Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 20, 2010 / Proposed Rules 42059

References Cited Based on the status review, we will status review to be complete and based A complete list of all references we issue a 12–month finding on the on the best available scientific and cited in the proposed rule and in this petition, which will address whether commercial information, we request document is available on the Internet at the petitioned action is warranted, as information on the giant Palouse http://www.regulations.gov or by provided in section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act. earthworm (GPE) from governmental contacting the Carlsbad Fish and DATES: To allow us adequate time to agencies, Native American Tribes, the Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER conduct this review, we request that we scientific community, industry, and any INFORMATION CONTACT). receive information on or before other interested parties. We seek September 20, 2010. Please note that if information on: Authors you are using the Federal eRulemaking (1) The species’ biology, range, and The primary authors of this notice are Portal (see ADDRESSES section, below), population trends, including: staff members of the Carlsbad Fish and the deadline for submitting an (a) Habitat requirements for feeding, Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER electronic comment is Eastern Time on breeding, and sheltering; INFORMATION CONTACT). this date. (b) Genetics and taxonomy; ADDRESSES: You may submit Authority (c) Historical and current range information by one of the following including distribution patterns; The authority for this action is the methods: (d) Historical and current population • Endangered Species Act of 1973, as Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// levels, and current and projected trends; amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). www.regulations.gov. In the box that and Dated: July 7, 2010 reads ‘‘Enter Keyword or ID,’’ enter the (e) Past and ongoing conservation docket number for this notice, which is Eileen Sobeck, measures for the species and/or its docket number FWS–R1–ES–2010– habitat. Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and 0023. Check the box that reads ‘‘Open Wildlife and Parks. (2) The factors that are the basis for for Comment/Submission,’’ and then making a listing determination for a [FR Doc. 2010–17708 Filed 7–19– 10; 8:45 am] click the Search button. You should species under section 4(a) of the BILLING CODE S then see an icon that reads ‘‘Submit a Endangered Species Act of 1973, as Comment.’’ Please ensure that you have amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), found the correct rulemaking before DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR which are: submitting your comment. • (a) The present or threatened Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS–R1– destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; 50 CFR Part 17 ES–2010–0023; Division of Policy and Directives Management; U.S. Fish and (b) Overutilization for commercial, [Docket No. FWS–R1–ES–2010–0023] Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, recreational, scientific, or educational [MO 92210–0–0008–B2] Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203. purposes; We will post all information received (c) Disease or predation; Endangered and Threatened Wildlife on http://www.regulations.gov. This (d) The inadequacy of existing and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a generally means that we will post any regulatory mechanisms; or Petition To List the Giant Palouse personal information you provide us (e) Other natural or manmade factors Earthworm (Driloleirus americanus) as (see the Information Solicited section affecting its continued existence. Threatened or Endangered below for more details). (3) Information on grassland or other AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, After the date specified in DATES, natural habitats within the range of the Interior. you must submit information directly to species including distribution of known the Field Office (see FOR FURTHER ACTION: Notice of petition finding and or potential habitats; information on INFORMATION CONTACT section below). initiation of status review. ongoing or future activities in potential Please note that we might not be able to GPE habitat; information on life history SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and address or incorporate information that of the GPE and evidence supporting its Wildlife Service (Service), announce a we receive after the above requested endogeic (earthworms that live in 90–day finding on a petition to list the date. mineral soil and consume organic giant Palouse earthworm (Driloleirus FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ken matter within the soil or at the soil-litter americanus) as threatened or Berg, Manager, Washington Fish and interface) or anecic (earthworms that endangered under the Endangered Wildlife Office, 510 Desmond Dr. SE, inhabit deep vertical burrows and Species Act of 1973, as amended, (Act) Suite 102, Lacey, WA 98503; by emerge at night to consume relatively and to designate critical habitat. Based telephone (360–753–9440); or by fresh plant detritus on the surface) life- on our review, we find that the petition facsimile (360–753–9405). If you use a history mode; and information on other presents substantial scientific or telecommunications device for the deaf native or nonnative earthworm commercial information indicating that (TDD) please call the Federal distributions in the range of the species. listing the giant Palouse earthworm as Information Relay Service (FIRS) at If, after the status review, we threatened or endangered may be 800–877–8339. determine that listing the GPE is warranted. Therefore, with the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: warranted, we will propose critical publication of this notice, we are habitat (see definition in section 3(5)(A) initiating a review of the status of the Request for Information of the Act), under section 4 of the Act, species to determine if listing the giant When we make a finding that a to the maximum extent prudent and Palouse earthworm is warranted. To petition presents substantial determinable at the time we propose to ensure that this status review is information indicating that listing a list the species. Therefore, within the comprehensive, we are requesting species may be warranted, we are geographical range currently occupied scientific and commercial data and required to promptly review the status by the GPE, we request data and other information regarding this species. of the species (status review). For the information on:

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:03 Jul 19, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20JYP1.SGM 20JYP1 wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1 42060 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 20, 2010 / Proposed Rules

