47536 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 178 / Wednesday, September 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

(2) The amount of the allotment for 

each of the 50 States and the District of 

Columbia, and for each of the 

Commonwealths and Territories (not 

including the additional amount for FY 

2009 determined under paragraph 

(c)(2)(ii) of this section) is equal to the 

product of: 

(i) The percentage determined by 

dividing the amount in paragraph 

(e)(2)(i)(A) by the amount in paragraph 

(e)(2)(i)(B) of this section. 

(A) The amount of the State allotment 

for each of the 50 States and the District 

of Columbia, and for each of the 

Commonwealths and Territories (not 

including the additional amount for FY 

2009 determined under paragraph 

(c)(2)(ii) of this section). 

(B) The sum of the amounts for each 

of the 50 States and the District of 

Columbia, and the Commonwealths and 

Territories in paragraph (e)(2)(i) of this 

section. 

(ii) The total amount available for 

allotment for the fiscal year under 

paragraph (b) of this section 

(f) Allotment increase factor. The 

allotment increase factor for a fiscal year 

is equal to the product of the following: 

(1) Per capita health care growth 

factor. The per capita health care growth 

factor for a fiscal year is equal to 1 plus 

the percentage increase in the projected 

per capita amount of the National 

Health Expenditures from the calendar 

year in which the previous fiscal year 

ends to the calendar year in which the 

fiscal year involved ends, as most 

recently published by CMS before the 

beginning of the fiscal year involved. 

(2) Child Population Growth Factor. 

The child population growth factor for 

a fiscal year is equal to 1 plus the 

percentage increase (if any) in the 

population of children in the State from 

July 1 in the previous fiscal year to July 

1 in the fiscal year involved, as 

determined by CMS based on the most 

recent published estimates of the 

Census Bureau available before the 

beginning of the fiscal year involved 

plus 1 percentage point. For purposes of 

determining the Child Population 

Growth Factor for FY 2009 for the 

Commonwealths and Territories only, in 

applying the previous sentence, ‘‘United 

States’’ is substituted for ‘‘the State’’. 

(g) Increase in State allotment for the 

50 States and the District of Columbia 

for FY 2010 through FY 2013 to account 

for approved program expansions. In 

the case of the 50 States and the District 

of Columbia, the State allotment for FY 

2010 through FY 2013, as determined in 

accordance with the provisions of this 

section, may be increased under the 

following conditions and amounts: 

(1) The State has submitted to the 

Secretary, and has approved by the 

Secretary a State plan amendment or 

waiver request relating to an expansion 

of eligibility for children or benefits 

under title XXI of the Act that becomes 

effective for a fiscal year (beginning 

with FY 2010 and ending with FY 

2013); and 

(2) The State has submitted to the 

Secretary, before the August 31 

preceding the beginning of the fiscal 

year, a request for an expansion 

allotment adjustment under this 

paragraph for such fiscal year that 

specifies— 

(i) The additional expenditures that 

are attributable to the eligibility or 

benefit expansion provided under the 

amendment or waiver described in 

paragraph (g)(1) of this section, as 

certified by the State and submitted to 

the Secretary by not later than August 

31 preceding the beginning of the fiscal 

year; and 

(ii) The extent to which such 

additional expenditures are projected to 

exceed the allotment of the State or 

District for the year. 

(3) Subject to paragraph (e) of this 

section relating to proration, the amount 

of the allotment of the State or District 

under this subsection for such fiscal 

year shall be increased by the excess 

amount described in paragraph (g)(2)(i). 

A State or District may only obtain an 

increase under paragraph (g)(2)(ii) of 

this section for an allotment for FY 2010 

or FY 2012. 

(h) CHIP Fiscal Year Allotment 

Process. As determined by the 

Secretary, the CHIP allotments for a 

fiscal year may be published as 

Preliminary Allotments or Final 

Allotments in the Federal Register. 

§ 457.610 [Amended] 

5. Amend the section heading for 

§ 457.610 by— 

A. Amending the section heading by 

removing the words ‘‘for a fiscal year’’ 

and adding in its place ‘‘prior to FY 

2009’’. 

B. Removing the words ‘‘for a fiscal 

year’’ and add in its place add ‘‘prior to 

FY 2009’’in the first line of the 

paragraph. 

6. Add a new § 457.611 to subpart F 

to read as follows: 

§ 457.611 Period of availability for State 

allotments for a fiscal year after FY 2008. 

The amount of a final allotment for a 

fiscal year after FY 2008, as determined 

under § 457.609 and reduced to reflect 

certain Medicaid expenditures in 

accordance with § 457.616, remains 

available until expended for Federal 

payments based on expenditures 

claimed during a 2-year period of 

availability, beginning with the fiscal 

year of the final allotment and ending 

with the end of the succeeding fiscal 

year following the fiscal year. 

Authority: (Section 1102 of the Social 

Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1302) 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Program No. 93.778, Medical Assistance 

Program) 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Program No. 93.767, State Children’s Health 

Insurance Program)) 

Dated: June 19, 2009. 

Charlene Frizzera, 

Acting Administrator, Centers for Medicare 

& Medicaid Services. 

Approved: July 29, 2009. 

Kathleen Sebelius, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E9–22162 Filed 9–15–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4120–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R1–ES–2008–0073; 

14420–1113–0000–C6] 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a 

Petition to Remove the Bliss Rapids 

Snail (Taylorconcha serpenticola) 

From the List of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition 

finding. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 

12-month finding on a petition to 

remove the Bliss Rapids snail 

(Taylorconcha serpenticola) from the 

Federal List of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife (List) pursuant to 

the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). 

Based on a thorough review of the best 

scientific and commercial data 

available, the species continues to be 

restricted to a small geographic area in 

the middle-Snake River, Idaho, where it 

is dependent upon cool-water spring 

outflows. Although some threats 

identified at the time of listing in 1992 

no longer exist or have been moderated, 

ground water depletion and impaired 

water quality still threaten the Bliss 

Rapids snail. In addition, there are 

significant uncertainties about the 

effects of hydropower operations and 

New Zealand mudsnails on the 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 178 / Wednesday, September 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules 47537 

persistence of Bliss Rapids snails in 

riverine habitats. In the absence of the 

Act’s protections, existing regulations 

are not likely to be sufficient to conserve 

the species. Given our current 

understanding of the species’ 

geographic distribution, habitat 

requirements, and threats, the species 

continues to meet the definition of a 

threatened species under the Act. 

Therefore, we have determined that 

removing the Bliss Rapids snail from the 

List is not warranted at this time. 

DATES: We made the finding announced 

in this document September 16, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: This notice is available on 

the Internet at http://www.fws.gov/idaho 

and at http://www.regulations.gov at 

Docket No. FWS–R1–ES–2008–0073. 

Supporting documentation we used in 

preparing this notice will be available 

for public inspection, by appointment, 

during normal business hours at the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Idaho 

Fish and Wildlife Office, 1387 S. 

Vinnell Way, Room 368, Boise, ID 

87309; telephone (208) 378–5243; 

facsimile (208) 378–5262. New 

information, materials, comments, or 

questions concerning this species may 

be submitted to the Service at the above 

address. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff 

Foss, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Idaho Fish and 

Wildlife Office, (see ADDRESSES section). 

If you use a telecommunications device 

for the deaf (TDD), you may call the 

Federal Information Relay Service 

(FIRS) at 800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Species Information 

The Bliss Rapids snail was first 

collected in 1959 at the Thousand 

Springs Preserve in Idaho’s Snake River 

by Dwight Taylor (57 FR 59244; 

December 14, 1992) and formally 

described by Hershler et al. (Hershler et 

al. 1994, p. 235) as Taylorconcha 

serpenticola in 1994. The Bliss Rapids 

snail grows to approximately 0.08 to 

0.16 inches (2.0 to 4.0 millimeter (mm)) 

in height. The shell is clear to white but 

appears to have two morphs due to 

coloration of the periostracum (the 

shell’s outer layer). The periostracum 

can be very light tan to dark brown-red 

resulting in the ‘‘pale’’ and ‘‘orange’’ 

forms, respectively. The Bliss Rapids 

snail has approximately 3.5 to 4.5 

whorls (turn or curl in the shell) with 

the protoconch (apex or top of the shell) 

comprising about 1.5 whorls. The apex 

(the highest point of the shell) is blunt. 

Bliss rapids snails hatch, reproduce, 

and die in a single year (Hershler et al. 

1994, pp. 239, 240). They are dioecous, 

having strictly male and female 

individuals and may exhibit an 

iteroparous (more than one reproductive 

event in an individual’s lifetime) 

reproductive strategy (Richards 2004, p. 

