months, the Dalles sideband is usually petition relative to the discontinuation (Factor A) resulting from timber, road found in moist rock talus a short of the Survey and Management Program maintenance and grazing activities that distance from streams or springs, and no longer apply, because that program is may result in reduced soil moisture due during the wet seasons it is usually once again being implemented. to compaction of soil and removal of found in moist woody debris or other Factor E: The petition asserts that vegetation. We are initiating a status litter, according to Burke et al. (1999, climate change is a threat to the Dalles review to determine whether listing Sect. 9, p. 3). sideband (CBD et al. 2008, p. 26). under the Act is warranted. Factor A: The petition states that the Information cited by the petition and in Dalles sideband was detected at six our files indicates that climate change is Diminutive Pebblesnail (Fluminicola n. timber sales, a road maintenance expected to cause significant reductions sp. 3) project, and a grazing allotment (CBD et in both the volume and persistence of The diminutive pebblesnail al. 2008, p. 61). The subspecies is likely winter snowpack throughout the (sometimes referred to as the Klamath to be negatively impacted by activities western United States (Knowles et al. Rim pebblesnail (Frest and Johannes that decrease moisture within the 2006, p. 4545). Such reductions have 1999, p. 25)) is a small aquatic snail microhabitats it occupies (Burke et al. already been documented in the Oregon known from six sites in two large spring 1999, Sect. 9, p. 1). Timber, road Cascades (Knowles et al. 2006, pp. 4545, complexes (Fall Creek and Jenny Creek maintenance, and grazing activities 4546). If reduced snowpack resulted in watersheds) in the middle Klamath could result in reduced soil moisture a reduction of soil moisture, the Dalles River Drainage, in Jackson County, due to compaction of soil and removal sideband could be impacted. However, Oregon (Frest and Johannes 2000, p. of vegetation (Burke et al. 1999, Sect. 9, neither the petition nor our files contain 267). Three of the six known sites for pp. 1, 5). We determined the petition any information about the extent soil the diminutive pebblesnail occur on presents substantial information to drying could occur within the Dalles Federal land (USDA and USDI 2007, p. indicate that listing the Dalles sideband sideband habitat or what impact that 93). This species is found only in areas may be warranted due to the present or drying would have to the species. of gravel-boulder substrate with very

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:18 Oct 04, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM 05OCP3 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 61837

cold, unpolluted water, according to set of revisions to the Northwest Forest review to determine whether listing Frest and Johannes (2000, p. 267). Plan proposed for BLM lands in western under the Act is warranted. Factor A: The petition asserts that the Oregon (CBD et al. 2008, p. 34). Evening Fieldslug (Deroceras diminutive pebblesnail is threatened by However, the BLM withdrew this hesperium) logging, grazing, water diversions, water proposal in 2009 (USDA 2009, p. 1). We pollution, development, and road are unaware of any plans to reinstate the The evening fieldslug is a terrestrial construction (CBD et al. 2008, p. 44). WOPR, therefore we do not have slug (with a small, thin shell) known Information cited by the petition and in information to assess if or how the from 20 sites, 4 of which are believed our files indicates that the species may WOPR may impact the species. to be locally extinct, and 14 of which be threatened by logging (which can Factor E: The petition asserts that occur on Federal land (Duncan 2005a, p. lead to siltation and increased water climate change is a threat to the 9; USDA and USDI 2007, p. 92). temperatures), water diversions (which diminutive pebblesnail (CBD et al. 2008, Occupied sites are scattered across the reduce available water and habitat), p. 26). Climate change is causing Oregon Cascades and northern Coast grazing (which can increase water significant reductions in both the Range, extending north through western temperatures, pollute water, and volume and persistence of winter Washington and into Vancouver Island, increase siltation), water pollution from snowpack throughout the western British Columbia (Duncan 2005a, p. 4, agricultural runoff, and road building United States, including northern 8). The evening fieldslug typically (which can also produce siltation) (Frest California (Knowles et al. 2006, pp. inhabits low elevation, perennially wet and Johannes 2000, p. 268; ORNHIC 4545, 4546; Kapnick and Hall 2010, pp. meadows in forested habitats, according 2004d, p. 2; Banish 2010, p. 1). Part of 3446, 3454). The reduction and earlier to Duncan (2005a, p. 4). the flow from the spring complexes melting of the snowpack is likely to Factor A: The petition asserts that supporting the diminutive pebblesnail continue, and this may result in a habitat loss is the greatest threat to this is diverted for the City of Yreka, reduction in the amount of water that is species (CBD et al. 2008, p. 42). California, municipal water supply available during summer months Information cited by the petition and in (Frest and Johannes 2000, p. 268). (Kapnick and Hall 2010, pp. 3446, our files indicates that this species may Irrigation diversions are also common, 3454). Reduced snow runoff and lower be threatened by activities that lower as is grazing on much of the larger Fall flow levels may also result in water the water table or reduce soil moisture, Creek and Jenny Creek system. The temperature increases (Field et al. 2007, including spring diversions, grazing, petition also claims ‘‘development’’ is a pp. 620, 629). Although potential and logging (Duncan 2005a, p. 10). threat (CBD et al. 2008, p. 44), but we change in water availability and Reduced soil moisture can lead to do not have information in our files to temperatures could negatively impact desiccation, which is the primary cause indicate that development may pose a mollusks, the extent to which the of mortality (Frest and threat to the species. diminutive pebblesnail may be affected Johannes 1993, p. 3). The petition also We have determined the petition by this potential threat is unclear. claims that natural hydrological changes presents substantial information to The petition also indicates the and ingrowth of woody plants into indicate that listing the diminutive diminutive pebblesnail may be meadow habitats may threaten the pebblesnail may be warranted due to the threatened by limited gene flow species. Although Duncan (2005c, p. 10) present or threatened destruction, (inbreeding depression) and stochastic supports this claim, the author does not modification, or curtailment of its (chance) events (CBD et al. 2008, pp. 28, provide information to indicate how the habitat or range. 29). Although the petition and our files loss of habitat due to such natural Factors B and C: The petition did not do not have information regarding the processes may or may not be balanced present any information, nor do we have number of diminutive pebblesnail by creation of new wet-meadow habitat. any information in our files, to indicate individuals at each occupied site (which Based on our evaluation of the that these factors may pose a threat to would affect the threat of inbreeding information presented in the petition the species. depression), the clustering of all known and in our files, we have determined the Factor D: The petition asserts that the populations in only two spring petition presents substantial diminutive pebblesnail is threatened by complexes may leave them vulnerable information to indicate that listing the inadequate regulatory mechanisms to any catastrophic events that might evening fieldslug may be warranted due associated with the Survey and Manage affect one or both of those complexes, to the present or threatened destruction, program, the Special Status Species such as the 1991 herbicide spill at modification, or curtailment of its Program, and the Aquatic Conservation Cantara Bend resulting in the near habitat or range. Strategy. This mollusk currently complete removal of aquatic mollusk Factor B: The petition did not present considered a special status species populations throughout the upper any information, nor do we have any (USDA and USDI 2007, p. 93). As a Sacramento River (Frest and Johannes information in our files, to indicate that special status species, the diminutive 1995b, pp. 72, 73). this factor may pose a threat to the pebblesnail should receive special Diminutive pebblesnail Summary: species. management consideration on Federal Based on our evaluation of the Factor C: The petition presents lands; however, maintenance of special information presented in the petition information to indicate that predation species status is left to the discretion of and in our files, we have determined the may be a threat (CBD et al. 2008, p. 43). the Federal land managers. As discussed petition presents substantial While Duncan (2005a, p. 4) does state above under ‘‘The Survey and Manage information to indicate that listing the that natural threats may include Program and Special Status Species diminutive pebblesnail may be exposure to predators, the author did Programs,’’ the claims raised under the warranted due to the present or not characterize predation as a primary petition relative to the discontinuation threatened destruction, modification or threat, nor did the author provide of the Survey and Management Program curtailment of its habitat or range information to indicate the specific no longer apply, because that program is (Factor A) resulting from logging, water predators involved or the extent of their once again being implemented. diversions, grazing, water pollution impact to the species. The petition also states that this from agricultural runoff, and road Factor D: The petition asserts that mollusk is threatened by the WOPR, a building. We are initiating a status evening fieldslug is threatened by

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:18 Oct 04, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM 05OCP3 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 61838 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules

inadequate regulatory mechanisms depression) and stochastic (chance) use of springs (ORNHIC 2004e, p. 2). associated with the Survey and Manage events (CBD et al. 2008, pp. 28, 29). We Based on our evaluation of the program, the Special Status Species consider the threat from chance events information presented in the petition Program, and the Aquatic Conservation to be low because the occupied and in our files, we have determined the Strategy. The mollusk is currently locations are so widely scattered. petition presents substantial considered a special status species Population size would be a contributing information to indicate that listing the (USDA and USDI 2007, p. 93). As a factor to susceptibility of inbreeding Goose Valley pebblesnail may be special status species, the evening depression; however, we do not have warranted due to the present or fieldslug should receive special any information regarding the size of threatened destruction, modification, or management consideration on Federal most local populations. curtailment of its habitat or range. lands; however, maintenance of special Evening fieldslug Summary: Based on Factors B and C: The petition did not species status is left to the discretion of our evaluation of the information present any information, nor do we have the Federal land managers. As discussed presented in the petition and in our any information in our files, to indicate above under ‘‘The Survey and Manage files, we have determined the petition that these factors may pose a threat to Program and Special Status Species presents substantial information to the species. Programs,’’ the claims raised under the indicate that listing the evening Factor D: The petition asserts that petition relative to the discontinuation fieldslug may be warranted due to the Goose Valley pebblesnail is threatened of the Survey and Management Program present or threatened destruction, by inadequate regulatory mechanisms no longer apply, because that program is modification or curtailment of its associated with the Survey and Manage once again being implemented. habitat or range (Factor A) resulting program, the Special Status Species The Aquatic Conservation Strategy is from activities that lower the water table Program, and the Aquatic Conservation unlikely to provide significant or reduce soil moisture, including Strategy. The mollusk is currently protections, because the evening spring diversions, grazing, and logging. considered a special status species fieldslug is not an aquatic or riparian We are initiating a status review to (USDA and USDI 2007, p. 93). As a species (Duncan 2005a, p. 4). determine whether listing under the Act special status species, the Goose Valley The petition also states that this is warranted. pebblesnail should receive special mollusk is threatened by the WOPR, a management consideration on Federal set of revisions to the Northwest Forest Goose Valley Pebblesnail (Fluminicola lands; however, maintenance of special Plan proposed for BLM lands in western anserinus, Previously Fluminicola n. sp. species status is left to the discretion of Oregon (CBD et al. 2008, p. 34). 18) the Federal land managers. As discussed However, the BLM withdrew this The Goose Valley pebblesnail is a above under ‘‘The Survey and Manage proposal in 2009 (USDA 2009, p. 1). We small aquatic snail known from four Program and Special Status Species are unaware of any plans to reinstate the sites (three springs and a section of Programs,’’ the claims raised under the WOPR, therefore we do not have creek) in the lower Pit River drainage, petition relative to the discontinuation information to assess if or how the Shasta County, California (Hershler et of the Survey and Management Program WOPR may impact the species. al. 2007, pp. 376, 409, 410; USDA and no longer apply, because that program is Factor E: The petition asserts that USDI 2007, p. 92). Two of the four sites once again being implemented. climate change is a threat to the evening appear to be located on Federal land The Aquatic Conservation Strategy fieldslug (CBD et al. 2008, p. 26). (Shasta National Forest) (Hershler et al. (ACS) is a set of standards established Information cited by the petition and in 2007, pp. 376, 409), although the under the Northwest Forest Plan for our files indicates that climate change is environmental impact statement for the protecting aquatic and riparian habitat expected to cause significant reductions removal of the Survey and Manage on Federal land (USDA and USDI 1994, in both the volume and persistence of Program indicates that only one site is p. 9; CBD et al. 2008, p. 32). The ACS winter snowpack throughout the on Federal land (USDA and USDI 2007, includes four components: Riparian western United States (Knowles et al. p. 92). The Goose Valley pebblesnail is reserves, key watersheds, watershed 2006, p. 4545). Such reductions have believed to be limited to small perennial analysis, and watershed restoration. already been documented in the Oregon springs and spring headwaters, and Since the Goose Valley pebblesnail is an Cascades (Knowles et al. 2006, pp. 4545, require cold, unpolluted, highly aquatic mollusk occurring in part on 4546). If reduced snowpack resulted in oxygenated water (Furnish and Monthey Federal lands, the ACS may provide a reduction of soil moisture, the evening 1999, Sect. 2, pp. 2, 3, 5, 6). some protection from potential threats. fieldslug could be impacted. However, Factor A: The petition asserts that the Those protections would likely be neither the petition nor our files contain Goose Valley pebblesnail is threatened limited for populations of the Goose any information about the extent soil by water diversions, impoundments, Valley pebblesnail occupying private drying could occur within the evening spring developments, grazing, and water lands, however. fieldslug habitat or what impact that pollution (CBD et al. 2008, p. 50). Factor E: The petition asserts that drying would have to the species. Information cited by the petition and in climate change is a threat to the Goose The petition states that the evening our files indicates that water diversions Valley pebblesnail (CBD et al. 2008, p. fieldslug may be threatened by (conducted for irrigation, fish 26). Climate change is causing recreation such as off-road vehicle use hatcheries, and livestock) pose a significant reductions in both the (CBD et al. 2008, p. 43). Although potential threat by removing flowing volume and persistence of winter Duncan (2005a, p. 10) supports this water and thus habitat; whereas snowpack throughout the western claim, we do not have any information impoundments can slow current, United States, including northern in our files to indicate whether off-road thereby increasing water temperature California (Knowles et al. 2006, pp. vehicle use is occurring at or near and sedimentation (Hershler et al. 2003, 4545, 4546; Kapnick and Hall 2010, pp. enough to occupied sites to pose a p. 277; ORNHIC 2004e, p. 2). 3446, 3454). The reduction and earlier threat. Information in our files also indicates melting of the snowpack is likely to The petition indicates that the that grazing may pose a threat as a result continue, and this may result in a evening fieldslug may be threatened by of increased sedimentation, pollution reduction in the amount of water that is limited gene flow (inbreeding and temperatures caused by livestock available during summer months