(1)What may constitute ‘‘physical or the petitioned action may be warranted. of its range, or in the Palouse bioregion biological features essential to the We are to base this finding on as a significant portion of its range. The conservation of the species,’’ information provided in the petition, petition clearly identified itself as such (2)where these features are currently supporting information submitted with and included the requisite identification found, and the petition, and information otherwise information for the petitioners, as (3)whether any of these features may available in our files. To the maximum required by 50 CFR 424.14(a). require special management extent practicable, we are to make this The July 1, 2009, petition was considerations or protection. finding within 90 days of our receipt of accompanied by a letter from Samuel W. In addition, we request data and the petition and publish our notice of James, an earthworm taxonomist, and information on ‘‘specific areas outside the finding promptly in the Federal additional information about GPE and the geographical area occupied by the Register. threats to the species that was not species’’ that are ‘‘essential to the Our standard for substantial scientific available to the Service during our conservation of the species.’’ Please or commercial information within the evaluation of the August 30, 2006, provide specific comments and Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) with petition. In an August 5, 2009, letter to information as to what, if any, critical regard to a 90–day petition finding is the petitioners, we responded that we habitat you think we should propose for ‘‘that amount of information that would had reviewed the information presented designation if the species is proposed lead a reasonable person to believe that in the petition and determined that for listing, and why such habitat meets the measure proposed in the petition issuing an emergency regulation the requirements of section 4 of the Act. may be warranted’’ (50 CFR 424.14(b)). temporarily listing the species under Please include sufficient information If we find that substantial scientific or section 4(b)(7) of the Act was not with your submission (such as scientific commercial information was presented, warranted. We also stated that we journal articles or other publications) to we are required to promptly conduct a would not be able to further address the allow us to verify any scientific or status review, which is subsequently petition at that time, but that we would commercial information you include. summarized in our 12–month finding. complete the action when funding Submissions merely stating support became available in fiscal year 2010. Previous Federal Action(s) for or opposition to the action under This finding addresses the petition. consideration without providing On August 30, 2006, we received a supporting information, although noted, petition from three private citizens and Species Information will not be considered in making a three other parties (the Palouse Prairie The GPE was first described by Smith determination. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Foundation, the Palouse Audubon in 1897, based on a collection near Act directs that determinations as to Society, and Friends of the Clearwater) Pullman, Washington. At the time of whether any species is an endangered or to list the GPE (Driloleirus americanus). this collection, Smith stated: ‘‘this threatened species must be made ‘‘solely On October 9, 2007, we published a 90– species is very abundant in that region on the basis of the best scientific and day finding stating that the August 30, of the country and their burrows are commercial data available.’’ 2006, petition did not provide sometimes seen extending to a depth of You may submit your information substantial scientific or commercial over 15 feet’’ (Smith 1897, pp. 202–203). concerning this status review by one of information to indicate that listing the Although only a few specimens have the methods listed in the ADDRESSES GPE may be warranted (72 FR 57273). been collected, early descriptions section. If you submit information via On January 24, 2008, the petitioners indicate that the GPE can be as long as http://www.regulations.gov, your entire filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court, 3 feet (0.9 meters). Some consider the submission—including any personal Eastern District of Washington against GPE to be an endemic species (a species identifying information—will be posted the U.S. Department of the Interior and native to a particular region), that uses on the website. If you submit a the Service challenging the ‘‘not grassland sites with good soil and native hardcopy that includes personal substantial’’ decision (Palouse Prairie vegetation of the Palouse bioregion identifying information, you may Foundation et al. v. Dirk Kempthorne, et (James 1995, p. 1; Niwa et al. 2001, p. request at the top of your document that al., No. 2:08–cv–0032–FVS). On 34). The Palouse bioregion is an area of we withhold this personal identifying February 12, 2009, the District Court rolling hills and deep soil in information from public review. denied the Appellants’ motion for southeastern Washington and adjacent However, we cannot guarantee that we summary judgment and granted northwestern Idaho. will be able to do so. We will post all summary judgment in favor of the The petition acknowledges (Petition, hardcopy submissions on http:// Service, upholding the October 9, 2007, pp. 1, 3) four positively identified www.regulations.gov. determination. The U.S. Court of collections of this species in the past Information and supporting Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed 110 years (Sa´nchez-de Leo´n and documentation that we received and the District Court ruling on June 14, Johnson-Maynard 2008, p. 2), compared used in preparing this finding, will be 2010. to the species being described as ‘‘very available for you to review at http:// abundant’’ in Smith (1897, p. 202). History of Current Petition www.regulations.gov, or you may make Three of the collection locations were in an appointment during normal business On July 1, 2009, we received a the Palouse River basin (one between hours at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife petition dated June 30, 2009, from Moscow and Pullman, one at Moscow Service, Washington Fish and Wildlife Friends of the Clearwater, Center for Mountain, Idaho (Petition cover letter, Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION Biological Diversity, Palouse Audubon, p. 2), and one at a prairie remnant, CONTACT). Palouse Prairie Foundation, and Palouse Smoot Hill Biological Preserve Group of the Sierra Club (petitioners) (Sa´nchez-de Leo´n and Johnson-Maynard Background requesting that the GPE be listed as 2008, p. 6)). The fourth location was in Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires threatened or endangered and that the hills west of Ellensburg, Washington that we make a finding on whether a critical habitat be designated under the (Fender and McKey-Fender 1990, p. petition to list, delist, or reclassify a Act. The petitioners also requested that 358), outside of the Palouse bioregion. species presents substantial scientific or we list the GPE as a threatened or We were unable to clearly match the commercial information indicating that endangered species either in the entirety dates of collection with the exact