119). The timing of reproduction 

apparently varies by habitat-type. Egglaying normally occurs in spring 

colonies between December and March, 

while in river colonies egg laying occurs 

in January and February (Hershler et al. 

1994, p. 239). Eggs are laid singly, in 

small capsules attached to the bottoms 

or sides of rocks (Hershler et al. 1994, 

p. 239). Emergence of young typically 

takes place a few weeks after egg 

deposition depending on water 

temperature (Dillon 2000, p. 103), but 

specific timing and temperature 

information is lacking. 

Bliss Rapids snails primarily consume 

epilithic periphyton (diatom films that 

primarily grow on rock surfaces), as do 

many freshwater snails (Richards 

2006b). They may also consume 

quantities of detritus, bacteria, and 

protozoa embedded in the simple sugar 

matrix (i.e., the periphyton) on the 

surfaces of benthic (bottom) substrates. 

Range 

At the time of listing in 1992, the 

distribution of the Bliss Rapids snail 

was thought to be discontinuous over 

204 miles of the Snake River in Idaho, 

between King Hill (river mile (RM) 546) 

and Lower Salmon Falls Dam (RM 573) 

with a disjunct occurrence at RM 749. 

The species’ distribution upstream of 

Upper Salmon Falls Reservoir was 

known to be localized to spring 

complexes (i.e., Thousand Springs (RM 

585), Minnie Miller Springs (RM 585), 

Banbury Springs (RM 589), Niagara 

Springs (RM 599), and Box Canyon 

Springs (RM 588)) (57 FR 59244; 

December 14, 1992). This range was 

based on approximately 14 spring/ 

tributary collection points (Richards et 

al. 2006, p. 33). The reported occurrence 

at RM 749 is now regarded as erroneous 

because: (1) Samples from this 

collection have not been located to 

verify the occurrence (Frest 2002); (2) 

the reported collection site is 150 river 

miles upstream of the known 

distribution of the species (Pentec 1991 

in 57 FR 59244); and, (3) numerous 

collection efforts in and above American 

Falls Reservoir (U.S. Bureau of 

Reclamation (USBR) 2003; USBR 2004; 

USBR 2005; Gregg 2006), and in the 

upper Snake River (Fields 2006) have all 

failed to document the occurrence of the 

species. 

The current known range of the Bliss 

Rapids snail is similar to what was 

described at the time of listing (minus 

the erroneous location at American Falls 

Reservoir). Increased sampling effort has 

documented its presence at many more 

locations within its range. Based on 837 

sample events conducted by the Idaho 

Power Company (IPC), the Bliss Rapids 

snail is documented to occur within the 

non-reservoir sections of the middle 

Snake River from approximately RM 

547 to RM 572, and RM 580 (Richards 

et al. 2006, pp. 33–38). This represents 

a refined distribution since the time of 

listing in 1992 due to more accurate 

survey data. 

Bliss Rapids snails are also known to 

occur in 14 springs or Snake River 

tributary streams (from RM 552.8 to RM 

604.5) derived from cold water springs 

including: Bancroft Springs; Thousand 

Springs and Minnie Miller Springs 

(Thousand Springs Preserve); Banbury 

Springs; Niagara Springs; Crystal 

Springs; Briggs Springs; Blue Heart 

Springs; Box Canyon Creek; Riley Creek; 

Sand Springs Creek; Elison Springs; the 

Malad River; Cove Creek (a tributary to 

the Malad River); and the headwater 

springs to Billingsley Creek (Richards et 

al. 2006, p. 2; USFWS 2008a, p. 6). 

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 

reported finding several Bliss Rapids 

snails at Blue Lakes (approximately 

Snake River mile 610.4) in 1994, but 

surveys of this site in 1996 and 2007 did 

not locate the species (Mebane 2007, 

Grotheer 2008). Over 200 springs or 

spring clusters have been mapped or 

identified on the north side of the Snake 

River canyon (Clark and Ott 1996, p. 

559) where the Bliss Rapids snail has 

been documented to occur. Springs also 

occur on the south side of the Snake 

River canyon (Clark and Ott 1996, p. 

559), but studies conducted by the 

Idaho Power Company (IPC) have not 

observed Bliss Rapids colonies in 

springs or tributaries on the south side 

(Bates and Richards 2008). The species 

is likely present at additional springs on 

private lands that have not been 

sampled (e.g., Hopper 2006b). 

In summary, we now know the Bliss 

Rapids snail to be distributed 

discontinuously over 22 miles, from RM 

547–560, RM 566–572, and at RM 580 

on the Snake River and to occur in 14 

springs or tributaries to the Snake River. 

The area between RM 561–565 

represents reservoir areas where the 

Bliss Rapids snail does not occur. The 

species’ overall geographic range has 

not substantially changed since it was 

first described by Hershler et al. (1994), 

but the species has been detected at 

more locations within its range. 

Habitat Use 

The Bliss Rapids snail occurs in cold 

water springs and spring-fed tributaries 

to the Snake River (hereafter referred to 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
47538 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 178 / Wednesday, September 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

as spring colonies), and in some reaches 

of the Snake River (hereafter referred to 

as river colonies). Available data 

indicate that spring colonies are 

consistently larger, at least in terms of 

density and relative abundance, than 

river colonies (Stephenson and Bean 

2003, pp. 12, 18; Stephenson et al. 2004, 

p. 24; Richards et al. 2006, pp. 97–99). 

The species is absent from reservoirs 

(Hershler et al. 1994, p. 237; Finni 2003, 

p. 28; Richards et al. 2006, p. 35), 

patchily distributed and in low 

densities in the mainstem Snake River 

(Stephenson et al. 2004, pp. 11, 22, 24; 

Richards et al. 2006, p. 37), and 

relatively abundant, though patchily 

distributed in spring habitats 

(Stephenson and Bean 2003, pp. 12, 18; 

Richards 2004, pp. 59–69; Richards et 

al. 2006, p. 37). 

The Bliss Rapids snail is known to 

occur on stable, cobble substrates in 

unimpounded sections of the mainstem 

Snake River (Richards et al. 2006, pp. 

35, 41), on cobble-boulder substrates in 

the Malad River (Stephenson and Clark 

2004, p. 33), and on various substrates 

in several spring complexes 

(Stephenson and Myers 2003, p. 5). The 

species is generally not found in, or on, 

very fine (silt) sediments (Hershler et al. 

1994, p. 237; Richards et al. 2006, p. 23), 

but has been documented infrequently 

on sand and gravel (Stephenson and 

Myers 2003, p. 5), aquatic vegetation 

(Lysne 2006), and coarse woody debris 

(Hopper 2006a, Lysne 2006). A notable 

exception to this characterization of 

habitat use is the presence of Bliss 

Rapids snails on fine sediments (silt/ 

gravel) at the upper pool in Cove Creek 

(Stephenson and Myers 2003, p. 5), a 

cold water spring creek tributary to the 

Malad River. Overall, the cobbleboulder substrate is considered to be the 

dominant habitat type where the Bliss 

Rapids snail is found (Richards et al. 

2006, p. 51). 

Field studies and observations have 

demonstrated that the species uses the 

sides and bottoms of cobbles 

preferentially to the exclusion of cobble 

tops (Richards 2004, pp. 32–34). The 

Bliss Rapids snail is found at various 

water depths in springs ranging from 0.3 

to 3 feet (0.1–1 meters (m)), and in 

spring-fed tributary habitats ranging 

from 0.07 to 3.35 feet (0.02–1.02 m) 

(Stephenson and Myers 2003, pp. 23– 

35; Stephenson and Clark 2004, p. 32). 

This species has also been documented 

to occur at depths up to 20 feet (6.1 m) 

in the mainstem Snake River (Richards 

et al. 2006, p. 52). Most Bliss Rapids 

snails are found in less than 3 feet (0.9 

m) of water (Richards et al. 2006, p. 43) 

but this could be due to sampling effort. 

The Bliss Rapids snail has been 

collected in water temperatures ranging 

from 44.6 to 69.8 degrees Fahrenheit (F) 

(7 to 21 degrees Celsius (C)) (Finni 2003, 

p. 14; Clark et al. 2005, p. 55), but is 

generally found in water temperatures 

between 59 and 60.8 degrees F (15 and 

16 degrees C) (Hershler et al. 1994, p. 

237). Richards et al. (2001, p. 377) 

collected Bliss Rapids snails from 

Banbury Springs in thermally constant 

waters measuring 55.2 to 61.5 degrees F 

(12.9 to 16.4 degrees C), and Stephenson 

and Clark (2004, p. 32) collected the 

species from the Malad River in water 

measuring 57.2 to 59.0 degrees F (14 to 

15 degrees C). 