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:18 Oct 04, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM 05OCP3 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 61839

(Kapnick and Hall 2010, pp. 3446, County, California (ORNHIC 2004f, p. 1; claims raised under the petition relative 3454). Such a reduction in available ORNHIC 2004g, p. 1; Hershler et al. to the discontinuation of the Survey and surface water may to result in increased 2007, p. 410). All three sites appear to Management Program no longer apply, water diversions from groundwater and be within the Lassen National Forest because that program is once again springs, but the extent to which the (ORNHIC 2004f, p. 1; ORNHIC 2004g, p. being implemented. Goose Valley pebblesnail may be 1; Hershler et al. 2007, p. 407), although The Aquatic Conservation Strategy affected by potential increased water a table in the environmental impact (ACS) is a set of standards established diversions is unclear. Reduced snow statement for the removal of the Survey under the Northwest Forest Plan for runoff and lower flow levels may also and Manage Program indicates that protecting aquatic and riparian habitat result in water temperature increases none of the locations are on Federal on Federal land (USDA and USDI 1994, (Field et al. 2007, pp. 620, 629). land (USDA and USDI 2007, p. 92). The p. 9; CBD et al. 2008, p. 32). The ACS Although potential water temperature Hat Creek pebblesnail is believed to includes four components: Riparian increases could negatively impact the occur in cold water springs and spring reserves, key watersheds, watershed Goose Valley pebblesnail, how the runs (Frest and Johannes 1995, pp. 56, analysis, and watershed restoration. status of the Goose Valley pebblesnail 60). Fluminicola species in general Since the Hat Creek pebblesnail is an may be affected by this potential threat require cold, unpolluted, well- aquatic mollusk occurring in part on is unknown. oxygenated water with little Federal lands, the ACS may provide Because the Goose Valley pebblesnail sedimentation, according to Furnish and some protection from potential threats. is known from only four locations, the Monthey (1999, Sect. 2, pp. 5, 7). Those protections would likely be species may also be threatened by Factor A: The petition asserts that the limited for any populations of the Hat deleterious stochastic (chance) events Hat Creek pebblesnail may be Creek pebblesnail occupying private such as the 1991 spill of the herbicide threatened by water pollution, water lands, however. metam sodium into the nearby upper diversions, impoundments, spring Factor E: The petition asserts that Sacramento River at Cantara Bend due developments, grazing, logging, mining, climate change is a threat to the Hat to a train derailment (Furnish and and road construction (CBD et al. 2008, Creek pebblesnail (CBD et al. 2008, p. Monthey 1999, Sect. 2, p. 8). An pp. 50, 51). Information cited by the 26). Climate Change is causing occupied location on the upper petition and in our files indicates that significant reductions in both the Sacramento River (Frest and Johannes water diversions (conducted for volume and persistence of winter 1995b, pp. 45, D19) was apparently irrigation, fish hatcheries, and livestock) snowpack throughout the western extirpated by the 1991 Cantara Spill may pose a potential threat to the United States, including northern (Frest and Johannes 1995b, pp. 72, 73; mollusk by removing flowing water, and California (Knowles et al. 2006, pp. ORNHIC 2004e, p. 2; Hershler et al. thus habitat; and that impoundments 4545, 4546; Kapnick and Hall 2010, pp. 2007, p. 410). may pose a threat by increasing water 3446, 3454). The reduction and earlier Goose Valley pebblesnail Summary: temperature and sedimentation melting of the snowpack is likely to Based on our evaluation of the (Hershler et al. 2003, p. 277; ORNHIC continue, and this may result in a information presented in the petition 2004f, p. 2; ORNHIC 2004g, p. 2). reduction in the amount of water that is and in our files, we have determined the Information in our files also indicates available during summer months petition presents substantial that grazing may pose a threat due to (Kapnick and Hall 2010, pp. 3446, information to indicate that listing the increased sedimentation, pollution, and 3454). Such a reduction in available Goose Valley pebblesnail may be temperatures caused by livestock use of surface water may result in increased warranted due to the present or springs (ORNHIC 2004f, p. 2; ORNHIC water diversions from groundwater and threatened destruction, modification or 2004g, p. 2). Based on our evaluation of springs, but the extent to which springs curtailment of its habitat or range the information presented in the supporting the Hat Creek pebblesnail (Factor A) resulting from water petition and in our files, we have may be affected by potential increased diversions, impoundments, and grazing determined the petition presents water diversions is unclear. Reduced activity that can increase water substantial information to indicate that snow runoff and lower flow levels may temperatures and sedimentation. We are listing the Hat Creek pebblesnail may be also result in water temperature initiating a status review to determine warranted due to the present or increases (Field et al. 2007, pp. 620, whether listing under the Act is threatened destruction, modification, or 629). Although potential water warranted. curtailment of its habitat or range. temperature increases could negatively Factors B and C: The petition did not impact the Hat Creek pebblesnail, the Hat Creek Pebblesnail (Fluminicola present any information, nor do we have extent to which the springs that support umbilicatus) any information in our files, to indicate the mollusk may be affected by this The Hat Creek pebblesnail is a small that these factors may pose a threat to potential threat is unclear. aquatic snail that was formally named the species. Because only three locations are and described in 2007 (Hershler et al. Factor D: The petition asserts that the known to be occupied by the Hat Creek 2007, p. 407). This species combines Hat Creek pebblesnail is threatened by pebblesnail, the species may also be two taxa (groups) of snails that had inadequate regulatory mechanisms susceptible to stochastic (chance) events often previously been treated as separate associated with the Survey and Manage such as the 1991 spill of the herbicide species, but had never been formally program, the Special Status Species metam sodium into the nearby upper described. Those taxa were the Program, and the Aquatic Conservation Sacramento River at Cantara Bend due umbilicate pebblesnail (Fluminicola n. Strategy. The Hat Creek pebblesnail is to a train derailment (Furnish and sp. 19) and the Lost Creek pebblesnail not currently considered a special status Monthey 1999, Sect. 2, p. 8). (Fluminicola n. sp. 20) (Frest and species (USDA and USDI 2007, p. 93) Hat Creek pebblesnail Summary: Johannes 1999, pp. 55, 59), both of and would not receive any special Based on our evaluation of the which were petitioned for listing (CBD management consideration on Federal information presented in the petition et al. 2008, pp. 50, 51). The Hat Creek lands. As discussed above under ‘‘The and in our files, we have determined the pebblesnail occurs at three sites near Survey and Manage Program and petition presents substantial Lost Creek and Hat Creek, in Shasta Special Status Species Programs,’’ the information to indicate that listing the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:18 Oct 04, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM 05OCP3 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 61840 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules

Hat Creek pebblesnail may be warranted Manage Program and Special Status discussed above. Burke et al. (1999, due to the present or threatened Species Programs,’’ the claims raised Sect. 15, p. 6) mention damaging floods destruction, modification or curtailment under the petition relative to the as a possible threat, but do not indicate of its habitat or range (Factor A) discontinuation of the Survey and the likelihood of such events. resulting from water diversions and Management Program no longer apply, The petition also states that the impoundments, and grazing. We are because that program is once again species may be threatened by recreation, initiating a status review to determine being implemented. However, the pesticides, invasive species, and the whether listing under the Act is Survey and Manage Program is unlikely harvesting of special forest products warranted. to provide significant protection to this such as mosses and lichens (CBD et al. species because the Hoko vertigo is not 2008, p. 68). Burke et al. (1999, Sect. 15, Hoko Vertigo (Vertigo n. sp. 1) known to occur on Federal lands. p. 6) mention all these as possible The Hoko vertigo is a small terrestrial The Aquatic Conservation Strategy threats, but provide no indication that snail known from two sites near the (ACS) is a set of standards established any of these potential threats are, or will Hoko River in Clallam County, under the Northwest Forest Plan for occur, in areas occupied by the species. Washington (Burke et al. 1999, p. 4; protecting aquatic and riparian habitat Information in our files indicates that USFWS 2009, pp. 3–5). One site is on on Federal land (USDA and USDI 1994, English ivy (Hedera helix), an invasive private commercial timber land, and the p. 9; CBD et al. 2008, p. 32). The ACS species present on the Olympic other site is on State park land (USFWS is unlikely to provide significant Peninsula (Hoh River Trust, 2008, p. 14 2009, pp. 3–5). The Hoko vertigo protections to this species, because the and Appendix D, pp. 19–20), can cover typically occurs on the bark of old Hoko vertigo is not known to occur on the bark of trees in infested areas (King riparian hardwood trees, particularly Federal lands. County 2002, p. 1), potentially alders, according to Burke et al. (1999, Factor E: The petition asserts that the depriving the Hoko vertigo of its Sect. 15, pp. 1, 5). A table in the Hoko vertigo is threatened by wildfire, preferred habitat. Invasive infestation by environmental impact statement for the and that wildfires will become more H. helix could therefore pose a threat to removal of the Survey and Manage frequent with climate change (CBD et al. the Hoko vertigo. program indicates that there is one 2008, pp. 27, 68). Information cited by Hoko vertigo Summary: Based on our occupied site for the snail on Federal the petition mentions wildfire as a evaluation of the information presented land (USDA and USDI 2007, p. 93), but presumed threat, but does not provide in the petition and in our files, we have this was apparently a mistake, as the information regarding the likelihood of determined the petition presents discussion of the snail elsewhere in the wildfires within the species’ range substantial information to indicate that document indicates that the single (Burke et al. 1999, Sect. 15, p. 6). As the listing the Hoko vertigo may be known location lies on non-Federal land petition notes, however, the extremely warranted due to the present or (USDA and USDI 2007, p. 266). limited distribution of the Hoko vertigo threatened destruction, modification or Factor A: The petition asserts that the makes it more vulnerable to damaging curtailment of its habitat or range Hoko vertigo may be threatened by events such as wildfires (Burke et al. (Factor A) resulting from logging. We logging (CBD et al. 2008, p. 68). 1999, Sect. 15, p. 6; CBD et al. 2008, p. are initiating a status review to Information cited by the petition and in 68). determine whether listing under the Act our files indicates that logging may pose The petition and our files contain is warranted. a threat to this species by destroying information indicating that global forest habitat and increasing the climate change is producing warmer Keeled Jumping-Slug (Hemphillia exposure of remaining habitat to drier summer temperatures, combined with burringtoni) air (Burke et al. 1999, Sect. 15, p. 6). longer periods of summer drought in the The keeled jumping-slug (also known Much of the area in the vicinity of the western U.S., which is increasing the commonly as the Burrington jumping- occupied sites has been recently logged vulnerability of western U.S. forests to slug) is a terrestrial slug known from 62 (Burke et al. 1999, Sect. 15, p. 6). wildfire (Westerling et al. 2006, p. 940). sites in Clallam, Jefferson, Grays Harbor, Consequently, based on our evaluation Wildfire frequency and total area Mason, Pacific and Skamania Counties, of the information presented in the burned increased after the mid-1980s to Washington, and Clatsop County, petition and in our files, we have levels several times those during the Oregon (Wainwright and Duncan 2005, determined the petition presents period 1970–1986 (Westerling et al. pp. 5, 6; USDA and USDI 2007, p. 92). substantial information to indicate that 2006, p. 941). These changes cannot be Twenty-four of the occupied sites are on listing the Hoko vertigo may be explained solely by land-use history Federal land (USDA and USDI 2007, p. warranted due to the present or considerations such as fire suppression 92). According to Wainwright and threatened destruction, modification, or (Westerling et al. 2006, p. 940). The Duncan (2005, p. 3), it has a small shell, curtailment of its habitat or range. Olympic Peninsula includes some of the visible through a slit in its mantle, and Factor B and C: The petition did not forests most likely to suffer increased may avoid predators by using its tail to present any information, nor do we have wildfires in response to climate change flip itself off of objects (hence the name any information in our files, to indicate (Westerling et al. 2006, p. 942, fig. 4). ‘‘jumping-slug’’). The species is believed that these factors may pose a threat to The petition indicates that the Hoko to occur in moist to wet forests with the species. vertigo may be threatened by limited dense canopy cover (heavy shading) Factor D: The petition asserts that the gene flow (inbreeding depression) and (Wainwright and Duncan 2005, p. 6). Hoko vertigo is threatened by stochastic (chance) events (CBD et al. Factor A: The petition asserts that the inadequate regulatory mechanisms 2008, pp. 28, 29). We do not have any keeled jumping-slug may be threatened associated with the Survey and Manage information in our files to indicate the by logging (CBD et al. 2008, p. 54). program, the Special Status Species size of local populations, which would Information cited by the petition and in Program, and the Aquatic Conservation affect their susceptibility to inbreeding our files indicates that logging may pose Strategy. The Hoko vertigo is currently depression. We also do not have any a threat to this species by destroying considered a special status species information in our files regarding the forest habitat (Burke et al. 1999, Sect. 6, (USDA and USDI 2007, p. 93). As likelihood of damaging stochastic p. 9; ORNHIC 2004h, p. 2; Wainwright discussed above under ‘‘The Survey and events, other than for wildfire, which is and Duncan 2005, p. 9). According to