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:03 Jul 19, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20JYP1.SGM 20JYP1 wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 20, 2010 / Proposed Rules 42061

locations based on information in the Evaluation of Information for this A. The Present or Threatened petition and references. However, Finding Destruction, Modification, or several GPE were collected in 1978 near Curtailment of the Species’ Habitat or Pullman and Moscow (Petition, p. 5; Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) Range and its implementing regulations at 50 Johnson-Maynard 2009b, p. 2), a Petition Information on Habitat Loss collection was made in 1988 by Johnson CFR 424 set forth the procedures for adding a species to, or removing a and Fragmentation in the Palouse and Johnson at a forest clearing near Bioregion Moscow (Sa´nchez de Leo´n and Johnson- species from, the Federal Lists of The petitioners claim that the GPE is Maynard 2008, p. 2; Johnson-Maynard Endangered and Threatened Wildlife threatened by habitat conversion, loss, 2009b, p. 3), and a specimen was and Plants. A species may be determined to be an endangered or and fragmentation from agriculture and collected in 2005 by a University of urban sprawl in the Palouse region Idaho graduate student near Pullman threatened species due to one or more of the five factors described in section (Petition, pp. 1, 7). The petitioners cite (Johnson-Maynard 2009b, p. 3; Mullins Sa´nchez-de Leo´n and Johnson-Maynard 4(a)(1) of the Act: 2006, p. 1). The Ellensburg, Washington (2008, p. 1) who state that combined specimen was collected before 1990 (A) The present or threatened effects of land-use change, habitat (Petition, p. 5; Fender and McKey- destruction, modification, or fragmentation, and competitive Fender 1990, p. 358). Follow-up surveys curtailment of its habitat or range; interactions have decimated native in previous collection locations were (B) Overutilization for commercial, earthworms. James (2009, p. 1) states unsuccessful in locating the GPE. recreational, scientific, or educational that earthworms are sensitive to habitat Several of these collection locations had purposes; disturbance, and that to find indigenous major ground-disturbing activities. One earthworms one must work in site was converted into a parking lot and (C) Disease or predation; undisturbed or mildly disturbed another was ‘‘very disturbed with (D) The inadequacy of existing vegetation. Undisturbed vegetation is graveling’’ (Petition, p. 5). James (2000, regulatory mechanisms; or rare in the Palouse bioregion, since the p. 5) states that only a small portion of (E) Other natural or manmade factors native grassland habitat has been suitable earthworm habitat in the affecting its continued existence. reduced to less than 1 percent of the Columbia Basin area has been surveyed. pre-agricultural extent (Petition, p. 8; In considering what factors might Since 2005, two Driloleirus genus James 2009, p. 1; Noss et al. 1995, p. 74). constitute threats, we must look beyond earthworms have been documented, one The petition lists a dozen locations in the exposure of the species to a factor south of Moscow, Idaho, and one near the Palouse area that contain prairie to evaluate whether the species may Leavenworth, Washington (University of remnants (Petition, p. 5). In a survey of respond to the factor in a way that Idaho 2008, p. 1; Johnson-Maynard four prairie remnants and adjacent conservation reserve program (CRP) 2009b, p. 3), but the specimen could not causes actual impacts to the species. If fields (areas set aside from farming and be verified to species level due to there is exposure to a factor and the mainly planted with nonnative grasses), damage during collection. species responds negatively, the factor may be a threat and, during the Sa´nchez-de Leo´n and Johnson-Maynard The GPE is described as an anecic subsequent status review, we attempt to (2008, pp. 1, 4; Petition, p. 4) found one earthworm (James 2000, p. 5) based on determine how significant a threat it is. GPE in one prairie remnant. Sa´nchez-de its functional role in the soil ecosystem. The threat is significant, if it drives, or Leo´n and Johnson-Maynard (2008, p. 6; Anecic earthworms are the largest and contributes to, the risk of extinction of Petition, p. 5) observed that many longest lived of the three earthworm the species such that the species may remaining prairie remnants are not suitable for tillage (preparing land for types (James 2000, p. 2; 1995, p. 6), and warrant listing as threatened or the raising of crops by plowing) as they transport fresh plant material from the endangered as those terms are defined soil surface to subterranean levels. We are often steep, rocky, or contain in the Act. However, the identification shallow soil and, therefore, may also be reviewed the 2006 petition within the of factors that could impact a species context of this information. However, less suitable for earthworms (Sa´nchez- negatively may not be sufficient to de Leo´n and Johnson-Maynard 2008, p. after additional scrutiny, James (2009, p. compel a finding that the information in 3) determined that, based on its pale 6; Petition, p. 5). the petition and our files is substantial. pigmentation, the species is endogeic The information must include evidence Evaluation rather than anecic. Endogeic sufficient to suggest that these factors Information in the petition and in the earthworms live entirely in the soil and may be operative threats that act on the Service’s files indicates native habitats rely on subsurface organic matter, rather species to the point that the species may are rare and fragmented in the Palouse than transporting plant material below meet the definition of threatened or bioregion. The estimated amount of ground. Life-history forms aside, we endangered under the Act. habitat conversion varies, but several accept the characterization of the GPE as studies have determined that the In making this 90–day finding, we a species (Smith 1897, p. 203; Fender conversion of native habitats is very evaluated whether information and McKey-Fender 1990, p. 372; Fender high: 99.9 percent of Palouse prairie 1995, pp. 53–54). While the naming regarding threats to the GPE, as habitats to agriculture (Noss 1995, p. conventions of the GPE has changed presented in the petition and other 74); 94 percent of the grasslands and 97 over time, (Megascolides americanus in information available in our files, is percent of the wetlands in the Palouse 1897 (Smith 1897, p. 203); changed to substantial, thereby indicating that the bioregion have been converted to crop, Driloleirus americanus by 1990 (Fender petitioned action may be warranted. Our hay, or pasture (Black et al. 1998, pp. 9– and McKey-Fender 1990, p. 372), there evaluation of this information is 10); 21 percent of previously forested is no information provided in the presented below. lands have been converted to agriculture petition or in our files that would or urban uses; and less than 1 percent indicate scientific disagreement about of the original bunchgrass prairie habitat its status as a species. remains (Gilmore 2004, p. 3; Donovan et