Richards et al. (2006, pp. 39–51) 

analyzed the physio-chemical data from 

all IPC collections in river, spring, and 

spring-influenced sites and determined 

the probability of encountering Bliss 

Rapids snails for various parameters. 

The best predictors of Bliss Rapids snail 

presence (i.e., having statistically 

significant regression values based on 

large samples), in order of significance, 

were dominant substrate, conductivity 

(a measure of total dissolved solids), 

depth, dissolved oxygen, and 

temperature (Richards et al. 2006, p. 

41). 

In summary, based on available 

information, the Bliss Rapids snail 

occurs in riverine and spring or springinfluenced habitats but is not known to 

occur in reservoir habitats. It is known 

from the Snake River (22 miles), the 

Malad River (1 mile), Cove Creek (0.4 

mile), and in 14 springs. In the Snake 

River the species is predominately 

associated with cobble-boulder 

substrates; substrate use in spring 

complexes is more variable. The species 

is generally not found in, or on, very 

fine sediments. It has been collected at 

various water depths in springs ranging 

from 0.3 to 3 feet (0.1–0.9 m), and in 

spring-fed tributary habitats ranging 

0.07 to 3.35 feet (0.02–1.02 m). This 

species has also been documented to 

occur at depths up to 20 feet (6.1 m) in 

the mainstem Snake River. Most Bliss 

Rapids snails are found in less than 3 

feet (0.9 m) of water, but this may be an 

artifact of sampling effort rather than 

true habitat selection. The species has 

been observed in water temperatures 

ranging from 44.6 to 69.8 degrees F (7 

to 21 degrees C), but is generally found 

in water temperatures between 59 and 

60.8 degrees F (15 and 16 degrees C). 

Densities and Relative Abundance 

It is difficult to estimate the density 

and relative abundance of Bliss Rapids 

snail colonies. The species is 

documented to reach high densities in 

cold-water springs and tributaries in the 

Hagerman reach of the middle Snake 

River (Stephenson and Bean 2003, pp. 

12, 18; Stephenson et al. 2004, p. 24), 

whereas colonies in the mainstem Snake 

River (Stephenson and Bean 2003, p. 27; 

Stephenson et al. 2004, p. 24) tend to 

have lower densities (Richards et al. 

2006, p. 37). Bliss Rapids snail densities 

in Banbury Springs averaged 

approximately 32.53 snails per square 

foot (350 snails per square meter) on 

three habitat types (vegetation, edge, 

and run habitat as defined by Richards 

et al. 2001, p. 379). Densities greater 

than 790 snails per square foot (5,800 

snails per square meter) have been 

documented at the outlet of Banbury 

Springs (Morgan Lake outlet) (Richards 

et al. 2006, p. 99). 

In an effort to account for the high 

variability in snail densities and their 

patchy distribution, researchers have 

used predictive models to give more 

accurate estimates of population size in 

a given area (Richards 2004, p. 58). In 

the most robust study to date, predictive 

models estimated between 200,000 and 

240,000 Bliss Rapids snails in a study 

area measuring 58.1 square feet (625 

square meters) in Banbury Springs, the 

largest known colony (Richards 2004, p. 

59). Due to data limitations, this model 

has not been used to extrapolate 

population estimates to other spring 

complexes, tributary streams, or 

mainstem Snake River colonies. 

However, with few exceptions (i.e., 

Thousand Springs and Box Canyon), 

Bliss Rapids snail colonies are much 

smaller in areal extent than the colony 

at Banbury Springs, occupying only a 

few square feet. 

Previous Federal Actions 

The Service listed the Bliss Rapids 

snail as threatened on December 14, 

1992 (57 FR 59244). At that time it was 

an undescribed monotypic genus in the 

family Hydrobiidae. Subsequent 

research in 1994 formalized its 

taxonomic status and its scientific 

name—Taylorconcha serpenticola 

(Hershler et al. 1994). 

Based on the best available data at the 

time of listing, we determined that the 

Bliss Rapids snail was threatened by: 

proposed construction of new 

hydropower dams, the operation of 

existing hydropower dams, degraded 

water quality, water diversions, the 

introduced New Zealand mudsnail 

(Potamopyrgus antipodarum), and the 

lack of existing regulatory protections 

(57 FR 59244). In 1995, we published 

the Snake River Aquatic Species 

Recovery Plan (Plan), which included 

the Bliss Rapids snail (USFWS 1995). 

Critical habitat has not been designated 

for this species. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 178 / Wednesday, September 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules 47539 

On July 27, 2004, we initiated a 5-year 

status review for the species in 

accordance with section 4(c)(2) of the 

Act (69 FR 44676). On December 26, 

2006, the Service received a petition 

from the Governor of Idaho and IPC 

requesting that the Bliss Rapids snail be 

removed from the List. On June 6, 2007, 

the Service published a Federal Register 

notice announcing that the petition 

presented substantial scientific 

information indicating that removing 

the Bliss Rapids snail from the List may 

be warranted, and the initiation of a 12- 

month status review of the species to be 

conducted concurrent with our 5-year 

status review (72 FR 31250). A 30-day 

peer review was completed in January 

2008, on the draft status review 

document of the best available 

information and scientific literature 

(USFWS 2008a). 

As part of the 12-month status review, 

we used a structured decision analysis 

process (USFWS 2008b) to assist us in 

making our 12-month finding. A 

component of the structured decision 

analysis was the formation of an expert 

scientific review panel that provided us 

with information regarding the current 

status of the species and primary 

threats. The Service reopened the public 

comment period on its 90-day finding 

from August 12 to August 27, 2008 (73 

FR 46867), to allow the public to access 

and provide comments on the scientific 

review panel’s results and other 

documents. No additional comments 

were received. 

Summary of Factors Affecting the 

Species 

Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533 

et seq.) and implementing regulations 

(50 CFR part 424) set forth procedures 

for adding species to, removing species 

from, or reclassifying species on the 

Federal List of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife. Section 4(b)(3)(A) 

of the Act requires that for any petition 

containing substantial scientific and 

commercial information that listing, 

delisting, or reclassification may be 

warranted, we make a finding within 12 

months of receiving the petition, on 

whether the petitioned action is: (a) Not 

warranted; (b) warranted; or (c) 

warranted, but that immediate proposal 

of a regulation implementing the 

petitioned action is precluded by other 

pending proposals to determine whether 

other species are threatened or 

endangered. 

Under section 4 of the Act, a species 

may be determined to be endangered or 

threatened on the basis of any of the 

following five factors: (A) The present or 

threatened destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) 

overutilization for commercial, 

recreation, scientific, or educational 

purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) 

the inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms; or (E) other natural or 

manmade factors affecting its continued 

existence. We must consider these same 

five factors in delisting a species. We 

may delist a species according to 50 

CFR 424.11(d) if the best available 

scientific and commercial data indicate 

that the species is neither endangered 

nor threatened for the following reasons: 

(1) The species is extinct; (2) the species 

has recovered and is no longer 

endangered or threatened; or (3) the 

original scientific data used at the time 

the species was classified were in error. 

A species is ‘‘endangered’’ for 

purposes of the Act if it is in danger of 

extinction throughout all or ‘‘a 

significant portion of its range’’ and is 

‘‘threatened’’ if it is likely to become 

endangered within the foreseeable 

future throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range. The word ‘‘range’’ 

in the significant portion of its range 

(SPR) phrase refers to the range in 

which the species currently exists. The 

word ‘‘significant’’ in the SPR phrase 

refers to the value of that portion to the 

conservation of the species. For the 

purposes of this analysis, we will 

evaluate whether the currently listed 

species, the Bliss Rapids snail, should 

be considered threatened or endangered. 

Then we will consider whether there are 

any portions of the species’ range in 

which it is in danger of extinction or 

likely to become endangered within the 

foreseeable future. 

Factor A. The Present or Threatened 

Destruction, Modification, or 

Curtailment of the Species’ Habitat or 

Range 

Construction of New Hydropower Dams 

In our 1992 final rule listing the Bliss 

Rapids snail as a threatened species, we 

stated: ‘‘Six proposed hydroelectric 

projects, including two high dam 

facilities, would alter free flowing river 

reaches within the existing range of [the 

Bliss Rapids snail]. Dam construction 

threatens the [Bliss Rapids snail] 

through direct habitat modification and 

moderates the Snake River’s ability to 

assimilate point and non-point 

pollution. Further hydroelectric 

development along the Snake River 

would inundate existing mollusk 

habitats through impoundment, reduce 

critical shallow, littoral shoreline 

habitats in tailwater areas due to 

operating water fluctuations, elevate 

water temperatures, reduce dissolved 

oxygen levels in impounded sediments, 

and further fragment remaining 

mainstem populations or colonies of 

[the Bliss Rapids snail]’’ (57 FR 59251). 