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:18 Oct 04, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM 05OCP3 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 61841

the petition the keeled jumping-slug above under ‘‘The Survey and Manage Population size would affect was detected at four timber sales, as Program and Special Status Species susceptibility to inbreeding depression; well as three restoration projects and a Programs,’’ the claims raised under the however, we lack information regarding road maintenance project (CBD et al. petition relative to the discontinuation the size of most local populations. We 2008, p. 54). of the Survey and Management Program also lack information regarding the The petition also claims that no longer apply, because that program is likelihood of damaging stochastic agriculture, urbanization, and once again being implemented. events, other than for wildfire, which is recreational developments may threaten The ACS is a set of standards discussed above. The petition also states the species (CBD et al. 2008, p. 54). A established under the Northwest Forest that the keeled jumping-slug may be document cited by the petition did Plan for protecting aquatic and riparian threatened by invasive species (CBD et mention agricultural conversion among habitat on Federal land (USDA and al. 2008, p. 54). Wainwright and Duncan threats generally applicable to four USDI 1994, p. 9; CBD et al. 2008, p. 32). (2005, p. 9) mention this as a possibility, related species of jumping slugs, The ACS includes four components: but do not provide information to including the keeled jumping slug Riparian reserves, key watersheds, indicate which invasive species are (Burke et al. 1999, Sect. 6, p. 2) but did watershed analysis, and watershed involved, exactly how they may pose a not mention it among threats restoration. Since the keeled jumping threat, or the extent to which these specifically applicable to the keeled slug is a terrestrial mollusk occurring in species co-occur with the keeled jumping-slug alone (Burke et al. 1999, part on Federal riparian lands, the ACS jumping-slug. Sect. 6, pp. 9, 10). Documents cited by may provide some protection from Keeled Jumping Slug Summary: Based the petition do mention housing potential threats. Those protections on our evaluation of the information development and recreational would likely be limited for populations presented in the petition and in our development as a threat to the species of the keeled jumping slug occupying files, we have determined the petition (Burke et al. 1999, Sect. 6, p. 9; private lands, however. presents substantial information to Wainwright and Duncan 2005, p. 9), but Factor E: The petition asserts that the indicate that listing the keeled jumping- they do not explain the nature of the keeled jumping-slug is threatened by slug may be warranted due to the recreational developments or provide wildfires, and that these are likely to present or threatened destruction, information to indicate where become more frequent with climate modification or curtailment of its urbanization and recreational change (CBD et al. 2008, pp. 54, 27). habitat or range (Factor A) resulting development are occurring in relation to Information cited by the petition or in from logging. We are initiating a status occupied sites that are vulnerable to our files indicates that global climate review to determine whether listing these activities. change is producing warmer summer under the Act is warranted. Based on our evaluation of the temperatures, combined with longer information presented in the petition periods of summer drought in the Knobby Rams-Horn (Vorticifex n. sp. 1) and in our files, we have determined the western United States, which is The knobby rams-horn is an aquatic petition presents substantial increasing the vulnerability of the snail known from two sites located on information to indicate that listing the western U.S. forests to wildfire private land in Shasta County, keeled jumping-slug may be warranted (Westerling et al. 2006, California (USDA and USDI 2007, pp. due to the present or threatened p. 940). Wildfire frequency and total 94, 268). Those sites are part of a large, destruction, modification, or area burned increased after the mid- pristine spring complex in the Pit River curtailment of its habitat or range. 1980s to levels several times those drainage (Frest and Johannes 1995, pp. Factor B: The petition did not present during the period 1970–1986 58, D38). Knobby rams-horns are any information, nor do we have any (Westerling et al. 2006, p. 941). These believed to occur on rocky substrates in information in our files, to indicate that changes cannot be explained solely by cold, clear water with high dissolved this factor may pose a threat to the land-use history considerations, such as oxygen levels (Frest and Johannes 1999, species. fire suppression (Westerling et al. 2006, p. 99). Factor C: The petition states that the p. 940). However, sources cited by the Factor A: The petition asserts that the species may be threatened by predation petition and in our files only mention knobby rams-horn may be threatened by (CBD et al. 2008, p. 54), but the wildfire among threats generally road building, logging, grazing, mining, document cited in support of this claim applicable to four related species of and water diversions (CBD et al. 2008, only indicates that predation might jumping slugs, including the keeled p. 71). Information cited by the petition threaten a related species called the jumping-slug (Burke et al. 1999, Sect. 6, and in our files indicates that road warty jumping-slug (Hemphillia p. 2; Wainwright and Duncan 2005, p. building (which can cause glandulosa) (Wainwright and Duncan 2). They do not mention wildfire as a sedimentation that smothers eggs and 2005, p. 15). threat specifically applicable to the covers the rocky substrate on which the Factor D: The petition asserts that keeled jumping-slug alone (Burke et al. snails’ food grows) and water diversions keeled jumping-slug is threatened by 1999, Sect. 6, pp. 9, 10; ORNHIC 2005h, (which can remove habitat and reduce inadequate regulatory mechanisms p. 2; Wainwright and Duncan 2005, p. water flow) may pose threats to the associated with the Survey and Manage 9). While the petition provided general knobby rams-horn (Furnish and program, the Special Status Species information about fire frequencies and Monthey 1999, Sect. 4, pp. 3, 4, 14). The Program, and the Aquatic Conservation climate change in the Pacific Northwest, petition (CBD et al. 2008, p. 71) also Strategy. The keeled jumping-slug is it did not include any information about presents information indicating that currently considered a special status the effects of fire on the keeled jumping- logging, grazing, mining, and dam species (USDA and USDI 2007, p. 93). slug or about predicted changes in fire construction activities may also pose As a special status species, this mollusk frequency within the species range. threats to the species, but the cited should receive special management The petition indicates that the keeled source only refers to these threats consideration on Federal lands; jumping-slug may be threatened by generally when discussing several however, maintenance of special species limited gene flow (inbreeding species at once (Furnish and Monthey status is left to the discretion of the depression) and stochastic (chance) 1999, Sect. 4, p. 13). When discussing Federal land managers. As discussed events (CBD et al. 2008, pp. 28, 29). direct actions that specifically threaten

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:18 Oct 04, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM 05OCP3 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 61842 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules

the knobby rams-horn, the only habitat- rams-horn may be affected by potential and water plants (Furnish and Monthey based threats mentioned by the source increased water diversions is unclear. 1999, Sect. 5, p. 2). are road building and water diversions Reduced snow runoff and lower flow Factor A: The petition asserts that (Furnish and Monthey 1999, Sect. 4, levels may also result in water threats to the masked duskysnail p. 14). temperature increases (Field et al. 2007, include urbanization, water pollution Based on our evaluation of the pp. 620, 629). Although potential water and eutrophication from various information presented in the petition temperature increases could negatively sources, and (possibly) water diversions and in our files, we have determined the impact the knobby rams-horn, this (CBD et al. 2008, p. 58). Information petition presents substantial species occurs in large, cold perennial cited by the petitioner or that is in our information to indicate that listing the springs, and the extent to which the files indicates that water pollution and knobby rams-horn may be warranted springs that support this mollusk may eutrophication from pesticides, due to the present or threatened be affected by this potential threat is petroleum products, and nitrogenous destruction, modification, or unclear. compounds may threaten the species, curtailment of its habitat or range. The petition also indicated that the but characterizes urbanization as a Factors B and C: The petition did not knobby rams-horn is threatened by the threat only because it increases the present any information, nor do we have vulnerability of small, isolated likelihood of impacts from pollution any information in our files, to indicate populations to inbreeding depression (Frest and Johannes 1995a, p. 186; that these factors may pose a threat to and deleterious stochastic events (CBD Furnish and Monthey 1999, Sect. 5, p. the species. et al. 2008, pp. 28, 29). We lack 2; Duncan 2005e, p. 3). Eutrophication Factor D: The petition asserts that the information regarding local population problems have resulted in citizen knobby rams-horn is threatened by sizes, and therefore cannot determine complaints and the initiation of cleanup inadequate regulatory mechanisms the likelihood of inbreeding depression. programs in both lakes where this associated with the Survey and Manage However, because the knobby rams-horn species occurs (Duncan 2005e, p. 8). program, the Special Status Species occupies only two known sites on Water diversions constitute a less Program, and the Aquatic Conservation private land the species may be serious threat due to the large size of the Strategy. The knobby rams-horn is not threatened by deleterious stochastic lakes in which the masked duskysnail currently considered a special status events such as the 1991 spill of the resides (Furnish and Monthey 1999, species (USDA and USDI 2007, p. 93) herbicide metam sodium into the nearby Sect. 5, p. 2; Duncan 2005e, p. 3). and, unless subsequently assigned such upper Sacramento River at Cantara Bend Based on our evaluation of the status, would therefore not receive due to a train derailment (Furnish and information presented in the petition special management consideration on Monthey 1999, Sect. 4, pp. 13, 14). and in our files, we have determined the Federal lands (were it to be found on The petition states that the species petition presents substantial such lands). As discussed above under may be threatened by chemical information to indicate that listing the ‘‘The Survey and Manage Program and pollution (CBD et al. 2008, p. 71), but masked duskysnail may be warranted Special Status Species Programs,’’ the the petition did not provide information due to the present or threatened claims raised under the petition relative directly indicating that pollution may be destruction, modification, or to the discontinuation of the Survey and a threat, nor did we find such curtailment of its habitat or range. Management Program no longer apply, information in our files (except as Factors B and C: The petition did not because that program is once again discussed above with regard to present any information, nor do we have being implemented. accidental spills). any information in our files, to indicate The ACS is a set of standards Knobby ram’s-horn Summary: Based that these factors may pose a threat to established under the Northwest Forest on our evaluation of the information the species. Plan for protecting aquatic and riparian presented in the petition and in our Factor D: The petition asserts that the habitat on Federal land (USDA and files, we have determined the petition masked duskysnail is threatened by USDI 1994, p. 9; CBD et al. 2008, p. 32). presents substantial information to inadequate regulatory mechanisms The ACS is unlikely to provide indicate that listing the knobby ram’s- associated with the Survey and Manage significant protection for this species, horn may be warranted due to the program, the Special Status Species because the knobby rams-horn is not present or threatened destruction, Program, and the Aquatic Conservation known to occur on Federal land. modification or curtailment of its Strategy. The masked duskysnail is Factor E: The petition asserts that habitat or range (Factor A) resulting currently considered a special status climate change is a threat to the knobby from road building and water species (USDA and USDI 2007, p. 93). rams-horn (CBD et al. 2008, p. 26). diversions. We are initiating a status As a special status species, this mollusk Climate change is causing significant review to determine whether listing should receive special management reductions in both the volume and under the Act is warranted. consideration on Federal lands; persistence of winter snowpack however, maintenance of special species throughout the western United States, Masked Duskysnail (Lyogyrus n. sp. 2) status is left to the discretion of the including northern California (Knowles The masked duskysnail is an aquatic Federal land managers. As discussed et al. 2006, pp. 4545, 4546; Kapnick and snail known from three or four sites at above under ‘‘The Survey and Manage Hall 2010, pp. 3446, 3454). The two large lakes in Washington State Program and Special Status Species reduction and earlier melting of the (Duncan 2005e, p. 3; USDA and USDI Programs,’’ the claims raised under the snowpack is likely to continue, and this 2007, p 93). One lake (Curlew Lake) is petition relative to the discontinuation may result in a reduction in the amount in Ferry County, while the other (Fish of the Survey and Management Program of water that is available during summer Lake) is in Chelan County, and is no longer apply, because that program is months (Kapnick and Hall 2010, pp. partially within the Wenatchee National once again being implemented. 3446, 3454). Such a reduction in Forest (Duncan 2005e, p. 3). Three of The ACS is a set of standards available surface water may result in the occupied sites are on Federal land established under the Northwest Forest increased water diversions from (USDA and USDI 2007, p. 93). The Plan for protecting aquatic and riparian groundwater and springs, but the extent masked duskysnail appears to require habitat on Federal land (USDA and to which springs supporting the knobby cool water, oxygenated mud substrates, USDI 1994, p. 9; CBD et al. 2008, p. 32).