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:03 Jul 19, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20JYP1.SGM 20JYP1 wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1 42062 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 20, 2010 / Proposed Rules

al. 2009, p. 1). Although the Palouse Petition Information on Habitat Impacts clumps of organic matter (James 2000, p. prairie grasslands habitat has been from Agriculture and Urban 9; Petition, p. 14). extensively impacted by agriculture and Development The petitioners also claim that chemicals and some soil chemistry development, very limited information The petitioners claim that earthworms effects, notably a reduction in soil pH, exists on the specific habitat needs of or their grassland habitats are negatively impact earthworms (Petition, the GPE. If the species is endemic to influenced by soil disturbance, tillage, p. 11). Soil pH is a factor that often good soil (‘‘good’’ soil was not defined in traffic, food sources, chemical and greatly affects earthworm populations, references) and native vegetation of the pesticide residues, and soil both in numbers of individuals and Palouse bioregion, as stated by some microclimate (Jennings et al. 1990, p. numbers of species; in general there are scientists (James 1995, p. 1; Niwa et al. 75; Edwards & Bohlen 1996b, pp. 283– fewer species in the more acidic soils 289; Edwards et al. 1995, pp. 200–201; 2001, p. 34), the best available below pH 5 than in more alkaline soils USDA–NRCS 2001, p. 2; Petition, p. 10). information may indicate that remaining (Edwards and Lofty 1977, p. 234). prairie remnants are not the best habitat The petitioners also claim that it is Nitrogenous fertilizers reduce pH levels for the GPE (Sa´nchez-de Leo´n and appropriate to use other earthworms as (Ma et al. 1990, p. 76). Johnson-Maynard 2008, p. 6). proxies for effects to the GPE as long as Pesticide applications can be they are similar biologically and Although its habitat may be limiting, extremely toxic to earthworms, and ecologically (Sappington et al. 2001, p. there also may be sampling challenges have indirect effects on vegetation 2869; Caro et al. 2005, p. 1821; Petition, (Edwards and Bohlen 1996a, pp. 282– that could bias available information on p. 10). GPE. Sa´nchez-de Leo´n and Johnson- 288). Like other farmers, growers in the An Australian study showed 3 years Palouse region apply many herbicides Maynard (2008, p. 7) explained that of tillage reduced earthworm burrow hand sampling methods may (Hall et al. 1999, p. 12 Table 3.08; Kellog density by nearly 90 percent (Chan et al. 2000, p. 2), including Triazine underestimate abundance of deep- 2004, p. 89; Petition, p. 10), and that (Atrazine) herbicides that may have burrowing species; while James (2009, tillage changes water infiltration into negative effects on earthworm numbers p. 3) states that, if present, an endogeic soil through burrows. In the Palouse (Edwards and Bohlen 1996a, p. 285), earthworm such as the GPE should be bioregion, tillage removes the original and which may include indirect effects moderately easy to find. topsoil, which may reduce earthworm due to their influence on weeds as a burrow densities, soil aeration, soil Petition Information on Habitat Loss source of supply of organic matter on infiltration rates, and the amount of which worms feed in the soil. Traces of and Fragmentation in the Ellensburg organic matter available to the GPE for Area Triazine herbicides were found in forage (Veseth 1986b, p. 2; Petition, pp. surface-water samples from the Palouse The GPE occurs both in the Palouse 10–11). All original topsoil has been River basin (Wagner et al. 1995, p. 15, bioregion and in central Washington removed from 10 percent of Palouse Table 4). The petition also states no-till near Ellensburg. The petitioners claim cropland, and another 60 percent of farming uses herbicides rather than cropland has lost 25 to 75 percent of the that, similar to the Palouse bioregion, tilling for weed-control, resulting in topsoil (Veseth 1986b, p. 2). the areas around Ellensburg have also higher herbicide use in no-till fields Moisture, temperature, and food than is used in tilled fields (Veseth been extensively modified by availability influence earthworm agriculture (Adolfson Associates 2005, 1986a, p. 1; Petition, p. 12). populations in general, and earthworms The petitioners claim that urban p. 2; Petition, p. 8). need the organic matter found in the sprawl and rural development Evaluation topsoil that agriculture removes (James negatively impact habitats in the 2000, pp. 1–2; Petition, p. 11). Bare soil Palouse and Ellensburg areas. The There is little information in the also increases effects of flooding, Ellensburg, Washington; Pullman petition or the Service’s files on the drought, or other weather conditions Washington; and Moscow, Idaho habitat associated with the GPE due to the lack of vegetation that buffers populations increased by approximately collected near Ellensburg. Fender and soil from extreme moisture, dryness, 76, 88, and 73 percent since 1980, McKey-Fender (1990) described the and temperature fluctuations. These respectively (Petition, p. 12; location as ‘‘in the hills west of fluctuations can temporarily or www.census.gov, figure 4). The petition Ellensburg,’’ and they noted that the permanently make soils unusable by states that urban development compacts range of GPE extends into ‘‘treeless earthworms (James 2000, pp. 1–2; soils, removes topsoil, and favors areas’’ (pp. 358, 366). The Adolfson Petition, p. 11). nonnative invasive earthworms Associates report (2005, p. 1) was Soil compaction from livestock (Petition, pp. 12–13). New road limited to the city and the urban growth grazing or farm machinery can affect construction affects remaining prairie earthworms by making burrowing and area around Ellensburg. The location of remnants (Petition, p. 13), including a feeding more difficult (James 2000, p. 9), the Ellensburg collection site is potential rerouting of U.S. 95 through a by decreasing soil pore size and thereby uncertain, and the petitioners did not large prairie remnant in the Palouse decreasing nutrient retention and bioregion. provide additional information on changing the soil food web (Niwa et al. potential GPE habitat other than the 2001, p. 7), or by favoring nonnative Evaluation Adolfson Associates report. James earthworms that prefer course soils Information in the petition and the (2000, p. 8; 1995, p. 2) confirms that rather than the fine soils preferred by Service’s files indicates that tillage may GPE collection data provides little the GPE (Fender and McKey-Fender affect earthworms, and the use of detailed information about habitat 1990, p. 364; Petition, p. 11). In addition surrogate species (such as other types, and he included the Ellensburg to soil compaction, livestock grazing earthworms) may be useful for collection site, among others, as being changes the quality and accessibility of evaluating potential effects to the GPE, generally located in what is now detrital material, decreasing organic provided such studies are conducted agricultural land, grassland, and matter available to earthworms through with appropriate scientific controls and shrubland. conversion of herbage to partly digested precautions. Caro et al. (2005, p. 1821)