Proposed hydroelectric projects 

discussed in the 1992 final listing rule 

are no longer moving forward. The A.J. 

Wiley project and Dike Hydro Partners 

preliminary permits have lapsed; the 

Kanaka Rapids, Empire Rapids, and 

Boulder Rapids permits were denied by 

the Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission (FERC) in 1995; there was 

a notice of surrender of the preliminary 

permit for the River Side Project in 

2002; and two other proposed projects, 

the Eagle Rock and Star Falls 

Hydroelectric Projects, were denied 

preliminary permits by the FERC. In 

2003, a notice was provided of 

surrender of the preliminary permit for 

the Auger Falls Project. Information 

provided by the State of Idaho indicates 

that all proposals and preliminary 

permits for the construction of new 

dams along the mid-Snake River have 

either lapsed or been denied by the 

FERC (Caswell 2006). 

Operation of Existing Hydropower Dams 

In the December 14, 1992, final listing 

rule we stated: ‘‘Peak-loading, the 

practice of artificially raising and 

lowering river levels to meet short-term 

electrical needs by local run-of-the-river 

hydroelectric projects also threatens [the 

Bliss Rapids snail]. Peak-loading is a 

frequent and sporadic practice that 

results in dewatering mollusk habitats 

in shallow, littoral shoreline areas 

* * * these diurnal water fluctuations 

[prevent the Bliss Rapids snail] from 

occupying the most favorable habitats’’ 

(57 FR 59252). The Bliss Rapids snail 

occurs in riverine and spring or springinfluenced habitats but is not known to 

occur in reservoir habitats. Peak loading 

operations within the range of river 

colonies of the Bliss Rapids snail occur 

below the Bliss Dam (RM 560) and the 

Lower Salmon Falls Dam (RM 573) 

(USFWS 2004, pp. 19, 20). For example, 

at the Bliss Dam (Stephenson and Bean 

2003, p. 30) the Snake River can 

experience daily fluctuation of water 

levels from hydropower generating 

activities (peak loading) up to 7 feet (2.1 

m). It appears that Bliss Rapids snails 

are found primarily in areas less than 3 

feet (0.9 m) deep, although this may be 

an artifact of more intensive sampling at 

shallow depths (Richards et al. 2006, 

pp. 43, 52–56). Nevertheless, our 

current understanding based on the best 

available information, is that a majority 

of Bliss Rapids snails in the Snake River 

occupy shallow water. Furthermore, 

Bliss Rapids snails in these shallowwater areas are susceptible to the effects 

from peak loading operations, including 

desiccation and freezing when water 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
47540 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 178 / Wednesday, September 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

levels drop and expose snails to 

atmospheric conditions. 

Laboratory studies have shown that 

peak-loading during winter months, a 

time when the species is reproducing, is 

likely to result in mortality of individual 

Bliss Rapids snails. Air temperatures 

within the range of Bliss Rapids snails 

in Idaho regularly fall below 32 degrees 

F (0 degrees C) between November and 

March (Richards 2006a, p. 28). In a 

laboratory study conducted by Richards 

(2006a, p. 12), half of the Bliss Rapids 

snails subjected to a temperature of 19 

degrees F (minus 7 degrees C) died in 

less than an hour. In a field study, 

Richards (unpublished data, cited in 

Richards et al. 2006, pp. 125–126) found 

that Bliss Rapids snails could survive 

for many hours to several days in moist 

conditions (i.e., undersides of cobbles) 

and when air temperatures were above 

freezing (32 degrees F (0 degrees C)) 

(Richards et al. 2006, p. 125). Although 

the mortality rate outside of these 

conditions has not been documented in 

field studies or after an actual peak 

loading event, work by other 

researchers, utilizing laboratorycontrolled aquaria, found Bliss Rapids 

snail mortality to be up to 100 percent 

under conditions characteristic (winter 

low and summer high temperatures) of 

some hydropower operations in the 

middle Snake River (Richards and 

Kerans 2007, p. 4). Based on the above 

information, peak loading likely affects 

individual Bliss Rapids snails through 

desiccation and freezing but the effects 

of peak loading on the survival of Bliss 

Rapids snail colonies in riverine 

habitats is unknown at this time. 

Degraded Water Quality 

In the 1992 final listing rule we 

stated: ‘‘The quality of water in [snail] 

habitats has a direct effect on the 

species survival. The [Bliss Rapids 

snail] require[s] cold, well-oxygenated 

unpolluted water for survival. Any 

factor that leads to deterioration in 

water quality would likely extirpate [the 

Bliss Rapids snail]’’ (57 FR 59252). New 

information has become available 

indicating some improvements to Snake 

River water quality. Significant nutrient 

and sediment reduction has occurred in 

the Snake River following 

implementation of the Idaho Nutrient 

Management Act and regulated Total 

Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) 

reductions from the mid-1990s to the 

present (Richards et al. 2006, pp. 5–6, 

86). The Mid-Snake River reach also 

receives a large infusion of clean, coldwater spring flows and supports the 

highest densities and occurrence of 

Bliss Rapids snails. 

Hypereutrophy (planktonic algal 

blooms and nuisance rooted aquatic 

plant growths), prior to listing in 1992, 

was very severe during drought cycles 

when deposition of sediments and 

organic matter blanketed river substrate 

often resulting in unsuitable habitat 

conditions for Bliss Rapids snails. 

Although some nutrient and sediment 

reduction has been documented in the 

Snake River since listing (Richards et al. 

2006, p. 5), there are still large inflows 

of agriculture and aquaculture runoff 

entering the river at Twin Falls to Lower 

Salmon Falls dam (RM 573). As a result, 

nutrient and sediment concentrations 

can be relatively high in this portion of 

the river, especially during lower 

summer flows (Richards et al. 2006, p. 

91). 

Phosphorus concentrations, the key 

nutrient leading to hypereutrophic 

conditions in the middle Snake River, 

exceeded Environmental Protection 

Agency (USEPA) guidelines for the 

control of nuisance algae at numerous 

locations along the Snake River from 

1989 to 2002, including areas 

immediately upstream of Bliss Rapids 

snail colonies (Hardy et al. 2005, p. 13). 

Several water quality assessments have 

been completed by the USEPA, USBR, 

and IPC, and all generally agree that 

water quality in the Snake River of 

southern Idaho meets Idaho water 

quality standards for aquatic life for 

some months of the year, but may not 

meet these standards when 

temperatures are high and flows are low 

(Meitl 2002, p. 33). Idaho Department of 

Environmental Quality’s (IDEQ) 2005 

performance and progress report to the 

USEPA states that projects are meeting 

the Idaho non-point source pollution 

program goals (IDEQ 2006, 115 pp.). 

Others report that water quality has not 

improved appreciably between 1989 

and 2002 (Hardy et al. 2005, pp. 19–21, 

49, 51). 

Several reaches of the Snake River are 

classified as water-quality-impaired due 

to the presence of one or more 

pollutants (e.g., Total Phosphorus (TP), 

sediments (TSS), total coliforms) in 

excess of State or Federal guidelines. 

Nutrient-enriched waters primarily 

enter the Snake River via springs, 

tributaries, fish farm effluents, 

municipal waste treatment facilities, 

and irrigation returns (USEPA 2002, pp. 

4–18 to 4–24). Irrigation water returned 

to rivers is generally warmer, contains 

pesticides or pesticide byproducts, has 

been enriched with nutrients from fish 

farms and land-based agriculture (e.g., 

nitrogen and phosphorous), and 

frequently contains elevated sediment 

loads. Pollutants in fish farm effluent 

include nutrients derived from 

metabolic wastes of the fish and 

unconsumed fish food, disinfectants, 

bacteria, and residual quantities of 

drugs used to control disease outbreaks. 

Furthermore, elevated levels of fine 

sediments, nitrogen, and trace elements 

(including cadmium, chromium, 

copper, lead, and zinc), have been 

measured immediately downstream of 

several aquaculture discharges (Hinson 

2003, pp. 44–45). Additionally, 

concentrations of lead, cadmium, and 

arsenic have been previously detected 

in snails collected during a research 

study in the Snake River (Richards 

2002). The effects of these elevated 

levels of nutrients and trace elements on 

Bliss Rapids snails, both individually 

and synergistically, are not fully 

understood. However, studies have 

shown another native Snake River snail, 

the Jackson Lake springsnail 

(Pyrgulopsis robusta), to be relatively 

sensitive to copper (a common 

component in algaecides) and 

pentachlorophenol, a restricted use 

pesticide/wood preservative (Ingersoll 

2006), and Bliss Rapids snails are 

known to be highly sensitive to copper, 

ammonia, and pentachlorophenol 

(Besser et al. 2008). 