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:18 Oct 04, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM 05OCP3 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 61843

The ACS includes four components: review to determine whether listing should receive special management Riparian reserves, key watersheds, under the Act is warranted. consideration on Federal lands; watershed analysis, and watershed however, maintenance of special species Nerite Pebblesnail (Fluminicola n. sp. restoration. Since the masked status is left to the discretion of the 11) duskysnail is an aquatic mollusk Federal land managers. As discussed occurring in part on Federal lands, the The nerite pebblesnail (sometimes above under ‘‘The Survey and Manage ACS may provide some protection from referred to as the Fredenburg Program and Special Status Species potential threats. Those protections pebblesnail (Frest and Johannes 1999, p. Programs,’’ the claims raised under the would likely be limited for populations 29)) is a small aquatic snail known from petition relative to the discontinuation of the masked duskysnail occupying approximately 19 sites in the Fall and of the Survey and Management Program private lands, however. Jenny Creek watersheds, located in the no longer apply, because that program is Factor E: The petition asserts that middle Klamath River Drainage, Jackson once again being implemented. climate change is a threat to the masked County, Oregon (Frest and Johannes The ACS is a set of standards duskysnail (CBD et al. 2008, p. 26). 2000, p. 181; USDA and USDI 2007, p. established under the Northwest Forest Information cited by the petition (CBD 92). Fifteen of the 19 known sites occur Plan for protecting aquatic and riparian et al. 2008, p. 81) indicates that global on Federal land (USDA and USDI 2007, habitat on Federal land (USDA and climate change may result in increased p. 93). The species has been found in USDI 1994, p. 9; CBD et al. 2008, p. 32). air and surface water temperatures in large, cold springs with gravel-boulder The ACS includes four components: central and northern Washington (ISAB substrate and ‘‘exceptional water Riparian reserves, key watersheds, 2007, p. 32). The maximum water quality’’ (Frest and Johannes 2000, p. watershed analysis and watershed temperature preferred by the masked 265). restoration. Since the nerite pebblesnail duskysnail is 18 degrees Celsius (°C) (65 Factor A: The petition asserts that this is an aquatic mollusk occurring in part degrees Fahrenheit (°F)) (Duncan 2005e, species may be threatened by logging, on Federal lands, the ACS may provide p. 6). It is unclear from information water diversions, and grazing (CBD et al. some protection from potential threats. presented by the petition and in our 2008, p. 46). Information cited by the Those protections would likely be files whether the water temperatures in petition and in our files indicates that limited for populations of the nerite Curlew or Fish Lakes are likely to these activities may constitute threats, pebblesnail occupying private lands, exceed that limit within the foreseeable because logging can produce water however. future. siltation and increased water The petition also states that this The petition indicates that the masked temperatures; diversions can reduce mollusk is threatened by the WOPR, a duskysnail may be threatened by available water and habitat; and grazing set of revisions to the Northwest Forest limited gene flow (inbreeding can increase water temperatures, pollute Plan proposed for BLM lands in western depression) and stochastic (chance) water, and increase siltation (Frest and Oregon (CBD et al. 2008, p. 34). events (CBD et al. 2008, pp. 28, 29). We Johannes 2000, p. 265; ORNHIC 2004j, However, the BLM withdrew this have little information regarding the p. 2). Part of the flow from the spring proposal in 2009 (USDA 2009, p. 1). We size of local populations, but the complexes supporting the nerite are unaware of BLM’s plans to reinstate population at Fish Lake was apparently pebblesnail is diverted for the City of the WOPR; therefore, we do not have described as ‘‘dense’’ in the 1970s. Large Yreka, California, municipal water the information to assess if, or how, or ‘‘dense’’ populations tend to be less supply (Frest and Johannes 2000, p. WOPR may impact the species. susceptible to inbreeding depression 265). Irrigation diversions are also Factor E: The petition asserts that (Lande 1999, p. 11). The limitation of common, as is grazing on much of the climate change is a threat to the nerite the species to only two populations larger Fall Creek and Jenny Creek pebblesnail (CBD et al. 2008, p. 26). leaves each population potentially system. Logging has been extensive in Climate change is causing significant vulnerable to deleterious stochastic the surrounding watershed (Frest and reductions in both the volume and events, such as chemical spills, but we Johannes 2000, p. 265). persistence of winter snowpack lack information to indicate that any Based on our evaluation of the throughout the western United States, such events may occur within the information presented in the petition including northern California (Knowles foreseeable future. and in our files, we determined the et al. 2006, pp. 4545, 4546; Kapnick and The petition states that the masked petition presents substantial Hall 2010, pp. 3446, 3454). The duskysnail is potentially threatened by information to indicate that listing the reduction and earlier melting of the invasive nonnative fish, or by chemical nerite pebblesnail may be warranted snowpack is likely to continue, and this treatments to remove such fish (CBD et due to the present or threatened may result in a reduction in the amount al. 2008, p. 58). Although Duncan destruction, modification, or of water that is available during summer (2005e, p. 7) supports this claim, we curtailment of its habitat or range. months (Kapnick and Hall 2010, pp. have no information as to the likelihood Factors B and C: The petition did not 3446, 3454). Such a reduction in of either occurrence. present any information, nor do we have available surface water may result in Masked duskysnail Summary: Based any information in our files, to indicate increased water diversions from on our evaluation of the information that these factors may pose a threat to groundwater and springs, but the extent presented in the petition and in our the species. to which springs supporting the nerite files, we have determined the petition Factor D: The petition asserts that the pebblesnail may be affected by potential presents substantial information to nerite pebblesnail is threatened by increased water diversions is unclear. indicate that listing the masked inadequate regulatory mechanisms Reduced snow runoff and lower flow duskysnail may be warranted due to the associated with the Survey and Manage levels may also result in water present or threatened destruction, program, the Special Status Species temperature increases (Field et al. 2007, modification or curtailment of its Program, and the Aquatic Conservation pp. 620, 629). Although potential water habitat or range (Factor A) resulting Strategy. The nerite pebblesnail is temperature increases could negatively from water pollution from pesticides, currently considered a special status impact the mollusk, this species occurs petroleum products, and nitrogenous species (USDA and USDI 2007, p. 93). in large, cold, perennial springs, and the compounds. We are initiating a status As a special status species, this mollusk extent to which the springs that support

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:18 Oct 04, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM 05OCP3 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 61844 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules

the nerite pebblesnail may be affected and railroad construction, urbanization, USDI 1994, p. 9; CBD et al. 2008, p. 32). by this potential threat is unclear. mining, and grazing (CBD et al. 2008, p. The ACS includes four components: The petition also presents information 52). Information cited by the petition Riparian reserves, key watersheds, to indicate that the nerite pebblesnail and in our files indicates that water watershed analysis, and watershed may be threatened by limited gene flow diversions, spring developments, and restoration. Since the nugget pebblesnail (inbreeding depression) and stochastic impoundments may threaten the species is an aquatic mollusk occurring in part (chance) events (CBD et al. 2008, pp. 28, by removing flowing water and thus on Federal lands, the ACS may provide 29). Although we do not have habitat (Furnish and Monthey 1999, some protection from potential threats. information in our files regarding the Sect. 3, pp. 2, 3; Hershler et al. 2003, p. Those protections would likely be number of nerite pebblesnails at each 277). Grazing, logging, and other sources limited for populations of the nugget occupied site (which would affect the of water pollution and sedimentation pebblesnail occupying private lands, threat of inbreeding depression), the also pose potential threats (Furnish and however. clustering of all known populations in Monthey 1999, Sect. 3, pp. 2, 3). The Pit Factor E: The petition asserts that only two spring complexes does leave River is listed on the State of climate change is a threat to the nugget them vulnerable to any catastrophic California’s list of water quality limited pebblesnail (CBD et al. 2008, p. 26). events that might affect one or both of segments because of organic enrichment Climate change is causing significant those complexes, such as the 1991 and high nutrient levels from grazing reductions in both the volume and herbicide spill at Cantara Bend resulting and agriculture (CEPA 2002, p. 143). persistence of winter snowpack in the near complete removal of aquatic Mining and road and railroad throughout the western United States, mollusk populations throughout the construction are also potential sources including northern California (Knowles upper Sacramento River (Frest and of excessive sedimentation, but we were et al. 2006, pp. 4545, 4546; Kapnick and Johannes 1995b, pp. 72, 73; ORNHIC unable to find information regarding the Hall 2010, pp. 3446, 3454). The 2004j, p. 2). extent to which such activities occur in reduction and earlier melting of the Nerite pebblesnail Summary: Based the vicinity of the nugget pebblesnail snowpack is likely to continue, and this on our evaluation of the information (Furnish and Monthey 1999, Sect. 3, p. may result in a reduction in the amount presented in the petition and in our 6). We did not find information to of water that is available during summer files, we have determined the petition support the petition’s claim that months (Kapnick and Hall 2010, p. presents substantial information to urbanization constitutes a threat to this 3446, 3454). Such a reduction in indicate that listing the nerite species. available surface water may result in pebblesnail may be warranted due to the Based on our evaluation of the increased water diversions from present or threatened destruction, information presented in the petition groundwater and springs, but the extent modification or curtailment of its and in our files, we have determined the to which springs supporting the nugget habitat or range (Factor A) resulting petition presents substantial pebblesnail may be affected by potential from logging, water diversions, and information to indicate that listing the increased water diversions is unclear. grazing. We are initiating a status review nugget pebblesnail may be warranted Reduced snow runoff and lower flow to determine whether listing under the due to the present or threatened levels may also result in water Act is warranted. destruction, modification, or temperature increases (Field et al. 2007, Nugget Pebblesnail (Fluminicola curtailment of its habitat or range. Factors B and C: The petition did not pp. 620, 629). Although potential water seminalis) present any information, nor do we have temperature increases could negatively The nugget pebblesnail is an aquatic any information in our files, to indicate impact the nugget pebblesnail, the snail known from 15 to 22 sites, 5 of that these factors may pose a threat to extent this mollusk may be affected by which are on Federal land, in the Pit the species. this potential threat is unclear. and McCloud River drainages in Shasta Factor D: The petition asserts that the The petition indicates that the nugget County, California (Furnish and nugget pebblesnail is threatened by pebblesnail may be threatened by Monthey 1999, Sect. 3, p. 5; USDA and inadequate regulatory mechanisms limited gene flow (inbreeding USDI 2007, p. 92). The species is associated with the Survey and Manage depression) and stochastic (chance) believed to have been extirpated over program, the Special Status Species events (CBD et al. 2008, pp. 28, 29). most of its former range in the Program, and the Aquatic Conservation Frest and Johannes (1995b, p. 50) Sacramento River by the 1991 Cantara Strategy. The nugget pebblesnail is indicate that local populations ‘‘can be herbicide spill (Frest and Johannes currently considered a special status very abundant locally,’’ which would 1995b, p. 50; Furnish and Monthey species (USDA and USDI 2007, p. 93). make inbreeding depression less likely 1999, Sect. 3, p. 5). According to As a special status species, this mollusk (Lande 1999, p. 11). However, since the Furnish and Monthey (1999, Sect. 3, p. should receive special management species has been extirpated over much 5), the nugget pebblesnail is typically consideration on Federal lands; of its former range by the Cantara found on gravel-cobble substrate in large however, maintenance of special species herbicide spill (Furnish and Monthey creeks and rivers, but also occurs on status is left to the discretion of the 1999, Sect. 3, p. 5; ORNHIC 2004k, p. mud substrates in large spring pools. It Federal land managers. As discussed 2), it has demonstrated itself to be is believed to prefer cool, clear, flowing above under ‘‘The Survey and Manage susceptible to stochastic events. water (Frest and Johannes 1995b, p. 50). Program and Special Status Species The petition also states that fire may Fluminicola species in general require Programs,’’ the claims raised under the threaten the species. The Burney Fire of cold, unpolluted, well-oxygenated water petition relative to the discontinuation 1992 is described by several sources as with little sedimentation, according to of the Survey and Management Program having (in conjunction with subsequent Furnish and Monthey (1999, Sect. 2, pp. no longer apply, because that program is salvage logging) caused significant 5, 7). once again being implemented. impacts to populations of nugget Factor A: The petition asserts that the The ACS is a set of standards pebblesnails (Furnish and Monthey nugget pebblesnail is threatened by established under the Northwest Forest 1999, Sect. 3, pp. 6, 8; ORNHIC 2004k, water pollution, logging, dams, Plan for protecting aquatic and riparian p. 2). We therefore consider large fires diversions, spring developments, road habitat on Federal land (USDA and to constitute a possible threat.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:18 Oct 04, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM 05OCP3 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 61845