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:03 Jul 19, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20JYP1.SGM 20JYP1 wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 20, 2010 / Proposed Rules 42063

states that ‘‘for substitute species to be Degradation of the land base from attributes and it is unclear how the GPE appropriate, they should share the same topsoil losses, changes in soil structure may react to different soil acidity, which key ecological or behavioral traits that and chemistry, and reduced soil organic makes it difficult to determine if make the target sensitive to matter has resulted from tillage reduced pH is negatively impacting the environmental disturbance and the methods, crop rotations, and species. relationship between populations vital fertilization practices used historically Information in the petition and rates and level of disturbance should in the Palouse region (Jennings et al. available in the Service’s files on the match that of the target; these 1990, p. 75). There was no detailed GPE and pesticides (used here as a conditions are unlikely to pertain in information provided on agriculture general term, including herbicides, most circumstances and the use of activities in the Ellensburg area outside fungicides, and insecticides) found that substitute species to predict endangered of the urban growth area. Furthermore, some chemical applications may impact populations’ responses to disturbance is no information was provided by the earthworms, and potentially the GPE. questionable.’’ petitioner, and no information is Edwards and Bohlen (1996, p. 283) state Chan’s study (2004, p. 90) compared available in our files on the extent of that the toxicities of different chemicals effects to an anecic Megascolecidae (the livestock ranching impacts in the and pesticides on earthworms vary same family as the GPE) by assessing Palouse or Ellensburg areas. greatly, and summarize the toxicities of burrows in pastures, no-till agriculture, The petitioners cite soil chemistry many pesticides. Edwards and Bohlen one-pass tilled agriculture; and two-pass effects, notably a reduction in soil pH, (1996, p. 285; USDA-NRCS 2001, p. 6) conventional tilled agriculture (Chan as having deleterious effects on state that some herbicides, including 2004, p. 94). The effect of tillage on earthworms, and state that generally, Triazine herbicides, are moderately earthworm abundance was usually earthworms do not thrive in soils with toxic to earthworms. Carbamates are negative because tilling causes physical a pH below 5 (Petition, p. 11); however, toxic to earthworms (USDA-NRCS 2001, damage and burial of residues; our review of information on pH effects p. 6). Wagner et al. (1996, pp. 21–22) alternatively it can increase abundance to earthworms showed both supportive listed multiple pesticides used in a of some earthworm species due to and contradictory information relevant subset of the Palouse bioregion, and incorporation of residues into the soil to the petitioners’ claims. Fender (1995, found several, including Triazine (Chan 2004, p. 90). Tillage decreases p. 56) stated that Argilophiline worms (a (Atrazine), in water samples (pp. 15– burrow density, and related water tribe of earthworms that includes the 16). No information was provided in the conduction into the soil (Chan 2004, p. GPE) appear to have higher tolerance petition on the use of, or surveys of, 94). Some preservation of earthworm than Lumbricidae (night crawler pesticides in the Ellensburg area. We acknowledge several differences burrows can be achieved by adopting earthworms) for low pH (acid) soils, high clay, and resinous low-nitrogen between information presented by the conservation tillage techniques (no-till) plant litter. A tribe is a taxonomic petitioner and other information (Chan 2004, p. 96). ranking between the family and genus available in our files with regard to Since the earthworm species used in rankings in Linnaean taxonomy. claims made in the 2006 and 2009 GPE Chan’s studies was anecic, whereas the Sa´nchez-de Leo´n and Johnson-Maynard petitions. The 2006 petition stated that GPE may be endogeic, the effects of (2008, pp. 5, 7) found more nonnative the GPE was endemic to the Palouse tilling within the plow zone may not be earthworms in lower pH soils (pH 5.9 to bioregion (Petition, p. 2); the 2009 applicable to the GPE. Edwards and 6.2) in Conservation Reserve Program petition expanded the petitioned area, Bohlen (1996b, p. 215) also stated that (CRP) sites, than in prairie remnants stating that the species is native to the earthworm populations were larger in with higher pH soils (pH 6.3 to 6.6). As Columbia River basin of eastern soil that was not cultivated and had a result, the researchers question Washington and northern Idaho crops drilled directly. No-till agriculture whether it is possible that lower pH (Petition, p. 1). We evaluated the occurs on about five percent of Palouse correlates with some other non- petitioner’s 2006 claim that the species acreage considered in a survey by Hall measured soil parameter, such as may be affected by agricultural practices (1999, p. 15). More tillage destroys previous fertilizer applications and that use chemicals and result in soil burrows, while less tillage leaves resultant increased organic matter compaction, but were unable to verify residues and improves environments for (Sa´nchez-de Leo´n and Johnson-Maynard that these activities presented a threat earthworms (USDA-NRCS 2001, p. 3). 2008, p. 7). (72 FR 57273). Tillage and cultivation impacts to the Ma et al. (1990, p. 75) found different The 2009 petition includes a letter of GPE may vary depending on whether it results: the lower the pH (the more support from Samuel W. James, is has an endogeic or anecic life-history acidic), the smaller the endogeic Biodiversity Institute, University of form. James (2009, p. 3) believes the earthworm populations. The lower pH Kansas (James 2009, pp. 1-4). Mr. James GPE is endogeic, and lives entirely in resulted in larger accumulations of states that he is the only earthworm the soil, feeding on organic matter in organic matter or thatch, indicating taxonomist operating in the United varying stages of decomposition. decreased rates of decomposition and States, and has extensive experience in According to James, a large endogeic microbial mineralization (Ma et al. biodiversity inventory of earthworms. In species is probably more susceptible to 1990, p. 79). A Natural Resource one of the references provided in habitat changes than an anecic species, Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS) support of the 2006 petition, James and that agricultural conversion report states inorganic fertilizers can (1995, p. 12), stated that he can stabilizes soil organic matter at a low have a positive impact on earthworms ‘‘confidently state that nothing is known level, with only the lowest quality and due to increased biomass (USDA-NRCS of the impact of any management most resistant organic matter remaining. 2001, p. 5), but that earthworms do not practice on any Columbia River Basin Because of these low levels of organic thrive in soils with a pH below 5 native earthworm species.’’ material, the GPE could starve, even if (USDA-NRCS 2001, p. 2; Edwards and For purposes of the 2009 petition, it could survive mechanical Lofty 1977, p. 234). In summary, studies James now believes the GPE is endogeic disturbances and chemicals associated regarding earthworms and soil pH and not anecic as he previously thought, with agricultural conversion (James indicate that earthworm response may and states that, ‘‘I have no doubt that 2009, p. 4). vary with species, location, or other Driloeirus americanus is in danger of