Water Diversions and Ground Water 

Withdrawals 

Threats to cold water springinfluenced habitats from ground water 

withdrawal and diversions for irrigation 

and aquaculture are not as they were 

perceived when the Bliss Rapids snail 

was listed in 1992. At the time the 

species was listed in 1992, the threat 

from ground water withdrawal was 

identified only at Box Canyon, and the 

scope of this threat was underestimated. 

Based on the best available data, we 

now know that this threat is likely to 

affect the Bliss Rapids snail throughout 

its range. In concert with the historical 

losses of habitat to surface diversions of 

spring water for irrigation and 

aquaculture, the continuing decline of 

the groundwater aquifer is one of the 

primary threats to the long-term 

viability of the Bliss Rapids snail. 

Average annual spring flows 

increased from about 4,400 cubic feet 

per second (cfs) in 1910, to 

approximately 6,500 cfs in the early 

1960s, because widespread flood 

irrigation caused artificial recharge of 

the aquifer (Richards et al. 2006, pp. 84, 

87). As a result of more efficient 

irrigation practices from 1960 to the 

present (i.e., switching from flood 

irrigation or direct surface diversion to 

more efficient center-pivot irrigation 

systems utilizing ground water), more 

water was pumped from the aquifer 

while water percolation into the aquifer 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 178 / Wednesday, September 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules 47541 

declined, resulting in declines (from the 

high values of the 1960s) in average 

annual spring flows to about 5,000 cfs 

(Richards et al. 2006, pp. 84, 87). 

Although the current spring flow levels 

are total about 15 percent higher than 

average spring flows measured in 1910, 

they are declining. We anticipate spring 

flows will likely continue to decline in 

the near future, even as waterconservation measures are implemented 

and are being developed as water 

demands in the vicinity continue to 

increase (USFWS 2008b). 

The State of Idaho has taken steps to 

improve ground water recharge and 

limit new ground water development 

within the eastern Snake River plain; 

however, the Snake River Plain aquifer 

level continues to decline (USFWS 

2008b). Effects from the over-allocation 

of ground water and the subsequent 

declining ground water levels appear to 

be more of a threat than previously 

thought. Evidence indicates that springs 

from the Eastern Snake River Aquifer 

where the Bliss Rapids snail resides 

depend on ground water levels and that 

the ground water levels are declining 

(USFWS 2008b) even with ongoing 

measures attempting to address the 

decline (Caswell 2007). Spring sites are 

important since Bliss Rapids snail 

colonies that occur in springs have been 

shown to be a source of genetic diversity 

to riverine colonies and to contain four 

times as many private (i.e., unique) 

alleles (n=16) compared to riverine 

populations (Liu and Hershler 2009, p. 

1296). Colonies in springs or at their 

outflows are also the most dense, may 

account for most of the reproductive 

output of the species, and likely act as 

refugia from competition with invasive 

New Zealand mudsnails (see Factor E, 

below). Finally, if spring colonies are 

lost, particularly those at the upstream 

end of the species’ distribution, the 

probability of recolonization is likely to 

be extremely small (USFWS 2008b). 

Summary of Factor A: Our 

understanding of the threats to the Bliss 

Rapids snail has changed since we 

listed the species in 1992. Some threats 

are now known to be removed (i.e., new 

hydropower dam construction) while 

other threats have emerged (i.e., 

depletion of groundwater that supports 

the spring colonies). All proposals for 

the construction of new hydropower 

dams have either expired or been 

withdrawn. The Bliss Rapids snail 

occurs in riverine and spring or springinfluenced habitats, but is not known to 

occur in reservoir habitats. Some 

colonies of Bliss Rapids snails are 

known to occur in shallow-water areas 

that are susceptible to peak loading 

operations (i.e., below the Bliss Dam 

(RM 560) and the Lower Salmon Falls 

Dam (RM 573)). Individual snails may 

be affected by desiccation and freezing 

when water levels drop and expose 

snails to atmospheric conditions, but 

the effects on these colonies are 

unknown. Water quality appears to have 

improved in the Snake River, but new 

research has indicated that the species 

is sensitive to the toxic effects of some 

aquatic contaminants such as copper, 

which is known to be used in 

aquaculture and discharged from 

facilities into the Snake River. Springs 

or spring-influenced habitats are 

vulnerable from the effects of ongoing 

and anticipated future ground water 

depletion and degraded ground water 

quality. Spring flows at several 

occupied spring sites have been 

declining due to continued ground 

water withdrawal from the Eastern 

Snake River Plain Aquifer. If spring 

colonies are lost, it is unlikely that areas 

would be recolonized and a loss of 

occupied springs may reduce genetic 

diversity and eliminate rare alleles. 

Spring colonies are also important as 

they may provide refugia from 

competition with New Zealand 

mudsnails (see Factor E, below). 

Therefore, destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of the Bliss Rapids snail’s 

habitat or range is an ongoing primary 

threat to the Bliss Rapids snail that is 

likely to contribute to the species 

becoming endangered in the foreseeable 

future. 

Factor B. Overutilization for 

Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 

Educational Purposes 

Based on the best available scientific 

and commercial information, we believe 

that overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific or educational 

purposes is not currently placing the 

Bliss Rapids snail in danger of 

extinction, and is not likely to result in 

the endangerment or extinction of the 

species in the foreseeable future. There 

is no known commercial or recreational 

use of the species and collections for 

scientific or educational purposes are 

likely limited in scope and extent. 

While collection could result in 

mortality of individuals within a small 

area, it is unlikely to have a population 

level effect because only a few 

individuals and institutions are 

interested in collecting a small number 

of individuals of the species. 

Factor C. Disease or Predation 

Parasitic trematodes similar to those 

of the genus Microphallus have been 

identified in some freshwater snails in 

Idaho (e.g., Pyrgulopsis robusta); 

however, the occurrence of trematode 

parasites in Bliss Rapids snail has not 

been studied (Dybdahl et al. 2005, p. 8). 

Predators of the Bliss Rapids snail 

have not been documented, but we 

assume that some predation by native 

and nonnative species occurs. Predation 

on aquatic snails by crayfish and fish is 

well documented (Lodge et al. 1994, p. 

1265; Martin et al. 1992, p. 476; Merrick 

et al. 1992, p. 225; Lodge et al. 1998, p. 

53). 

Based on the best available scientific 

and commercial information, disease or 

predation is not currently threatening 

the viability of the Bliss Rapids snail 

and is not expected to threaten its 

viability in the foreseeable future. 

Factor D. Inadequacy of Existing 

Regulatory Mechanisms 

In the 1992 final listing rule, we 

found inadequate regulatory 

mechanisms to be a threat because: (1) 

Regulations were inadequate to curb 

further water withdrawal from ground 

water spring outflows or tributary spring 

streams; (2) it was unlikely that 

pollution control regulations would 

reverse the trend in nutrient loading in 

the near future; (3) there was a lack of 

State-mandated protections for 

invertebrate species in Idaho; and (4) 

regulations did not require FERC or the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to address 

Service concerns regarding licensing 

hydroelectric projects or permitting 

projects under the Clean Water Act 

(CWA) for unlisted snails. Below, we 

address each of these concerns in turn. 

Ground Water Withdrawal Regulations 

The Idaho Department of Water 

Resources (IDWR) manages water in the 

State of Idaho. Among the IDWR’s 

responsibilities is the development of 

the State Water Plan (IDWR 2006a). The 

State Water Plan was updated in 1996 

and included a table of Federally 

threatened and endangered species in 

Idaho, such as the Bliss Rapids snail. 

The State Water Plan outlines objectives 

for the conservation, development, 

management, and optimum use of all 

unappropriated waters in the State. One 

of these objectives is to ‘‘maintain, and 

where possible enhance water quality 

and water-related habitats’’ (IDWR 

2006a). It is the intent of the State Water 

Plan that any water savings realized by 

conservation or improved efficiencies is 

appropriated to other beneficial uses 

(e.g., agriculture, hydropower, or fish 

and wildlife). 