Although the petition indicates that eggs (Furnish and Monthey 1999, Sect. diversions from groundwater and the nugget pebblesnail may be 2, p. 7; ORNHIC 2004l, p. 2). springs, but the extent to which springs threatened by recreation, we were not Based on our evaluation of the supporting the Potem Creek pebblesnail able to find information supporting that information presented in the petition may be affected by potential increased claim. and in our files, we have determined the water diversions is unclear. Reduced Nugget pebblesnail Summary: Based petition presents substantial snow runoff and lower flow levels may on our evaluation of the information information to indicate that listing the also result in water temperature presented in the petition and in our Potem Creek pebblesnail may be increases (Field et al. 2007, pp. 620, files, we have determined the petition warranted due to the present or 629). Although potential water presents substantial information to threatened destruction, modification, or temperature increases could negatively indicate that listing the nugget curtailment of its habitat or range. impact the Potem Creek pebblesnail, pebblesnail may be warranted due to the Factors B and C: The petition did not this species occurs in large, cold, present or threatened destruction, present any information, nor do we have perennial springs, and the extent to modification or curtailment of its any information in our files, to indicate which the springs that support the habitat or range (Factor A) resulting that these factors may pose a threat to mollusk may be affected by this from water diversions, impoundments, the species. potential threat is unclear. pollution and sedimentation. We are Factor D: The petition asserts that the The petition also indicates that the initiating a status review to determine Potem Creek pebblesnail is threatened Potem Creek pebblesnail may be whether listing under the Act is by inadequate regulatory mechanisms threatened by limited gene flow warranted. associated with the Survey and Manage (inbreeding depression) and stochastic program, the Special Status Species events (CBD et al. 2008, pp. 28, 29). We Potem Creek Pebblesnail (Fluminicola Program, and the Aquatic Conservation do not have any information regarding potemicus) Strategy. The Potem Creek pebblesnail the number of Potem Creek pebblesnails The Potem Creek pebblesnail is an is not currently considered a special at each occupied site (which would aquatic snail known from 12 sites in the status species (USDA and USDI 2007, p. affect the threat of inbreeding upper Sacramento River system and Pit 93), and therefore would not receive depression). However, the fact that the River tributaries in Shasta County, special management consideration on species occupies only 12 known sites, California (ORNHIC 2004l, pp. 1, 6; Federal lands. As discussed above all of which are in the same general area USDA and USDI 2007, p. 92). Three of under ‘‘The Survey and Manage in which a major deleterious event the sites are on Federal land. The Potem Program and Special Status Species occurred historically (the 1991 metam Creek pebblesnail is known to occur on Programs,’’ the claims raised under the sodium spill into the upper Sacramento muddy substrates in spring runs that are petition relative to the discontinuation River). This indicates that the species small, perennial, cold, and shallow of the Survey and Management Program may be susceptible to stochastic events (ORNHIC 2004l, pp. 1, 3). According to no longer apply, because that program is (Furnish and Monthey 1999, Sect. 2, Furnish and Monthey (1999, Sect. 2, p. once again being implemented. p. 7). 5), Fluminicola species in general The ACS is a set of standards Potem Creek pebblesnail Summary: require cold, unpolluted, and well established under the Northwest Forest Based on our evaluation of the oxygenated water with little Plan for protecting aquatic and riparian information presented in the petition sedimentation. habitat on Federal land (USDA and and in our files, we have determined the Factor A: The petition asserts that the USDI 1994, p. 9; CBD et al. 2008, p. 32). petition presents substantial Potem Creek pebblesnail is threatened The ACS includes four components: information to indicate that listing the by water diversions, impoundments, Riparian reserves, key watersheds, Potem Creek pebblesnail may be spring developments, grazing, logging, watershed analysis, and watershed warranted due to the present or mining, road construction, and restoration. Since the Potem Creek threatened destruction, modification or pollution. Information cited by the pebblesnail is an aquatic mollusk curtailment of its habitat or range petition and in our files indicates that occurring in part on Federal lands, the (Factor A) resulting from water water diversions and impoundments ACS may provide some protection from diversions, impoundments, grazing, may threaten the Potem Creek potential threats. Those protections road construction, logging and mining. pebblesnail by removing flowing water would likely be limited for populations We are initiating a status review to and thus habitat (Frest and Johannes of the Potem Creek pebblesnail determine whether listing under the Act 1995b, p. 43; Hershler et al. 2003, p. occupying private lands, however. is warranted. 277; ORNHIC 2004l, p. 2). Use of Factor E: The petition asserts that springs and channel bottoms by climate change is a threat to the Potem Puget Oregonian (Cryptomastix devia) livestock may also threaten the species Creek pebblesnail (CBD et al. 2008, p. The Puget Oregonian (Cryptomastix by polluting the water (ORNHIC 2004l, 26). Climate change is causing devia) is a terrestrial snail known from p. 2). Road construction may impede significant reductions in both the approximately 177 sites in Washington flows (resulting in less snail habitat), volume and persistence of winter and Oregon, 148 of which are on and cause sedimentation resulting in snowpack throughout the western Federal land (Kogut and Duncan 2005, smothered substrates and impaired egg United States, including northern pp. 4–5; USDA and USDI 2007, p. 92). survivorship (Furnish and Monthey California (Knowles et al. 2006, pp. Most occupied sites are located in the 1999, Sect. 2, pp. 3, 7; ORNHIC 2004l, 4545, 4546; Kapnick and Hall 2010, pp. Cowlitz and Cispus River drainages of p. 2). Because the Potem Creek 3446, 3454). The reduction and earlier the Gifford Pinchot National Forest, in pebblesnail is only known to occur at 12 melting of the snowpack is likely to southwestern Washington State. The sites, any such impacts to even a few continue, and this may result in a Puget Oregonian is characterized by the such sites could pose a threat to the reduction in the amount of water that is Oregon Natural Heritage Program as ‘‘in species as a whole. Logging and mining available during summer months strong decline throughout its range,’’ activities may cause excessive (Kapnick and Hall 2010, p. 3446, 3454). with only 13 to 40 occupied sites sedimentation and thereby impair Such a reduction in available surface considered to have good viability survivorship of Potem Creek pebblesnail water may result in increased water (ORNHIC 2004q, pp. 1, 2). The Puget

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:18 Oct 04, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM 05OCP3 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 61846 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules

Oregonian is believed to be associated inadequate regulatory mechanisms causing increased tree mortality (Van with big-leaf maple (Acer associated with the Survey and Manage Mantgem et al. 2009, pp. 521–522) macrophyllum) in mature to old-growth program, the Special Status Species which may lead to changes in forest moist conifer forests that have over 70 Program, and the Aquatic Conservation structure and composition and percent canopy cover (Kogut and Strategy. The Puget Oregonian is decreased canopy cover that may pose Duncan 2005, pp. 5, 6). currently considered a special status a threat to the Puget Oregonian (Kogut Factor A: The petition asserts that the species (USDA and USDI 2007, p. 93). and Duncan 2005, pp. 5, 6; Van Puget Oregonian is threatened by As a special status species, this mollusk Mantgem et al. 2009, p. 523). Finally, logging, urbanization, and agricultural should receive special management climate change is increasing the conversion (CBD et al. 2008, pp. 39, 40). consideration on Federal lands; susceptibility of western forests to Information presented by the petition however, maintenance of special species various species of forest pests with the indicates that the Puget Oregonian may status is left to the discretion of the capacity to kill large stands of mature be threatened by loss of habitat due to Federal land managers. As discussed trees (Logan et al. 2003, p. 130). logging and conversion for agriculture above under ‘‘The Survey and Manage Specifically, the Douglas-fir beetle or development (Kogut and Duncan Program and Special Status Species (Dendroctonus pseudotsugae), which 2005, p. 1). Forest Service documents Programs,’’ the claims raised under the infests and kills Douglas-fir throughout obtained by the petitioners indicate the petition relative to the discontinuation the range of the Puget Oregonian, tends snail was detected in nine timber sales of the Survey and Management Program to undergo large outbreaks following and a commercial thinning project, no longer apply, because that program is droughts (Schmitz and Gibson 1996, p. thereby demonstrating that logging once again being implemented. 1). occurs within the species range (CBD et The ACS is a set of standards The petition indicates that the Puget al. 2008, p. 39). The petition states that established under the Northwest Forest Oregonian may be threatened by limited mitigation measures were likely taken Plan for protecting aquatic and riparian gene flow (inbreeding depression) and under the Survey and Manage Program habitat on Federal land (USDA and stochastic events (CBD et al. 2008, pp. for all of the sales, but their information USDI 1994, p. 9; CBD et al. 2008, p. 32). 28, 29). Although only one to three only specifically mentions mitigation The ACS includes four components: individual snails have typically been for a single project. Riparian reserves, key watersheds, found at occupied sites (Kogut and The petition also states that grazing watershed analysis, and watershed Duncan 2005, p. 6), we consider actual threatens the species (CBD et al. 2008, restoration. Since the Puget Oregonian population numbers likely to be higher, p. 39). Presumably, the petition refers to is a terrestrial mollusk occurring in part since ‘‘populations’’ of one to three the threat posed to the species by the on Federal riparian lands, the ACS may individuals would be unlikely to grazing of areas that have already been provide some protection from potential persist. Moreover, Kogut and Duncan logged (Frest and Johannes 1995a, p. threats. Those protections would likely (2005, p. 6) note that individuals of this 229; ORNHIC 2004q, p. 2). Since we be limited for populations of the Puget species may easily be overlooked. We lack evidence that grazing is threatening Oregonian occupying private lands, do not have any information in our files the species in areas that haven’t first however. regarding the size of most local been logged, and since the Puget The petition also states this mollusk populations, which would affect their Oregonian is dependent on mature is threatened by the WOPR, a set of susceptibility to inbreeding depression. forests with extensive canopy cover, we revisions to the Northwest Forest Plan We also do not have any information in consider grazing to be covered by the proposed for BLM lands in western our files regarding the likelihood of term ‘‘conversion for agriculture,’’ rather Oregon (CBD et al. 2008, p. 34). damaging stochastic events, other than than an independent threat. However, the BLM withdrew this for wildfire, which is covered above. Factor B: The petition did not present proposal in 2009 (USDA 2009, p. 1). We The petition also states that the Puget any information, nor do we have any are unaware of any BLM plans to Oregonian may be threatened by information in our files, to indicate that reinstate the WOPR; therefore, we do competition with invasive slugs, harvest this factor may pose a threat to the not have the information to assess if, or of special forest products such as species. how, WOPR may impact the species. mushrooms and moss, and recreation Factor C: The petition indicates that Factor E: The petition (CBD et al. (camping) (CBD et al. 2008, pp. 39, 40). predation may constitute a threat (CBD 2008, p. 40) presents information to Although invasive slugs and harvest of et al. 2008, p. 40). While Kogut and indicate that high-intensity fire may special forest products are mentioned by Duncan (2005, pp. 1, 8) do state that pose a threat to the species by removing Kogut and Duncan (2005, p. 1) as vertebrate and invertebrate predators habitat, directly killing individual possible concerns, we lack information (including predatory snails and ground snails, and isolating remaining to indicate that their influence on Puget beetles specifically adapted for feeding populations (Kogut and Duncan 2005, Oregonian populations is significant on snails) may concentrate in isolated p. 1). enough to constitute a threat. Similarly, small habitat patches where Puget The petition also claims that Puget while the petitioner’s claims that a Oregonian snails would be most Oregonian is threatened by climate Puget Oregonian population was vulnerable, they do not characterize change (CBD et al. 2008, pp. 26, 27), and detected at a campground (CBD et al. predation as a primary threat, and do notes that the likelihood of high- 2008, p. 39), neither the petition nor our not offer substantial information to intensity fire in forests occupied by the files contain any information that indicate that it is impacting the species. Puget Oregonian may be heightened by demonstrates how the species may be We have no information in our files to climate change, due to increased threatened by camping or other indicate that predation is a potential summer temperatures and lengthened recreational activities. threat to this species. Neither the summer drought (Westerling et al. 2006, Puget Oregonian Summary: Based on petition nor the information in our files pp. 940–942). Additionally, summer our evaluation of the information identifies disease as a potential threat to water stress due to climate change in presented in the petition and in our the species. western forests, including the heart of files, we have determined the petition Factor D: The petition asserts that the the species’ distribution in the Cowlitz presents substantial information to Puget Oregonian is threatened by and Cispus River drainages, is currently indicate that listing the Puget Oregonian

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:18 Oct 04, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM 05OCP3 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 61847