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:03 Jul 19, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20JYP1.SGM 20JYP1 wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1 42064 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 20, 2010 / Proposed Rules

extinction’’ (James 2009, p. 1). James that we have very little specific information to document that disease or also states that ‘‘this re-evaluation is information on the GPE in our files. predation presents a threat to the significant to the petition to list D. Nonetheless, in conclusion, we find that continued existence of the GPE. americanus, because a large endogeic the information provided in the D. The Inadequacy of Existing species is probably more susceptible to petition, as well as other information in Regulatory Mechanisms habitat changes than an anecic’’ (James our files, presents substantial scientific 2009, p. 3). This finding fully considers or commercial information indicating Information Provided in the Petition the new information presented by the that the petitioned action may be The petition claims that there are no petitioner. Our review for purposes of a warranted due to the present or Federal, State, or local regulations that 90–day finding is limited to a threatened destruction, modification, or specifically protect the GPE or its determination of whether the curtailment of the species’ habitat or habitat. The Washington Department of information in the petition meets the range. Fish and Wildlife identifies the GPE as ‘‘substantial information’’ threshold. We B. Overutilization for Commercial, a species of concern (WDFW 2009, p. 1), do not conduct additional research at Recreational, Scientific, or Educational although this status does not provide this point, nor do we subject the Purposes any regulatory protection for the petition to rigorous critical review. In summary, our review and the 2009 The petition did not identify species. The petition indicates that the petition indicate there has been overutilization for commercial, Palouse Subbasin Management Plan, extensive agricultural conversion in the recreational, scientific, or educational developed as part of the Northwest Palouse bioregion, and the petition purposes as a potential threat to the Power and Conservation Council review states that similar conversion has taken GPE. In our October 9, 2007, 90–day process for the subbasins in the place in the central Washington area. finding (72 FR 57273) we acknowledged Columbia River Basin, contains three Other threats identified by the petitioner that three GPE individuals were objectives (7, 8, and 15) that are relevant include habitat fragmentation, urban inadvertently killed during research to the GPE and its habitat. Objective 7 development, pesticides, and soil activities. Researchers have yet to find is designed to protect native grassland compaction. The petitioner presents a an efficient survey method that reliably habitat within the Palouse subbasin; reasonable argument that the GPE may finds the GPE without damaging it however, this objective is voluntary in be exposed to the above threats in the (Johnson-Maynard 2009b, p. 7). While nature and does not provide specific entirety of its range or in what may we continue to acknowledge mortality protection for the GPE. Objective 8 is constitute a significant portion of its of several GPE individuals due to designed to restore lost or degraded range (Petition, p. 3). Although the scientific collection, we do not have grassland habitat within the Palouse species’ responses to these threats are population size information indicating subbasin by identifying feasible still undeterminable at this time due to that the loss of three individuals or the opportunities for restoration. This the lack of specific information on the sampling risk in the future may be a objective does not define ‘‘feasible species’ biology and habitat needs, threat to the continued existence of the opportunities,’’ and appears to rely on a James (2009, p. 3) provides a logical species. Therefore, we do not have voluntary approach, which provides no explanation as to why a species like the substantial information indicating that regulatory protection for GPE habitat. GPE may be susceptible to these threats. overutilization for commercial, Objective 15 is designed to increase The limited and fragmented remnant recreational, scientific, or educational wildlife habitat value on agricultural deep-soil habitats in the Palouse purposes may present a threat to the land for focal species; however, it is also bioregion, and the potential impacts to continued existence of the GPE. voluntary in nature and does not provide specific protection for the GPE any GPE from ongoing agriculture C. Disease or Predation activities, including tilling, may or its habitat. negatively impact the species. However, The petition did not identify any The petition states that the Forest the magnitude of these threats could threats to the GPE related to disease or Service, Bureau of Land Management, differ, depending on whether the predation; however, we found some Fish and Wildlife Service, species exhibits an anecic or endogeic relevant information available in our Environmental Protection Agency, and life history. The species may be affected files. Hendrix and Bohlen (2002, p. 802) NOAA Fisheries signed a memorandum by pesticides, although based on the state that imported nonnative of understanding (MOU) agreeing to best available information, we are earthworms may be vectors for plant or implement the Interior Columbia Basin unable to verify or quantify these threats animal pathogens or viruses, but do not Strategy. The MOU commits the at this time. correlate this potential threat to the agencies to use information developed In James (2000, p. 10), the author GPE. Although James (1995, p. 11) states during the Interior Columbia Basin identifies certain research and that predation on earthworms can be Ecosystem Management Project in monitoring priorities, including accentuated by tilling the soil and future planning processes; however, experimentally testing hypotheses of the exposing earthworms to bird predators, neither the MOU nor the accompanying mechanisms through which habitat the correlation to the GPE is strategy specifically mention the GPE or disturbance, exotic species invasions, inconclusive given uncertainties create any regulatory mechanisms to and other human-caused factors may regarding its anecic or endogeic life- provide protections for its habitat affect native (earthworm) species, history form. Because of these (petition p. 15). beginning with those species potentially uncertainties, we are unable to According to the petition, the threatened such as the GPE. In his 2009 determine if the amount of predation regulation of earthworms imported into letter, James states that in his opinion, would rise to the level of a threat to the the United States is based on the the GPE is in danger of extinction species at this time. Other impacts from Federal Plant Pest Act (7 U.S.C. 150aa– (James 2009, p. 1); we have no other agricultural tilling are discussed in more 150jj, May 23, 1957, as amended 1968, expert opinion or conflicting detail under Factor A. In summary, we 1981, 1983, 1988 and 1994), under information in our files in this regard. conclude neither the petition nor which the Animal and Plant Health We acknowledge there are gaps in the information in our files presents Inspection Service controls imports data presented by the petitioner, and substantial scientific or commercial containing soil that might carry