Another IDWR regulatory mechanism 

is the ability of the Idaho Water 

Resource Board to designate ‘‘in-stream 

flows’’ (IDWR 2006b). The IDWR 

currently has 89 licensed water rights 

for minimum in-stream flows in Idaho 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
47542 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 178 / Wednesday, September 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

(IDWR 2006b). Of these, 11 potentially 

have conservation benefits for Bliss 

Rapids snails (i.e., provide for minimum 

in-stream flows near tributary spring 

outflows that provide habitat for Bliss 

Rapids snails). However, individuals 

that hold water rights with earlier 

priority dates have the right to fill their 

needs before the minimum stream flow 

is considered. If there is not enough 

water available to satisfy all of the water 

rights, then the senior water rights are 

satisfied first, and so on in order, until 

there is no water left. It is the junior 

water right holders that do not get water 

when there is not enough to satisfy all 

the water rights. Senior diversions can 

legally dewater the stream in a drought 

year or when low flows occur, leaving 

no water for the minimum stream flow 

(IDWR 2009), therefore impacting 

species such as the Bliss Rapids snail. 

The IDWR and other State agencies 

have also created additional regulatory 

mechanisms that limit future surface 

and ground water development; they 

include the continuation of various 

moratoria on new consumptive water 

rights and the designation of Water 

Management Districts (Caswell 2007). 

The State is attempting to stabilize 

aquifer levels and enhance cold water 

spring outflows from the Eastern Snake 

River Plain by implementing water 

conservation measures to be proposed 

in the Comprehensive Aquifer 

Management Plan (CAMP) for this area 

(Barker et al. 2007). The goal of the 

CAMP is to ‘‘sustain the economic 

viability and social and environmental 

health of the Eastern Snake Plain by 

adaptively managing a balance between 

water use and supplies.’’ The CAMP 

will include several alternatives in an 

attempt to increase water supply, reduce 

withdrawals from the aquifer, and 

decrease overall demand for 

groundwater (Barker et al. 2007). 

In addition, the State of Idaho 

established moratoria in 1993 (the year 

after listing of the Bliss Rapids snail) 

that restricted further surface-water and 

groundwater withdrawals for 

consumptive uses from the Snake River 

Plain aquifer between American Falls 

Reservoir and C.J. Strike Reservoir. The 

1993 moratoria were extended by 

Executive Order in 2004 (Caswell 2006, 

attachment 1). However, these actions 

have not yet resulted in stabilization of 

aquifer levels. Depletion of spring flows 

and declining groundwater levels are a 

collective effect of drought conditions, 

changes in irrigation practices (the use 

of central-pivot sprinklers contribute 

little to groundwater recharge), and 

groundwater pumping (University of 

Idaho 2007). The effects of groundwater 

pumping downstream in the aquifer can 

affect the upper reaches of the aquifer, 

and the effects of groundwater pumping 

can continue for decades after pumping 

ceases (University of Idaho 2007). 

Thus, we anticipate groundwater 

levels will likely continue to decline in 

the near future, even as waterconservation measures are 

implemented, and are being developed. 

Furthermore, species associated with 

these springs that are dependent upon 

the presence of water, such as the Bliss 

Rapids snail, will likely experience 

local extinctions without the 

opportunity for recolonization (USFWS 

2008b). Loss of a colony from any 

individual habitat patch, without 

subsequent recolonization, increases the 

extinction risk for the species as a 

whole, a phenomenon dubbed the 

‘‘extinction ratchet’’ (Burkey and Reed 

2006, p. 11). 

Pollution Control Regulations 

Since the 1992 final listing rule, 

reductions in TSS and TP loading have 

improved water quality in localized 

reaches of the Snake River (Buhidar 

2005) (see Factor A above). Various 

State-managed water quality programs 

are being implemented within the range 

of the Bliss Rapids snail. These 

programs are tiered off the Clean Water 

Act (CWA), which requires States to 

establish water-quality standards that 

provide for (1) the protection and 

propagation of fish, shellfish, and 

wildlife, and (2) recreation in and on the 

water. As required by the CWA, Idaho 

has established water-quality standards 

(e.g., for water temperature and 

dissolved oxygen) for the protection of 

cold-water biota (e.g., invertebrate 

species) in many reaches of the Snake 

River. The CWA also specifies that 

States must include an antidegradation 

policy in their water quality regulations 

that protects water-body uses and highquality waters. Idaho’s antidegradation 

policy, updated in the State’s 1993 

triennial review, is detailed in their 

Water Quality Standards (IDEQ 2009). 

The IDEQ works closely with the 

USEPA to manage point and non-point 

sources of pollution to water bodies of 

the State through the National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 

program under the CWA. IDEQ has not 

been granted authority by the USEPA to 

issue NPDES permits directly; all 

NPDES permits are issued by the 

USEPA Region 10 (USEPA 2009). These 

NPDES permits are written to meet all 

applicable water-quality standards 

established for a water body to protect 

human health and aquatic life. Waters 

that do not meet water-quality standards 

due to point and non-point sources of 

pollution are listed on EPA’s 303(d) list 

of impaired water bodies. States must 

submit to EPA a 303(d) list (waterquality-limited waters) and a 305(b) 

report (status of the State’s waters) every 

2 years. IDEQ, under authority of the 

State Nutrient Management Act, is 

coordinating efforts to identify and 

quantify contributing sources of 

pollutants (including nutrient and 

sediment loading) to the Snake River 

basin via the Total Maximum Daily 

Load (TMDL) approach. In water bodies 

that are currently not meeting waterquality standards, the TMDL approach 

applies pollution-control strategies 

through several of the following 

programs: State Agricultural Water 

Quality Program, Clean Water Act 

section 401 Certification, BLM Resource 

Management plans, the State Water 

Plan, and local ordinances. Several 

TMDLs have been approved by the 

USEPA in stream segments within the 

range of the Bliss Rapids snail in the 

Snake River or its tributaries (Buhidar 

2006), although most apply only to TSS, 

TP, or temperature. Therefore, these 

stream segments do not yet have water 

quality attributes that are protective of 

the Bliss Rapids snail until the TMDL 

approach has sufficient time to bring the 

stream segment water quality in line 

with approved standards. 

State Invertebrate Species Regulations 

There has been no change in State 

regulations regarding invertebrate 

protections since the time of listing. 

Take of Bliss Rapids snails is not 

regulated under Idaho State law. 

Federal Consultation Regulations 

In Idaho, the USEPA retains authority 

for the issuance of permits through the 

NPDES, which is designed to manage 

point source discharges. There are 

presently more than 80 licensed 

aquaculture facilities on the Snake River 

permitted by the USEPA (USEPA 2002, 

pp. 4–19, 4–20). Updated draft permits 

for aquaculture and fish processing 

facilities throughout Idaho have recently 

been made available for public review 

(71 FR 35269). Draft permits have been 

issued for aquaculture facilities on 

Billingsley Creek, Riley Creek, Niagara 

Springs, and Thousands Springs, all 

within the known range of the Bliss 

Rapids snail. Facilities that produce less 

than 20,000 pounds (9,072 kilograms) of 

fish annually are not required to obtain 

an NPDES permit (USEPA 2006, p. 3– 

1). These smaller facilities lie outside of 

this regulatory nexus, and as such their 

discharges are not regulated or reported. 

Since the species was listed in 1992, 

Federal agencies, including the Army 

Corps of Engineers and the FERC, have 

been required to comply with section 7 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 178 / Wednesday, September 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules 47543 

of the Act on any projects or managed 

activities that may affect the Bliss 

Rapids snail. If the species is delisted, 

terms and conditions now required of 

these agencies and their applicants to 

reduce the effects of their actions on the 

Bliss Rapids snail, such as placing 

conservation measures into agency 

permits, would not be required (e.g., see 

USFWS 2007). Currently, IPC and the 

Service are cooperating in a Settlement 

Agreement (Agreement) approved by the 

FERC. This Agreement was designed to 

assess potential effects of the IPC’s 

operations in the Wiley and Dike 

Reaches, and was approved as part of 

the biological opinion and license 

issuance for the Lower Salmon Falls and 

Bliss Projects. These studies and their 

analyses are scheduled to be completed 

in 2009. 

The BLM manages more than 260 

million acres of land in the 11 western 

States, including land adjacent to the 

Snake River in Idaho. The BLM manages 

activities on Federal lands such as 

outdoor recreation, livestock grazing, 

mining development, and energy 

production to conserve natural, 

historical, cultural, and other resources 

on the public lands (USBLM 2006). In 

Idaho, the BLM has been consulting 

with the Service pursuant to section 7 

of the Act on ongoing BLM actions that 

may affect the Bliss Rapids snail. 

Through these consultation efforts, 

coordinated and cooperative 

conservation measures have been added 

to proposed actions (e.g., new or 

renewed grazing permits on public 

lands) to minimize impacts to the 

species. Programmatic guidance and 

direction, documented through a 

conservation agreement between the 

BLM and Service, has increased the 

likelihood that conservation benefits 

may be realized for new, re-authorized, 

and ongoing actions; however, without 

the continued protections of the Act, 

there are no regulatory assurances that 

these conservation measures would 

continue. 