may be warranted due to the present or habitat, we do not consider the longer periods of summer drought in the threatened destruction, modification or information supporting these claims to western U.S., which is increasing the curtailment of its habitat or range be substantial. vulnerability of western U.S. forests to (Factor A) resulting from logging and Based on our evaluation of the wildfire (Westerling, et al. 2006, p. 940). conversion for agriculture; and other information presented in the petition Wildfire frequency and total area natural or manmade factors affecting its and in our files, we determined the burned increased after the mid-1980s to current existence (Factor E) resulting petition presents substantial levels several times those during the from high intensity fire, and from information to indicate that listing the period 1970–1986 (Westerling, et al. increased tree mortality due to various Shasta chaparral may be warranted due 2006, p. 941). These changes cannot be causes associated with climate change. to the present or threatened destruction, explained solely by land-use history While we expect the reinstatement of modification, or curtailment of its considerations such as fire suppression the Survey and Manage Program to help habitat or range. (Westerling et al. 2006, p. 940). address threats to the species resulting Factor B: The petition states that the The petition states that the Shasta from logging and agricultural Shasta chaparral is threatened by chaparral is threatened by pesticide conversion on Federal land, information overcollecting (CBD et al. 2008, p. 66). application (CBD et al. 2008, p. 66). indicating that population numbers are Although Burke et al. (1999, Sect. 14, p. Although Burke et al. (1999, Sect. 14, p. in decline throughout the species’ range, 1) do mention this as a potential threat, 7) do mention herbicide use as a and that only 13 to 40 populations are they do not provide substantial potential threat, they do not provide considered to have good viability information to indicate that collecting is information to indicate what herbicides, (ORNHIC 2004q, pp. 1, 2) leads us to taking place at a level that could if any, are used in or near sites occupied conclude that information presented by threaten this species. by this species, or in what amounts, or the petition regarding the overall level Factor C: The petition did not present to what extent the Shasta chaparral may of threat to the species; including any information, nor do we have any be susceptible to the herbicides used. threats from logging, agricultural information in our files, to indicate, that The petition also indicates that the conversion, high intensity fire, and this factor may pose a threat to the Shasta chaparral may be threatened by climate change; is substantial. We are species. limited gene flow (inbreeding initiating a status review to determine Factor D: The petition asserts that the depression) and stochastic events (CBD whether listing under the Act is Shasta chaparral is threatened by et al. 2008, pp. 28, 29). We lack warranted. inadequate regulatory mechanisms information regarding the size of most associated with the Survey and Manage local populations of these subspecies, Shasta Chaparral (Trilobopsis roperi) program, the Special Status Species which would affect their susceptibility The Shasta chaparral is a terrestrial Program, and the Aquatic Conservation to inbreeding depression. We also lack snail known from 146 occurrences in Strategy. The Shasta chaparral is information regarding the likelihood of Shasta County, California, 140 of which currently considered a special status damaging stochastic events capable of are on Federal land (Burke et al. 1999, species (USDA and USDI 2007, p. 93). threatening the subspecies, other than Sect. 14 p. 5; USDA and USDI 2007, p. As a special status species, this mollusk for wildfire, which is covered above. 93). The Shasta chaparral has been should receive special management Shasta chaparral Summary: Based on found within 100 m (328 ft) of limestone consideration on Federal lands; our evaluation of the information rockslides, draws, or caves with a cover however, maintenance of special species presented in the petition and in our of shrubs or oak (Kelley et al. 1999, p. status is left to the discretion of the files, we have determined the petition 61). Forest litter and coarse woody Federal land managers. As discussed presents substantial information to debris are considered necessary to above under ‘‘The Survey and Manage indicate that listing the Shasta chaparral provide food and temporary cover from Program and Special Status Species may be warranted due to the present or the semi-xeric (dry) conditions of the Programs,’’ the claims raised under the threatened destruction, modification or surrounding environment, according to petition relative to the discontinuation curtailment of its habitat or range Burke et al. (1999, Sect. 14, p. 6). of the Survey and Management Program (Factor A) resulting from the potential Factor A: Information in our files no longer apply, because that program is raising of Shasta Dam. We are initiating indicates that the Shasta chaparral may once again being implemented. a status review to determine whether be threatened by a proposal to raise The ACS is unlikely to provide listing under the Act is warranted. Shasta Dam, which if carried out, would significant protections, because the likely inundate important habitat and Shasta chaparral is not an aquatic or Shasta Hesperian (Vespericola shasta) occupied sites (USBR 2007, p. ES 6; riparian species (Burke et al. 1999, Sect. The Shasta hesperian is a terrestrial Terry 2008, p. 1). 14, p. 6). snail known from 78 sites in Shasta The petition states that the Shasta Factor E: The petition asserts that the County, California (Burke et al. 1999, chaparral is threatened by road building Shasta chaparral is threatened by Sect. 17 p. 1; USDA and USDI 2007, p. and maintenance, limestone quarrying wildfire that will become more frequent 94). Seventy-two of those occupied sites and mining, recreation, and with climate change (CBD et al. 2008, are federally owned (USDA and USDI urbanization in the Redding area (CBD pp. 27, 66). The Shasta chaparral 2007, p. 94). The Shasta hesperian is et al. 2008, p. 66). Although these depends on forest litter and woody considered an old-growth and riparian claims are supported by Frest and debris to provide microclimate associate (Frest and Johannes 1993, p. Johannes (2000, p. 319), that document conditions with lower temperatures and 41) and is believed to inhabit damp relies on the assumption that only five higher humidity than surrounding areas, ground at the margins of streams (Burke occupied sites exist. However, so high-intensity fire could pose a threat et al. 1999, Sect. 17 p. 1). information in our files shows that 146 to the species by removing those refugia Factor A: The petition asserts that the such sites are now known, and Frest (Burke et al. 1999, Sect. 14, pp. 6, 7). Shasta hesperian is threatened by and Johannes (2000, p. 319) do not The petition and our files contain habitat loss due to timber harvest and elaborate regarding the extent or information indicating that global grazing (CBD et al. 2008, p. 70). The locations of the listed activities in climate change is producing warmer petition presents information to indicate relation to occupied sites or potential summer temperatures, combined with that the Shasta hesperian may be

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:18 Oct 04, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM 05OCP3 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 61848 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules

threatened by logging and grazing, both combined with longer periods of limited gene flow (inbreeding of which can directly remove habitat summer drought in the western U.S., depression) and stochastic events (CBD and also alter hydrology, thereby which is increasing the vulnerability of et al. 2008, pp. 28, 29). We lack increasing the likelihood of both western U.S. forests to wildfire information regarding the size of most flooding and loss of soil moisture (Burke (Westerling et al. 2006, p. 940). Wildfire local populations of this species, which et al. 1999, Sect. 17, p. 7). The petition frequency and total area burned would affect their susceptibility to states that the species was detected at a increased after the mid-1980s to levels inbreeding depression. We also lack timber sale and a fuels reduction project several times those during the period information regarding the likelihood of (CBD et al. 2008, p. 70). 1970–1986 (Westerling et al. 2006, p. damaging stochastic events capable of Based on our evaluation of the 941). These changes cannot be threatening the species, other than for information presented in the petition explained solely by land-use history wildfire which is covered above. and in our files, we have determined the considerations such as fire suppression However, given the large number of petition presents substantial (Westerling et al. 2006, p. 940). known occurrences (78), the threat from information to indicate that listing the Although no information cited by the stochastic events is likely low. Shasta hesperian may be warranted due petition or in our files provided direct Shasta hesperian Summary: Based on to the present or threatened destruction, examples of wildfire impacts to the our evaluation of the information modification, or curtailment of its Shasta hesperian, the petition does note presented in the petition and in our habitat or range. that, according to Survey and Manage files, we have determined the petition Factors B and C: The petition did not documents, this mollusk was directly presents substantial information to present any information, nor do we have affected by at least one underburn or indicate that listing the Shasta any information in our files, to indicate fuel reduction project (CBD et al. 2008, hesperian may be warranted due to the that these factors may pose a threat to p. 28). present or threatened destruction, the species. The petition asserts that climate modification or curtailment of its Factor D: The petition asserts that the change is a threat to the Shasta habitat or range (Factor A) resulting Shasta hesperian is threatened by hesperian (CBD et al. 2008, p. 26). The from logging and grazing activities. We inadequate regulatory mechanisms petition provides information indicating are initiating a status review to associated with the Survey and Manage that climate change is expected to cause determine whether listing under the Act program, the Special Status Species significant reductions in both the is warranted. Program, and the Aquatic Conservation volume and persistence of winter Shasta Pebblesnail (Fluminicola Strategy. The Shasta hesperian is snowpack throughout the western multifarius) currently considered a special status United States (Knowles et al. 2006, p. species (USDA and USDI 2007, p. 93). 4545). Such reductions have already The Shasta pebblesnail was formally As a special status species, this mollusk been documented in the Oregon named and described in 2007 (Hershler should receive special management Cascades (Knowles et al. 2006, pp. 4545, et al. 2007, pp. 415–419). This species consideration on Federal lands; 4546). If reduced snowpack resulted in combines four groups of snails however, maintenance of special species a reduction of soil moisture, the Shasta previously considered likely to be status is left to the discretion of the hesperian, which requires damp ground species but never formally described. Federal land managers. As discussed at the margins of streams (Burke et al. Those were the Sacramento pebblesnail above under ‘‘The Survey and Manage 1999, Section 17, p. 1), could be (Fluminicola n. sp. 1, from Frest and Program and Special Status Species impacted. However, neither the petition Johannes 1995b, pp. 42, D14) (not the Programs,’’ the claims raised under the nor our files contain information about same as Fluminicola n. sp. 1 from USDA petition relative to the discontinuation the extent soil drying could occur and USDI 2007, p. 250) and three of the Survey and Management Program within the Shasta hesperian’s habitat or provisional species discussed in Frest no longer apply, because that program is what impact that drying would have to and Johannes 1999 (pp. 39–50): The flat once again being implemented. the species. top pebblesnail (Fluminicola n. sp. 15), The ACS is a set of standards The petition states that chemical the Shasta Springs pebblesnail established under the Northwest Forest pollution may threaten the species (CBD (Fluminicola n. sp. 16), and the disjunct Plan for protecting aquatic and riparian et al. 2008, p. 70). Burke et al. (1999, pebblesnail (Fluminicola n. sp. 17). The habitat on Federal land (USDA and Sect. 14, p. 7) mentions this as a latter three of these groups were USDI 1994, p. 9; CBD et al. 2008, p. 32). possible threat due to the danger of large included under the Northwest Forest The ACS includes four components: spills, such as the 1991 Cantara spill of Plan’s Survey and Manage Program Riparian reserves, key watersheds, herbicide into the upper Sacramento (USDA and USDI 2007, pp. 169, 252), watershed analysis, and watershed River, and to the potential for numerous and were included as separate species restoration. Since the Shasta hesperian smaller spills ‘‘that could come from in the original petition (CBD et al. 2008, is a terrestrial mollusk occurring in part roads and railroads.’’ We do not have pp. 45–48). However, in a letter dated on Federal riparian lands, the ACS may information to indicate that the April 13, 2009 (Curry 2009, pp. 1, 2), the provide some protection from potential likelihood of such spills, or to estimate petitioners informed us that these three threats. Those protections would likely their impact to a terrestrial snail such as groups had been combined into a single be limited for populations of the Shasta the Shasta hesperian. species, which had been formally hesperian occupying private lands, The petition states that invasive described by Hershler et al. (2007). The however. species may threaten the Shasta letter amended the original petition by Factor E: The petition asserts that the hesperian (CBD et al. 2008, p. 70). petitioning for the listing of the Shasta hesperian is threatened by Although Burke et al. (1999, Sect. 17, p. combined entity—the Shasta wildfire that will become more frequent 7) mention this as a possibility, they do pebblesnail. with climate change (CBD et al. 2008, not provide information to indicate the Neither the petition nor the 2009 pp. 27, 28). The petition and our files invasive species involved or their likely amending letter includes information on contains information indicating that impacts. the group formerly known as the global climate change is producing The petition also indicates that the Sacramento pebblesnail. We know that warmer summer temperatures, Shasta hesperian may be threatened by a survey of mollusks in the upper

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:18 Oct 04, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM 05OCP3 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 61849