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:03 Jul 19, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20JYP1.SGM 20JYP1 wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 20, 2010 / Proposed Rules 42065

pathogens. The petition cited Hendrix (nonnative) earthworms can invade new important grassland ecosystems of the and Bohlen (2002, p. 809), who state, ‘‘In habitats, change the ecological soil Palouse region, native prairie remnants the absence of pathogens, it appears that functions, and displace native species and CRP set asides. any earthworm species may be (Hendrix and Bohlen 2002, p. 805; One invasive earthworm species imported, that is, there is no specific Petition, p. 16). Earthworm populations (Aporrectodea trapezoides) made up 90 consideration of earthworms as invasive are dominated by nonnative earthworms percent of the total earthworm density organisms.’’ The petition claims that in agricultural sites and native prairie in the paired comparison study regulation has not been effective in remnants in the Palouse region (Fauci (Sa´nchez-de Leo´n and Johnson-Maynard reducing the importation of nonnative and Bezdicek 2002, p. 257; Sa´nchez-de 2008, p. 4). The researchers also earthworm species to the United States Leo´n and Johnson-Maynard 2008, pp. 7– observed that A. trapezoides may from other parts of the world, which 8; Petition p. 16). Habitat conversion compete with GPE for food in upper poses a direct threat to the existence of favors invasion of nonnative earthworm layers of soil (Sa´nchez-de Leo´n and the GPE and other native earthworm species that are better adapted to a Johnson-Maynard 2008, p. 6). One GPE species (see Factor E for more disturbed or degraded environment was found at one of the four prairie information on impacts from nonnative (Petition, p. 16; James 1995, p. 5). Some remnant study sites used for the study. earthworms). exotic earthworm species may be highly The researchers state that the rarity of competitive with a deeper-dwelling native earthworms in their prairie site Evaluation species like the GPE. James (2000, p. 2) surveys lends support for the theory that Information in the petition and states that invasive earthworm species native earthworms are being replaced by available in Service files indicates that present a potential threat to the GPE. He nonnative earthworms, even in visibly there are limited regulatory mechanisms describes the loss of a deep-dwelling intact remnants of fragmented habitats that may be protective of the GPE or its Illinois earthworm species as an (Sa´nchez-de Leo´n and Johnson-Maynard habitat. As we found in Factor A, the example, and states that the GPE is 2008, p. 6). petition provided sufficient information probably endogeic (deep-dwelling) as The researchers also present several indicating the species may be well (James 2009, p. 3). scenarios regarding the GPE and threatened by destruction, modification, We acknowledge that there are nonnative earthworms: The GPE may be or curtailment of its habitat or range substantial weaknesses in extrapolating able to coexist with some species; some from agricultural conversion, habitat data from an Illinois species to the GPE, nonnative species may be replacing the fragmentation, urban development, since we have no information that GPE; or the GPE may remain only in pesticides, and soil compaction. Below, would indicate the responses of the lower quality prairie remnants (shallow in Factor E, we discuss how the Illinois species and the GPE to invasive rocky soils) (Sa´nchez-de Leo´n and petitioner provided sufficient earthworms would be similar. However, Johnson-Maynard 2008, p. 6). The information indicating nonnative since we have no conflicting researchers propose that a combination earthworm species impacts or information in our files on this potential of extensive habitat fragmentation in the competition may also present a threat to threat to the GPE, we are deferring to the Palouse region, low habitat quality of the GPE. Since we determine that the expert’s opinion for purposes of this 90– remaining prairie remnants, and petition provided sufficient information day finding. possible competitive interactions with indicating that both habitat loss and The petitioners also describe the exotic earthworms, decimated GPE introduction of nonnative earthworms existence of introduced annual grasses populations at their study sites may be a threat to the GPE, the and noxious weeds in the Palouse (Sa´nchez-de Leo´n and Johnson-Maynard inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms to region, including: Kentucky bluegrass, 2008, p. 6). The Service agrees with the petitioner control these factors may also be a crops, cheatgrass, and yellow-star thistle that native plant communities in the threat. Although the magnitude of this (Gilmore 2004, pp. 1–87), and assume Palouse are susceptible to invasion by threat is presently indeterminable based these plants do not provide the same nonnative plants (Gilmore 2004, pp. 1- on uncertainties regarding the species’ quality and quantity of earthworm 26; James 2000, p. 8), that domination biology, habitat needs, and its anecic or forage as native vegetation (Petition, p. 17). The petitioners also claim that of deep-soil sites by Kentucky bluegrass endogeic life history, we find that the climate change resulting in changing is common, and that in shallow soils information provided in the petition, as weather patterns will impact the GPE cheatgrass and yellow-star thistle weeds well as other information in our files, (Petition, p. 17), since the amount of compete with native grasslands. presents substantial scientific or annual precipitation is a parameter that However, we have no information from commercial information indicating that influences GPE habitat (Fender & the petitioner or our files that the petitioned action may be warranted McKey-Fender 1990, p. 366). documents a threat to the GPE from due to the inadequacy of existing these nonnative plants. regulatory mechanisms. Evaluation Although the petition expresses a E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Information in the petition and concern about future climate change Affecting the Species’ Continued available in our files indicates that other and its effects on the GPE, it does not Existence natural or manmade factors, including present information or data in this potential nonnative earthworm species regard. The Service evaluated Information Provided in the Petition impacts or competition may present a information available in our files related The petitioners claim that the GPE is threat to the GPE. In a recent study in to this potential threat. Lawler and threatened by invasive nonnative the Palouse region of southeastern Mathias (2007, pp. 19–20) investigated earthworms (Petition, p. 1). In a 3–year Washington and northern Idaho, possible climate change impacts to study of earthworms in the Palouse Sa´nchez-de Leo´n and Johnson-Maynard vascular plants, stating that plants may region of eastern Washington and Idaho, compared four paired sites of prairie mature earlier creating potential Sa´nchez-de Leo´n and Johnson-Maynard remnants and CRP lands (2008, pp. 2, mismatches between pollinators and (2008, p. 8) found a dominance of 8). The main purpose of the study was plants, parasites and hosts, and invasive exotic earthworms in both to characterize and compare native and herbivores and food sources; increased native and nonnative grasslands. Exotic exotic earthworm populations in two summer temperatures and decreased

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:03 Jul 19, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20JYP1.SGM 20JYP1 wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1 42066 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 20, 2010 / Proposed Rules

summer precipitation may lead to Finding petitioned action is warranted after we changes in distribution of some plant On the basis of our determination have completed a thorough status species; sagebrush steppe and under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act, we review of the species, which is grasslands may contract while dry find that the petition presents conducted following a substantial 90– forests and woodlands expand; and substantial scientific or commercial day finding. Because the Act’s standards plant distribution changes will depend information indicating that listing the for 90–day and 12–month findings are in part on plant water-use efficiencies. GPE throughout its entire range may be different, as described above, a Based on the best available information, warranted. This finding is based on substantial 90–day finding does not it is difficult to predict how or if future information provided under factors A, D mean that the 12–month finding will changes in growth or distribution of and E. result in a warranted finding. vegetation will affect local conditions Because we have found that the References Cited for weeds, native vegetation, or both. It petition presents substantial is also unclear how or if this will have information indicating that listing the A complete list of references cited is an adverse or beneficial impact on the GPE may be warranted, we are initiating available on the Internet at http:// GPE or its habitat. a status review to determine whether www.regulations.gov and upon request listing the GPE under the Act is We acknowledge that the magnitude from the Washington Fish and Wildlife warranted. The petition asserts that the of the above threats is uncertain because Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION GPE is also threatened or endangered CONTACT). we lack specific information on the throughout a significant portion of its species’ biology and habitat needs. In range. Accordingly, a significant portion Author addition, the species’ exposure and of the range analysis will be conducted The primary authors of this notice are response would likely differ, depending during the status review if we determine the staff members of the Eastern on whether it exhibits an anecic or that listing the species in its entire range Washington Field Office. endogeic life history. However, we find is not warranted. that the information provided in the The ‘‘substantial information’’ Authority: The authority for this action is petition, as well as other information in standard for a 90–day finding differs the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as our files, presents substantial scientific from the Act’s ‘‘best scientific and amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). or commercial information indicating commercial data’’ standard that applies Dated: July 2, 2010 that the petitioned action may be to a status review to determine whether warranted due to other natural or man- a petitioned action is warranted. A 90– Wendi Weber made factors, in particular due to the day finding does not constitute a status Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service presence of nonnative invasive review under the Act. In a 12–month [FR Doc. 2010–17709 Filed 7–19–10; 8:45 am] earthworms. finding, we will determine whether a BILLING CODE 4310–55–S

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:03 Jul 19, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\20JYP1.SGM 20JYP1 wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with PROPOSALS_PART 1