Summary of Factor D: While there are 

no specific State regulations protecting 

the Bliss Rapids snail, the primary 

threats identified in the final listing rule 

were related to the loss or alteration of 

the species’ aquatic habitat. Regulatory 

mechanisms such as Idaho’s water 

quality standards and TMDLs will 

continue to apply to habitats occupied 

by the Bliss Rapids snail. Water quality 

in some stretches of the Snake River has 

improved, primarily for phosphorus and 

TSS. New research indicates the species 

is sensitive to some aquatic 

contaminants such as copper, ammonia, 

and pentachlorophenol. Ground water 

withdrawal and the subsequent decline 

of the aquifer that feeds springs where 

the species occurs is a prominent threat. 

Depletion of cold water spring flows 

and declining ground water levels are a 

collective result of drought conditions, 

changes in irrigation practices, and 

ground water pumping. The effects of 

ground water pumping downstream in 

the aquifer can affect the upper reaches 

of the aquifer, and the effects of ground 

water pumping can continue for 

decades after pumping ceases. Thus, we 

anticipate ground water levels will 

likely continue to decline even if water 

conservation measures are implemented 

or are being developed. Some 

conservation benefits to the species are 

being realized through section 7 

consultation with other Federal 

agencies, but without the Act’s 

protection there are no regulatory 

assurances that these conservation 

benefits would continue. Based on this 

information, the inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms represents an 

ongoing threat to the Bliss Rapids snail 

that is likely to contribute to the species 

becoming endangered in the foreseeable 

future. 

Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade 

Factors Affecting the Species’ Continued 

Existence 

The final listing rule stated that New 

Zealand mudsnails (Potamopyrgus 

antipodarum) were not abundant in 

cold water springflows with colonies of 

Bliss Rapids snails, but that they did 

compete with the Bliss Rapids snail in 

the mainstem Snake River (57 FR 59254; 

December 14, 1992). We have no direct 

evidence that New Zealand mudsnails 

have displaced colonies of Bliss Rapids 

snails, but New Zealand mudsnails have 

been documented in dark mats at 

densities of nearly 400 individuals per 

square inch in free-flowing habitats 

within the range of the Bliss Rapids 

snail (57 FR 59254). Richards et al. 

(2006, pp. 61, 64, 68) found that Bliss 

Rapids snails may be competitively 

excluded by New Zealand mudsnails in 

most habitats, and that Bliss Rapids 

snail densities would likely be higher in 

the absence of New Zealand mudsnails. 

Both species are mostly scraper-grazers 

on algae and have similar resource 

requirements (Richards et al. 2006, pp. 

59, 66). Furthermore, New Zealand 

mudsnails have become established in 

every cold water spring-fed creek or 

tributary to the Hagerman Reach of the 

Snake River that has been surveyed 

(USFWS 2007). However, New Zealand 

mudsnails do not appear able to 

colonize headwater spring habitats, 

which may provide Bliss Rapids snails 

refugia from competition with New 

Zealand mudsnails (Frest and Johannes 

1992, p. 50; Richards et al. 2006, pp. 67– 

68). 

The physiological tolerances of the 

New Zealand mudsnail, including 

temperature and water velocity 

(Winterbourn 1969, pp. 457, 458; Lysne 

and Koetsier 2006b, p. 81); life history 

attributes such as high fecundity and 

growth rates (Richards 2004, pp. 25–34); 

and wide variety of habitat use such as 

springs, rivers, reservoirs, and ditches 

(Cada 2004, pp. 27, 28; USBR 2002, pp. 

3, 11; Hall et al. 2003, pp. 407, 408; 

Clark et al. 2005, pp. 10, 32–35; 

Richards 2004, pp. 47–67), may provide 

the New Zealand mudsnail a 

competitive advantage over Bliss Rapids 

snails outside of cold headwater 

springs. 

Summary of Factor E: Studies since 

the time of listing indicate that 

competition for resources occurs 

between the New Zealand mudsnail and 

the Bliss Rapids snail due to similar life 

history requirements. The New Zealand 

mudsnail has become established and 

widely distributed in the Snake River 

and its tributaries, however we do not 

know what this expansion has done to 

the distribution and abundance of Bliss 

Rapids snails. The current information 

is inconclusive as to whether the New 

Zealand mudsnail presently endangers 

the Bliss Rapids snail, largely because 

Bliss Rapids snails appear to have 

refugia from competition with New 

Zealand mudsnails in headwater 

springs. However, the available 

evidence suggests that the New Zealand 

mudsnail may endanger the Bliss 

Rapids snail in the foreseeable future 

given projected declines in aquifer 

levels, which will likely cause the 

extirpation of Bliss Rapids snails from 

these refugia. 

Conclusion 

In making a finding on whether or not 

a species warrants listing under the Act 

we must consider the legal definitions 

of ‘‘endangered’’ and ‘‘threatened.’’ A 

species is ‘‘endangered’’ for purposes of 

the Act if it is in danger of extinction 

throughout all or ‘‘a significant portion 

of its range’’ and is ‘‘threatened’’ if it is 

likely to become endangered within the 

foreseeable future throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range 

(emphasis added). The Act does not 

define the term ‘‘foreseeable future.’’ 

However, in a January 16, 2009 

memorandum addressed to the Acting 

Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, the Office of the Solicitor, 

Department of the Interior, concluded, 

‘‘* * * as used in the [Act], Congress 

intended the term ‘foreseeable future’ to 

describe the extent to which the 

Secretary can reasonably rely on 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
47544 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 178 / Wednesday, September 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

predictions about the future in making 

determinations about the future 

conservation status of the species.’’ In 

considering the foreseeable future as it 

relates to the status of the Bliss Rapids 

snail, we considered the (1) biological 

and demographic characteristics of the 

species (such as habitat requirements 

(water depth, substrate, and 

temperature), spring vs. riverine 

colonies, and dispersal and 

recolonization ability), (2) our ability to 

predict or extrapolate the effects of 

threats facing the species into the future, 

and the (3) the relative permanency or 

irreversibility of these threats. 

The Bliss Rapids snail is a species 

endemic to Idaho and occurs primarily 

in cold water spring tributaries and the 

ground water influenced areas within 

the Snake River. Studies conducted 

since the species was listed in 1992 

indicate that the species’ overall 

geographic range has not substantially 

changed since it was first described by 

Hershler et al. (1994), but the species 

has been detected in more riverine, cold 

water springs, and spring tributary 

locations within its historical range. The 

Bliss Rapids snail has specific and 

rather narrow habitat requirements in 

the form of suitable substrate and water 

temperature. 

As discussed in the Summary of 

Factors section, we believe, based on the 

best available data, that it is reasonable 

to expect the primary threats (i.e., 

reduced ground water levels, water 

quality and pollution concerns, and 

competition from nonnative species) to 

Bliss Rapids snails will continue to 

occur throughout the range of the 

species and to affect all colonies into the 

future. Ground water levels are expected 

to continue to decline, resulting in 

increased risks to spring and springinfluenced colonies beginning at the 

upstream end of the species’ range. 

Recent data show that spring colonies of 

Bliss Rapids snail contain rare alleles, 

and loss of such colonies are likely to 

reduce genetic diversity, which in turn 

reduces the species’ ability to respond 

to changes in environmental conditions. 

If current ground water trends 

continue—and we have a reasonable 

expectation that they will based on the 

best available data—we expect some 

colonies to become extirpated as sites 

become unsuitable for Bliss Rapids 

snails due to reduced flows and 

degraded water quality. Loss of spring 

colonies is also likely to result in the 

loss of potentially important refugia 

from competition with the New Zealand 

mudsnail. Without the cold water spring 

refugia that provide stable 

environmental conditions (relative to 

riverine habitats), there is significant 

uncertainty regarding the ability of 

riverine populations to persist in the 

face of ongoing competition with New 

Zealand mudsnails. These uncertainties 

are exacerbated by existing hydropower 

operations that result in unknown levels 

of mortality to Bliss Rapids snails in the 

riverine environment, and the relatively 

low densities of Bliss Rapids snails in 

riverine habitats. Because of these 

significant uncertainties, if spring 

populations were lost due to 

groundwater depletion and/or changes 

to water quality in the springs, we 

would have little confidence that the 

Bliss Rapids snail could persist in the 

riverine environment alone. 

Therefore, we have determined that 

the Bliss Rapids snail is not now in 

danger of extinction, but is likely to 

become endangered in the foreseeable 

future based on the expected persistence 

of threats from reduced ground water 

levels, water quality and pollution 

concerns, and competition from 

nonnative species. 