Sacramento River found the Sacramento are ongoing, as opposed to being increased water diversions from pebblesnail at 13 sites (Frest and completely historical in nature. groundwater and springs, but the extent Johannes 1995b, p. 42), but we lack Based on our evaluation of the to which springs supporting the Shasta information regarding whether this information presented in the petition pebblesnail may be affected by potential erstwhile species was known from and in our files, we have determined the increased water diversions is unclear. additional areas. We are therefore petition presents substantial Reduced snow runoff and lower flow proceeding with our discussion of the information to indicate that listing the levels may also result in water Shasta pebblesnail by combining our Shasta pebblesnail may be warranted temperature increases (Field et al. 2007, information regarding the flat top, due to the present or threatened pp. 620, 629). Such increases could pose Shasta Springs, and disjunct destruction, modification, or a threat to the Shasta pebblesnail, which pebblesnails with such data as we have curtailment of its habitat or range. is highly sensitive to elevated water in our files regarding the Sacramento Factors B and C: The petition did not temperatures (Furnish and Monthey pebblesnail. present any information, nor do we have 1999, Sect. 2, pp. 2, 5). The Shasta pebblesnail is an aquatic any information in our files, to indicate The petition indicates the Shasta snail known from at least 36 sites that these factors may pose a threat to pebblesnail may be threatened by (including the 13 sites mentioned above the species. limited gene flow (inbreeding Factor D: The petition asserts that the that are occupied by the group formerly depression) and stochastic events (CBD Shasta pebblesnail is threatened by known as the Sacramento pebblesnail) et al. 2008, pp. 28, 29). The size of local inadequate regulatory mechanisms in the upper Sacramento River populations would affect their associated with the Survey and Manage watershed in Shasta County, California susceptibility to inbreeding depression; program, the Special Status Species (Frest and Johannes 1995b, p. 42; however, we lack information regarding Program, and the Aquatic Conservation Furnish and Monthey 1999, Sect. 2, p. the size of most local populations of this Strategy. The Shasta pebblesnail is not 5; USDA and USDI 2007, p. 92). Two species. We also lack information currently considered a special status sources indicate that all occupied sites regarding the likelihood of damaging of those groups previously known as the species (USDA and USDI 2007, p. 93) and therefore would not receive special stochastic events capable of threatening flat top, disjunct, and Shasta Springs the species. pebblesnails are on private land management consideration on Federal Shasta pebblesnail Summary: Based (Furnish and Monthey 1999, Sect. 2, p. lands. As discussed above under ‘‘The on our evaluation of the information 5; USDA and USDI 2007, p. 92). Survey and Manage Program and However, a third source indicates that Special Status Species Programs,’’ the presented in the petition and in our ‘‘some’’ sites occupied by the group claims raised under the petition relative files, we have determined the petition previously known as the Shasta Springs to the discontinuation of the Survey and presents substantial information to pebblesnail are on the Shasta National Management Program no longer apply, indicate that listing the Shasta Forest (Frest and Johannes 1999, p. 44). because that program is once again pebblesnail may be warranted due to the We have no information regarding land being implemented. present or threatened destruction, ownership for sites occupied by the The Aquatic Conservation Strategy modification or curtailment of its group previously known as the (ACS) is a set of standards established habitat or range (Factor A) resulting Sacramento pebblesnail. According to under the Northwest Forest Plan for from water diversions and water Furnish and Monthey (1999, Sect. 2, pp. protecting aquatic and riparian habitat pollution. We are initiating a status 2, 5), the Shasta pebblesnail lives in on Federal land (USDA and USDI 1994, review to determine whether listing cold perennial springs, and is highly p. 9; CBD et al. 2008, p. 32). The ACS under the Act is warranted. sensitive to water pollution, oxygen includes four components: Riparian Shasta Sideband (Monadenia deficits, elevated water temperatures, reserves, key watersheds, watershed troglodytes troglodytes) and Wintu and sedimentation. analysis, and watershed restoration. Sideband (M. t. wintu) Factor A: The petition asserts that the Since the Shasta pebblesnail is an Shasta pebblesnail is threatened by aquatic mollusk occurring in part on The Shasta sideband and Wintu habitat loss due to water diversions, Federal lands, the ACS may provide sideband are terrestrial snails inhabiting impoundments, spring developments, some protection from potential threats. the vicinity of Shasta Lake, in Shasta grazing, logging, mining, road Those protections would likely be County, California (Burke et al. 1999, construction, and pollution (CBD et al. limited for populations of the Shasta Sect. 11, pp. 1, 5). The Shasta sideband 2008, pp. 45, 48, 49). Information cited pebblesnail occupying private lands, is known from nine sites, most of which in the petition or in our files indicates however. are located along the McCloud River that the Shasta pebblesnail may be Factor E: The petition asserts that Arm of the lake (Burke et al. 1999, Sect. exposed to, and threatened by, water climate change is a threat to the Shasta 11, p. 5; USDA and USDI 2007, p. 93). diversions and by water pollution, pebblesnail (CBD et al. 2008, p. 26). Eight of the nine sites are on Federal including eutrophication and Climate change is causing significant land (USDA and USDI 2007, p. 93). The sedimentation, resulting from a variety reductions in both the volume and Wintu sideband occurs at eight sites, of sources such as logging and grazing persistence of winter snowpack most of which are along the Pit River (Furnish and Monthey 1999, Sect. 2, p. throughout the western United States, arm of the lake (Burke et al. 1999, Sect. 7; USDA and USDI 2007, p. 252). Water including northern California (Knowles 11, p. 5; USDA and USDI 2007, p. 93). diversions can reduce flows, and reduce et al. 2006, pp. 4545, 4546; Kapnick and Seven of those eight sites are on Federal available habitat, while eutrophication Hall 2010, pp. 3446, 3454). The land (USDA and USDI 2007, p. 93). Both can decrease oxygen, and sedimentation reduction and earlier melting of the subspecies are apparently restricted to can cover substrates needed for feeding snowpack is likely to continue, and this limestone outcrops or related substrates, and egg-laying. Water impoundments may result in a reduction in the amount and are associated with caves, talus, or have also been identified as a potential of water that is available during summer rocky outcrops in open, brushy, and threat (Furnish and Monthey 1999, Sect. months (Kapnick and Hall 2010, pp. late-successional pine-oak 2, p. 7), but we do not have information 3446, 3454). Such a reduction in areas (Burke et al. 1999, Sect. 11, p. 5). in our files to indicate that their impacts available surface water may result in Forest litter and coarse woody debris are

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:18 Oct 04, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM 05OCP3 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 61850 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules

considered necessary to provide food above under ‘‘The Survey and Manage Shasta sideband and Wintu sideband and temporary cover. Program and Special Status Species Summary: Based on our evaluation of Factor A: The petition asserts that the Programs,’’ the claims raised under the the information presented in the Shasta and Wintu sidebands are petition relative to the discontinuation petition and in our files, we have threatened by habitat loss due to of the Survey and Management Program determined the petition presents logging, road construction and no longer apply, because that program is substantial information to indicate that maintenance, and recreation (CBD et al. once again being implemented. listing the Shasta sideband and Wintu 2008, pp. 61, 62). We did not find The Aquatic Conservation Strategy is sideband may be warranted due to the information to support these claims, unlikely to provide significant present or threatened destruction, although Burke et al. (1999, p. 7) note protections for these organisms, because modification or curtailment of its that forest management activities have the Shasta sideband and Wintu habitat or range (Factor A) resulting significantly impacted other mollusk sideband are not aquatic or riparian from road building and the potential species. Information provided by the subspecies (Burke et al. 1999, Sect. 11, raising of the Shasta dam. We are petition cites an environmental impact p. 5). initiating a status review to determine statement indicating that both Factor E: The petition asserts that the whether listing under the Act is subspecies may be threatened by road Shasta sideband and Wintu sideband warranted. building and maintenance (Burke et al. are threatened by wildfire that will 1999, Sect. 11, pp. 6, 10). Burke et al. Siskiyou Sideband (Monadenia become more frequent with climate chaceana) (1999, p. 6) also state that habitat change (CBD et al. 2008, pp. 27, 28, 61, The Siskiyou sideband is a terrestrial alteration, including recreation 62). The petition and our files contain snail known from 223 sites scattered development, may constitute a threat, information indicating that global widely across southwestern Oregon and but they do not provide information on climate change is producing warmer northwestern California, of which 206 the extent to which this activity is summer temperatures, combined with are federally managed (USDA and USDI actually occurring or is likely to occur longer periods of summer drought in the 2007, pp. 93, 261). According to Burke in sites occupied by either subspecies. western United States, which is Substantial information in our files et al. (1999, Sect. 7 p. 4), it occupies increasing the vulnerability of western also indicates that these mollusks may moist microhabitats in late-successional U.S. forests to wildfire (Westerling et al. be threatened by a proposal to raise forest and talus slopes or rocky areas. 2006, p. 940). Wildfire frequency and Shasta Dam, which if carried out, would Factor A: The petition (CBD et al. total area burned increased after the be likely to inundate important habitat 2008, p. 59) asserts that the Siskiyou mid-1980s, to levels several times those and occupied sites (USBR 2007, p. ES 6; sideband may be threatened by logging, of 1970–1986 (Westerling et al. 2006, p. Terry 2008, p. 1). which can ‘‘alter the necessary Based on our evaluation of the 941). These changes cannot be microclimate conditions that allow information presented in the petition explained solely by land-use history populations to persist’’ (USDA and and in our files, we have determined the considerations such as fire suppression USDI 2007, p. 261). According to Frest petition presents substantial (Westerling et al. 2006, p. 940). While and Johannes (1993, p. 3) logging information to indicate that listing the the petition provided general specifically reduces canopy cover; Shasta sideband and Wintu sideband information about fire frequencies and decreases shade; increases ground may be warranted due to the present or climate change in the Pacific Northwest, temperature; decreases soil moisture; threatened destruction, modification, or it did not include any information about compacts the soil; removes cover curtailment of their habitat or range. the effects of fire on these subspecies or objects, such as woody debris; and Factor B: The petition states that both about predicted climate change-induced increases wind, all of which contribute subspecies are threatened by changes in fire frequency within the to desiccation. Burke et al. (1999, Sect. overcollecting (CBD et al. 2008, pp. 61, subspecies’ ranges. 7, p. 7) reaffirm that forest management 62). Although Burke et al. (1999, Sect. The petition states that the Shasta and activities that affect shade have 11, p. 6) do mention this as a potential Wintu sidebands are threatened by significantly impacted other species of threat, they do not elaborate on whether pesticide application (CBD et al. 2008, this in the Pacific Northwest. The collection is taking place at a level that pp. 61, 62). Although Burke et al. (1999, petition states that the mollusk has been could threaten either subspecies. Sect. 6, p. 6) mention herbicide use as identified at three timber sales (CBD et Factor C: The petition did not present a potential threat, they do not provide al. 2008, p. 53). The petition also any information, nor do we have any information to indicate what herbicides, documents that the Forest Service and information in our files, to indicate that if any, are used in the vicinity of the BLM addressed the effects of forest this factor may pose a threat to either mollusks, or in what amounts, or to management practices on the 223 subspecies. what extent the Shasta or Wintu locations and concluded that, due to Factor D: The petition asserts that sidebands may be susceptible to the those potential impacts, the Survey and Shasta sideband and Wintu sideband herbicides used. Manage and Special Species Status are threatened by inadequate regulatory The petition also indicates the Shasta programs were necessary to conserve mechanisms associated with the Survey and Wintu sidebands may be threatened the mollusk (USDA and USDI 2007, pp. and Manage program, the Special Status by limited gene flow (inbreeding 93, 262). However, as discussed above Species Program, and the Aquatic depression) and stochastic events (CBD under ‘‘The Survey and Manage Conservation Strategy. Both mollusk et al. 2008, pp. 28, 29). We lack Program and Special Status Species species are currently considered special information regarding the size of most Programs,’’ the Survey and Manage status species (USDA and USDI 2007, local populations of these subspecies, program has since been reinstated. p. 93). As special status species, these which would affect their susceptibility Given that 206 of the 223 known mollusks should receive special to inbreeding depression. We also lack occupied sites are on Federal land management consideration on Federal information regarding the likelihood of where the Survey and Manage Program lands; however, maintenance of special damaging stochastic events capable of applies, we consider the logging-related species status is left to the discretion of threatening the subspecies, other than concerns raised by the petition to be the Federal land managers. As discussed for wildfire, which is covered above. adequately addressed by this Program.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:18 Oct 04, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM 05OCP3 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 61851

The petition also states that the restoration. Since the Siskiyou sideband any information regarding the size of Siskiyou sideband is threatened by is a terrestrial mollusk, occurring in part most local populations of this species, urban and agricultural expansion, talus on Federal riparian lands, the ACS may which would affect their susceptibility mining, and road construction (CBD et provide some protection from potential to inbreeding depression. We also do al. 2008, p. 60). Although the petition threats. Those protections would likely not have information regarding the cites Frest and Johannes (2000, p. 308) be limited for populations of the likelihood of damaging stochastic events to support these claims, Frest and Siskiyou sideband occupying private capable of threatening the species, other Johannes (2000, p. 308) state that the lands, however. than for wildfire which is discussed species is known from only six sites. The petition also states that this above. Additionally, since the Siskiyou Given that the Siskiyou sideband is now mollusk is threatened by the WOPR, a sideband is known from 223 occupied known to occupy more than 223 sites, set of revisions to the Northwest Forest sites, any stochastic event would be and that the information presented in Plan proposed for BLM lands in western unlikely to impact a large enough the petition only speaks to potential Oregon (CBD et al. 2008, p. 34). number of populations to threaten the threats to 6 of the 223 locations, the However, the BLM withdrew this species. available information does not indicate proposal in 2009 (USDA 2009, p. 1). We Siskiyou Sideband Summary: The that the species may be threatened by are unaware of any BLM plans to reinstatement of the Survey and Manage those activities. reinstate the WOPR; therefore, we do Program, the withdrawal of the WOPR Factor B: The petition states that the not have the information to assess if, or proposal, and the discovery of over 200 Siskiyou sideband is threatened by how, WOPR may impact the species. additional occupied sites since 2000, overcollection (CBD et al. 2008, p. 24). Factor E: The petition asserts that when some of the petition’s cited Although Burke et al. (1999, Sect. 7, p. climate change is a threat to the sources were written, have addressed 6) do mention overcollection as a Siskiyou sideband (CBD et al. 2008, p. the concerns raised by the petition. potential threat, they do not provide 26). Information cited by the petition or Based on our evaluation of the information that explains the nature or in our files indicates that climate change information presented in the petition extent of collection activities. Because is expected to cause significant and in our files, we have determined the only 33 occupied sites were known reductions in both the volume and petition does not present substantial when Burke’s report was published, and persistence of winter snowpack information to indicate that listing the because we have no information to throughout the western United States Siskiyou sideband may be warranted. indicate that overcollection is occurring (Knowles et al. 2006, p. 4545). Such Tall Pebblesnail (Fluminicola n. sp. 2) at the additional 190 sites, the available reductions have already been information does not indicate that the documented in the Oregon Cascades The tall pebblesnail is an aquatic snail levels of collection may pose a threat (Knowles et al. 2006, pp. 4545, 4546). If known from only a single site: Harriman now that 223 occupied sites have been reduced snowpack resulted in a Spring, along the margin of Upper identified (USDA and USDI 2007, p. 93). reduction of soil moisture, the Siskiyou Klamath Lake, Klamath County, Oregon Factor C: The petition did not present sideband, which requires moist habitat (Duncan 2005b, p. 10; USDA and USDI any information, nor do we have any (Duncan 2004, p. 8), could be impacted. 2007, p. 92). Harriman Spring is on information in our files, to indicate that However, neither the petition nor our private land adjacent to Winema this factor may pose a threat to the files contain information to indicate the National Forest lands. Like other species. extent to which soil drying could occur Fluminicola species, the tall pebblesnail Factor D: The petition asserts that within the Siskiyou sideband’s habitat appears to require cold, unpolluted, Siskiyou sideband is threatened by or what impact that drying would have well-oxygenated water (Duncan 2005b, inadequate regulatory mechanisms on the species. pp. 10, 11). associated with the Survey and Manage The petition also claims the Siskiyou Factor A: The petition asserts that the program, the Special Status Species sideband may be threatened by tall pebblesnail is threatened by habitat Program, and the Aquatic Conservation prescribed burns (CBD et al. 2008, p. loss or impairment resulting from Strategy. The Siskiyou is currently 59). The environmental impact grazing, water diversion, irrigation, lake considered a special status species statement for the removal of the Survey level fluctuation, and various sources of (USDA and USDI 2007, p. 93). As a and Manage Program notes that water pollution (CBD et al. 2008, p. 44). special status species, this mollusk prescribed burns are typically Information cited by the petition or in should receive special management conducted during the spring or fall, our files indicates that the tall consideration on Federal lands; when individuals of the species are pebblesnail may be threatened by however, maintenance of special species more likely to be active and exposed. By grazing in the Fourmile Creek status is left to the discretion of the contrast, summer wildfires occur when watershed, which feeds into the water Federal land managers. As discussed the Siskiyou sideband is more likely to near Harriman Spring (Furnish and above under ‘‘The Survey and Manage be aestivating (similar to hibernating) in Monthey 1999, Sect. 4, p. 14; Banish Program and Special Status Species a secure location (USDA and USDI 2010, p. 2). Overgrazing near flowing Programs,’’ the claims raised under the 2007, p. 261). The coincidence of water can cause increased petition relative to the discontinuation prescribed burns within the mollusk’s sedimentation and eutrophication of the Survey and Management Program active periods could pose a threat to downstream (Banish 2010, p. 2), which no longer apply, because that program is local populations within the area of the can in turn lower oxygen levels and once again being implemented. burn; however, neither the petition nor smother eggs and preferred substrates The ACS is a set of standards our files contains any information about (Furnish and Monthey 1999, Sect. 4, pp. established under the Northwest Forest the likelihood of prescribed burns being 3, 4, 14). Plan for protecting aquatic and riparian conducted within the species’ range. The petition also states that the habitat on Federal land (USDA and The petition also claims that the species is threatened by urban pollution USDI 1994, p. 9; CBD et al. 2008, p. 32). Siskiyou sideband may be threatened by (CBD et al. 2008, p. 44). Information in The ACS includes four components: limited gene flow (inbreeding our files indicates that the development Riparian reserves, key watersheds, depression) and stochastic events (CBD of vacation homes at nearby Rocky Point watershed analysis, and watershed et al. 2008, pp. 28, 29). We do not have may threaten the snail due to the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:18 Oct 04, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM 05OCP3 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 61852 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules

potential for water pollution from urban reductions in both the volume and considered necessary to provide food runoff or septic tank failure (Banish persistence of winter snowpack and temporary cover, according to 2010, p. 2). Since the species is only throughout the western United States, Burke et al. (1999, Sect. 14, pp. 5, 6). known from one site, it may also be including northern California (Knowles Factor A: The petition asserts that the threatened by water diversions for et al. 2006, pp. 4545, 4546; Kapnick and Tehama chaparral is threatened by irrigation and livestock (which can Hall 2010, pp. 3446, 3454). The habitat loss due to urbanization and lower water flows and diminish reduction and earlier melting of the road construction (CBD et al. 2008, p. available habitat), dredging (which can snowpack is likely to continue, and this 67). Information cited by the petition or produce sedimentation and disturb or may result in a reduction in the amount in our files identifies road building, remove substrate), and lake level of water that is available during summer recreation, and urban expansion as fluctuation (which can leave snails cut months (Kapnick and Hall 2010, p. potential threats (Frest and Johannes off from flows) (Furnish and Monthey 3446, 3454). Such a reduction in 2000, p. 320; ORNHIC 2004p, p. 2). 1999, Sect. 4, p. 14; Duncan 2005b, p. available surface water may result in However, the petition does not provide 11). increased water diversions from any information regarding the extent of The petition also states that the groundwater and springs, but the extent these activities in areas occupied by the species is threatened generally by road to which springs supporting the tall species. building and log storage and transport, pebblesnail may be affected by potential Factor B: The petition states that the but we did not find information in our increased water diversions is unclear. Tehama chaparral is threatened by files to support these claims. Reduced snow runoff and lower flow overcollecting (CBD et al. 2008, p. 66). Based on our evaluation of the levels may also result in water Although Burke et al. (1999, Sect. 14, p. information presented in the petition temperature increases, which could 1) does mention this as a potential and in our files, we have determined the negatively impact the tall pebblesnail threat, they do not provide information petition presents substantial (Field et al. 2007, pp. 620, 629). to indicate that collecting is taking place information to indicate that listing the The petition also indicates that the at a level that could threaten the tall pebblesnail may be warranted due tall pebblesnail may be threatened by species. We have no additional to the present or threatened destruction, limited gene flow (inbreeding information in our files to indicate that modification, or curtailment of its depression) and stochastic events (CBD overcollection poses a threat to the habitat or range. et al. 2008, pp. 28, 29). Although we do overall status of the species. Factors B and C: The petition did not not have information regarding the Factor C: The petition did not present present any information, nor do we have number of tall pebblesnails at the any information, nor do we have any any information in our files, to indicate species’ single occupied site (which information in our files, to indicate that that these factors may pose a threat to would affect the threat of inbreeding this factor may pose a threat to the the species. depression), the restriction of the species. Factor D: The petition asserts that tall species to one occupied site does leave Factor D: The petition asserts that pebblesnail is threatened by inadequate it vulnerable to catastrophic events, Tehama chaparral is threatened by regulatory mechanisms associated with such as the 1991 herbicide spill at inadequate regulatory mechanisms the Survey and Manage program, the Cantara Bend that removed mollusk associated with the Survey and Manage Special Status Species Program, and the populations throughout the upper program, the Special Status Species Aquatic Conservation Strategy. The tall Sacramento River (Frest and Johannes Program, and the Aquatic Conservation pebblesnail is currently considered a 1995b, pp. 72, 73). Strategy. The Tehama chaparral is special status species (USDA and USDI Tall Pebblesnail Summary: Based on currently considered a special status 2007, p. 92). As a special status species, our evaluation of the information species (USDA and USDI 2007, p. 93). this mollusk would receive special presented in the petition and in our As a special status species, this mollusk management consideration on Federal files, we have determined the petition should receive special management lands if it were to be found on such presents substantial information to consideration on Federal lands; lands; however, maintenance of special indicate that listing the tall pebblesnail however, maintenance of special species species status is left to the discretion of may be warranted due to the present or status is left to the discretion of the the Federal land managers. As discussed threatened destruction, modification or Federal land managers. As discussed above under ‘‘The Survey and Manage curtailment of its habitat or range above under ‘‘The Survey and Manage Program and Special Status Species (Factor A) resulting from water Program and Special Status Species Programs,’’ the claims raised under the pollution produced by grazing and Programs,’’ the claims raised under the petition relative to the discontinuation urban runoff. We are initiating a status petition relative to the discontinuation of the Survey and Management Program review to determine whether listing of the Survey and Management Program no longer apply, because that program is under the Act is warranted. no longer apply, because that program is once again being implemented. The once again being implemented. Survey requirements of the Survey and Tehama Chaparral (Trilobopsis The ACS is a set of standards Manage Program will help assure that tehamana) established under the Northwest Forest any currently unknown populations of The Tehama chaparral is a terrestrial Plan for protecting aquatic and riparian tall pebblesnails that may be located on snail known from 12 sites in Tehama, habitat on Federal land (USDA and Federal lands are identified prior to the Butte and Siskiyou Counties, California, USDI 1994, p. 9; CBD et al. 2008, p. 32). commencement of habitat modifying 9 of which are on Federal land (ORNHIC The ACS is unlikely to provide activities. The ACS is unlikely to 2004p, pp. 1–2; USDA and USDI 2007, significant protections for this species, provide significant protection for this p. 93). The Tehama chaparral has been because the Tehama chaparral is not an species, because the tall pebblesnail is found within 100 m (328 ft) of limestone aquatic or riparian species (Burke et al. not known to occur on Federal lands. outcrops with a cover of shrubs or oak 1999, Sect. 14, p. 6). Factor E: The petition asserts that (Kelley et al. 1999, p. 65). It is usually The petition also states this mollusk climate change is a threat to the tall associated with rocky talus, but may is threatened by the WOPR, a set of pebblesnail (CBD et al. 2008, p. 26). also be found under leaf litter and revisions to the Northwest Forest Plan Climate change is causing significant woody debris, all of which are proposed for BLM lands in western

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:18 Oct 04, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM 05OCP3 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 61853

Oregon (CBD et al. 2008, p. 34). We also lack information regarding the did not find substantial information to However, the BLM withdrew this likelihood of damaging stochastic events support listing (and will not proceed to proposal in 2009 (USDA 2009, p. 1). We capable of threatening the species, other a status review) for the following are unaware of any BLM plans to than for wildfire, which is covered petitioned mollusks: Crater Lake reinstate the WOPR; therefore, we do above. tightcoil, Siskiyou sideband, and not have the information to assess if, or Tehama Chaparral Summary: Tehama chaparral (see table above). Our how, WOPR may impact the species. Although the petition claims the findings for each petitioned mollusk are Factor E: The petition asserts that the Tehama chaparral may be threatened by also provided in the table under Tehama chaparral is threatened by fire urbanization and road construction ‘‘Listable entity evaluation,’’ above. that will become more frequent with (Factor A), and by fire, climate change, After completing our status reviews climate change (CBD et al. 2008, pp. 27, pesticides, limited gene flow, and for the 26 mollusks listed above, we will 28, 67). The petition and our files deleterious stochastic events (Factor E), publish ‘‘12-month findings,’’ in which contain information indicating that it does not provide sufficient we will determine whether listing any global climate change is producing information regarding the specific of these 26 petitioned mollusks under warmer summer temperatures, applicability of these threats to areas the Act is warranted. The ‘‘substantial combined with longer periods of occupied by the species. The petition information’’ standard for a 90-day summer drought in the western U.S., also states that the species is threatened finding differs from the Act’s ‘‘best which is increasing the vulnerability of due to the discontinuation of the Survey scientific and commercial data’’ western U.S. forests to wildfire and Manage Program, and the standard that applies to a status review (Westerling et al. 2006, p. 940). Wildfire enactment of the WOPR program, but to determine whether a petitioned frequency and total area burned the Survey and Manage Program has action is warranted. Because the Act’s increased after the mid-1980s to levels been reinstated, and the WOPR program standards for 90-day and 12-month several times those during the period has been withdrawn. Based on our findings are different, a substantial 1970–1986 (Westerling et al. 2006, p. evaluation of the information presented 90-day finding does not mean that the in the petition and in our files, we have 941). These changes cannot be 12-month findings will result in a determined the petition does not explained solely by land-use history warranted finding. present substantial information to considerations such as fire suppression The petition also requests that critical (Westerling et al. 2006, p. 940). While indicate that listing the Tehama chaparral may be warranted. habitat be designated for the species the petition provided general concurrent with final listing under the information about fire frequencies and Wintu Sideband (Monadenia troglodytes Act. If we determine in our 12-month climate change in the Pacific Northwest, wintu) finding, following the status review of it did not include any information about See discussion for ‘‘Shasta Sideband the species, that listing is warranted, we the effects of fire on the Tehama (Monadenia troglodytes troglodytes) and will address the designation of critical chaparral or about predicted climate Wintu Sideband (M. t. wintu)’’ above. habitat in a subsequent proposed rule. change induced changes in fire frequency within the species range. Finding References Cited The petition states that the Tehama On the basis of our evaluation of the A complete list of references cited is chaparral is threatened by pesticide petition under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the available on the Internet at http:// application (CBD et al. 2008, p. 67). Act, we find that the petition presents www.regulations.gov and upon request Although Burke et al. (1999, Sect. 14, p. substantial scientific or commercial from the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife 7) does mention herbicide use as a information to indicate that listing 26 of Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION potential threat, they do not provide the 29 petitioned mollusks as threatened CONTACT). information to indicate which or endangered under the Act may be herbicides, if any, are used in or near warranted. We are therefore initiating Author sites occupied by this species, or in status reviews for the following 26 The primary authors of this document what amounts, or to what extent the species and subspecies: Basalt juga, Big are staff members of the Sacramento Tehama chaparral may be susceptible to Bar hesperian, canary duskysnail, Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR the herbicides used. We have no Chelan mountainsnail, cinnamon juga, FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). information in our files to indicate that Columbia duskysnail, Columbia pesticide application may be a threat to Oregonian, Dalles sideband, diminutive Authority the species. pebblesnail, evening fieldslug, Goose The authority for this action is the The petition also indicates that the Valley pebblesnail, Hat Creek Endangered Species Act of 1973, as Tehama chaparral may be threatened by pebblesnail, Hoko vertigo, keeled amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). limited gene flow (inbreeding jumping-slug, knobby rams-horn, depression) and stochastic events (CBD masked duskysnail, nerite pebblesnail, Dated: September 26, 2011. et al. 2008, pp. 28, 29). We do not have nugget pebblesnail, Potem Creek Rowan W. Gould, any information in our files regarding pebblesnail, Puget Oregonian, Shasta Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife the size of most local populations of this chaparral, Shasta hesperian, Shasta Service. species, which would affect its pebblesnail, Shasta sideband, tall [FR Doc. 2011–25538 Filed 10–4–11; 8:45 am] susceptibility to inbreeding depression. pebblesnail, and Wintu sideband. We BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:18 Oct 04, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\05OCP3.SGM 05OCP3 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3