Significant Portion of the Range 

Analysis 

Having determined that the Bliss 

Rapids snail is likely to become 

endangered within the foreseeable 

future throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range, we must next 

consider whether there are any 

significant portions of its range that are 

currently in danger of extinction. The 

Act defines an endangered species as 

one ‘‘in danger of extinction throughout 

all or a significant portion of its range,’’ 

and a threatened species as one ‘‘likely 

to become an endangered species within 

the foreseeable future throughout all or 

a significant portion of its range.’’ The 

term ‘‘significant portion of its range’’ is 

not defined by statute. For purposes of 

this finding, a portion of a species’ range 

is significant if it is part of the current 

range of the species and is important to 

the conservation of the species because 

it contributes meaningfully to the 

representation, resiliency, or 

redundancy of the species. The 

contribution must be at a level such that 

its loss would result in a decrease in the 

ability to conserve the species. 

The first step in determining whether 

a species is threatened or endangered in 

a significant portion of its range is to 

identify any portions of the range that 

warrant further consideration. The range 

of a species can theoretically be divided 

into portions in an infinite number of 

ways. However, there is no purpose to 

analyzing portions of the range that are 

not reasonably likely to be significant 

and threatened or endangered. To 

identify only those portions that warrant 

further consideration, we determine 

whether there is substantial information 

indicating that (1) the portions may be 

significant and (2) the species may be in 

danger of extinction there or likely to 

become so within the foreseeable future. 

In practice, a key part of this analysis is 

whether the threats are geographically 

concentrated in some way. If the threats 

to the species are essentially uniform 

throughout its range, no portion is likely 

to warrant further consideration. If any 

concentration of threats applies only to 

portions of the range that are 

unimportant to the conservation of the 

species, such portions will not warrant 

further consideration. 

If we identify any portions that 

warrant further consideration, we then 

determine whether in fact the species is 

threatened or endangered in any 

significant portion of its range. 

Depending on the biology of the species, 

its range, and the threats it faces, it may 

be more efficient in some cases for the 

Service to address the significance 

question first, and, in others, the status 

question first. Thus, if the Service 

determines that a portion of the range is 

not significant, the Service need not 

determine whether the species is 

threatened or endangered there; 

conversely, if the Service determines 

that the species is not threatened or 

endangered in a portion of its range, the 

Service need not determine if that 

portion is significant. 

If the Service determines that both a 

portion of the range of a species is 

significant and the species is threatened 

or endangered there, the Service will 

specify that portion of the range where 

the species is in danger of extinction 

pursuant to section 4(c)(1) of the Act. 

The terms ‘‘resiliency,’’ 

‘‘redundancy,’’ and ‘‘representation’’ are 

intended to be indicators of the 

conservation value of portions of the 

species’ range. Resiliency allows the 

species to recover from periodic 

disturbance. A species will likely be 

more resilient if large populations exist 

in high-quality habitat that is 

distributed throughout the range of the 

species in such a way as to capture the 

environmental variability within the 

range of the species. It is likely that the 

larger size of a population will help 

contribute to the viability of the species. 

Thus, a portion of the range of a species 

may make a meaningful contribution to 

the resiliency of the species if the area 

is relatively large and contains 

particularly high-quality habitat or if its 

location or characteristics make it less 

susceptible to certain threats than other 

portions of the range. When evaluating 

whether or how a portion of the range 

contributes to resiliency of the species, 

it may help to evaluate the historical 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 178 / Wednesday, September 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules 47545 

value of the portion and how frequently 

the portion is used by the species. In 

addition, the portion may contribute to 

resiliency for other reasons—for 

instance, it may contain an important 

concentration of certain types of habitat 

that are necessary for the species to 

carry out its life history functions, such 

as breeding, feeding, migration, 

dispersal, or wintering. 

Redundancy of populations may be 

needed to provide a margin of safety for 

the species to withstand catastrophic 

events. This does not mean that any 

portion that provides redundancy is a 

significant portion of the range of a 

species. The idea is to conserve enough 

areas of the range such that random 

perturbations in the system act on only 

a few populations. Therefore, each area 

must be examined based on whether 

that area provides an increment of 

redundancy that is important to the 

conservation of the species. 

Adequate representation insures that 

the species’ adaptive capabilities are 

conserved. Specifically, the portion 

should be evaluated to see how it 

contributes to the genetic diversity of 

the species. The loss of genetic diversity 

may substantially reduce the ability of 

the species to respond and adapt to 

future environmental changes. A 

peripheral population may contribute 

meaningfully to representation if there 

is evidence that it provides genetic 

diversity due to its location on the 

margin of the species’ habitat 

requirements. 

Based upon factors that contribute to 

our analysis of whether a species or 

subspecies is in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range, and in consideration of the 

status of, and threats to, the Bliss Rapids 

snail discussed previously, we find that 

the primary threats to the continued 

existence of the Bliss Rapids snail occur 

throughout all of its range. Therefore, it 

is not necessary to conduct further 

analysis with respect to the significance 

of any portion of its range. 

Finding 

On the basis of the best available 

scientific and commercial information, 

as discussed above, we find that the 

Bliss Rapids snail is likely to become 

endangered within the foreseeable 

future (i.e., it is threatened, as defined 

by the Act). Therefore, removing the 

Bliss Rapids snail from the List is not 

warranted. 

References Cited 

A complete list of all references cited 

herein is available upon request from 

the Idaho Fish and Wildlife Office (see 

ADDRESSES). 

Author 

The primary authors of this document 

are the Idaho Fish and Wildlife Office 

(see ADDRESSES). 

Authority 

The authority for this action is the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). 

Dated: August 26, 2009. 

Daniel M. Ashe, 

Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–21949 Filed 9–15–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 660 

[Docket No. 0907281183–91184–01] 

RIN 0648–AX98 

Fisheries off West Coast States; 

Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; Data 

Collection for the Trawl Rationalization 

Program 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes to collect 

data to support implementation of a 

future trawl rationalization program 

under the Pacific Coast Groundfish 

Fishery Management Plan (FMP). NMFS 

proposes to collect ownership 

information from all potential 

participants in the trawl rationalization 

program. In addition, NMFS is notifying 

potential participants that the agency 

intends to use the Pacific States Marine 

Fisheries Commission’s Pacific 

Fisheries Information Network (PacFIN) 

database and NMFS’ Northwest 

Fisheries Science Center’s Pacific 

whiting observer data from NORPAC (a 

database of North Pacific fisheries and 

Pacific whiting information) to 

determine initial allocation of quota 

share (QS) for the trawl rationalization 

program, if it is approved and 

implemented. 

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule 

must be received no later than 5 p.m., 

local time on October 16, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by RIN 0648–AX98 by any 

one of the following methods: 

Electronic Submissions: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

Fax: 206–526–6736, Attn: Jamie Goen. 

Mail: Barry Thom, Acting 

Administrator, Northwest Region, 

NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, 

Seattle, WA 98115–0070, Attn: Jamie 

Goen. 

Instructions: All comments received 

are a part of the public record and will 

generally be posted to http:// 

www.regulations.gov without change. 

All Personal Identifying Information (for 

example, name, address, etc.) 

voluntarily submitted by the commenter 

may be publicly accessible. Do not 

submit Confidential Business 

Information or otherwise sensitive or 

protected information. 

NMFS will accept anonymous 

comments (enter N/A in the required 

fields if you wish to remain 

anonymous). Attachments to electronic 

comments will be accepted in Microsoft 

Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe 

PDF file formats only. Written 

comments regarding the burden-hour 

estimates or other aspects of the 

collection-of-information requirements 

contained in this proposed rule may be 

submitted to NMFS, Northwest Region 

and by e-mail to 

DavidlRostker@omb.eop.gov or fax to 

(202) 395–7285. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jamie Goen, phone: 206–526–4656, fax: 

206–526–6736, and e-mail 

jamie.goen@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Electronic Access 

This proposed rule is accessible via 

the Internet at the Office of the Federal 

Register’s Web site at http:// 

www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html. 

Background information and documents 

are available at the Pacific Fishery 

Management Council’s website at http:// 

www.pcouncil.org/. 

Background 

Since 2003, the Pacific Fishery 

Management Council (Council) has been 

developing a trawl rationalization 

program, which would affect the limited 

entry trawl fishery of the Pacific Coast 

groundfish fishery. The trawl 

rationalization program is intended to 

increase net economic benefits, create 

individual economic stability, provide 

full utilization of the trawl sector 

allocation, consider environmental 

impacts, and achieve individual 

accountability of catch and bycatch. 

The Council has developed the trawl 

rationalization program through two 

amendments to the Groundfish FMP: (1) 

Amendment 20, the trawl 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS