31250 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 108 / Wednesday, June 6, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

comply with the ‘‘viewability’’

provisions by either: (1) Carrying the 

signals of commercial and noncommercial must-carry stations in 

analog format to all analog cable 

subscribers, or (2) for all-digital systems, 

carry those signals only in digital 

format, provided that all subscribers 

with analog television sets have the 

necessary equipment to view the 

broadcast content. Small cable operators 

will need engineering and legal analysis 

to comply with this proposal. The 

Second FNPRM seeks comment on the 

cost of compliance to small cable 

operators and solicits alternative 

approaches that would reduce the 

burden on small cable operators while 

still complying with statutory 

requirements. Small broadcast stations 

will also be affected by the proposed 

rules and other issues raised in the 

Second FNPRM, but we do not have any 

reason to expect that the compliance 

burden will be any greater than under 

the existing rules, except that initially, 

broadcasters may need additional legal 

services. 

E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant 

Economic Impact on Small Entities, and 

Significant Alternatives Considered 

39. The RFA requires an agency to 

describe any significant alternatives that 

it has considered in reaching its 

proposed approach, which may include 

the following four alternatives (among 

others): (1) The establishment of 

differing compliance or reporting 

requirements or timetables that take into 

account the resources available to small 

entities; (2) the clarification, 

consolidation, or simplification of 

compliance or reporting requirements 

under the rule for small entities; (3) the 

use of performance, rather than design, 

standards; and (4) an exemption from 

coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, 

for small entities. We seek comment on 

the applicability of any of these 

alternatives to affected small entities. 

40. The requirements proposed in the 

Second FNPRM are the result of 

statutory requirements that do not 

expressly provide exceptions for small 

entities. Broadcast stations, including 

small entity stations, are afforded the 

flexibility to elect mandatory carriage of 

their digital signal or elect to negotiate 

carriage with cable systems. The 

proposals do not contemplate imposing 

any significant burdens on small 

television stations, but station licensees 

and other parties are encouraged to 

submit comment on the proposals’

impact on small television stations. 

Every effort will be made to minimize 

the impact of any adopted proposals on 

cable operators. In this IRFA, we seek 

comment on whether there is a specific 

legal basis for affording operators that 

qualify as small systems special 

consideration in this regard. We 

anticipate that more and more cable 

systems will become all-digital cable 

systems, thereby minimizing any 

potential impact that our proposals, if 

adopted, might have. Finally, we are 

mindful of the potential concerns of 

small entities and will, therefore, 

continue to carefully scrutinize our 

policy determinations going forward. 

We invite small entities to submit 

comment on how the Commission could 

further minimize potential burdens on 

small entities if the proposals provided 

in the Second FNPRM, or those 

submitted into the record, are ultimately 

adopted. 

F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, 

Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed 

Rules 

41. None. 

V. Ordering Clauses 

42. It is ordered that, pursuant to 

authority contained in Sections 4, 303, 

614, and 615 of the Communications 

Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154, 

303, 534, and 535, this Second Further 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is 

hereby adopted. 

43. It is further ordered that the 

Consumer and Governmental Affairs 

Bureau, Reference Information Center, 

shall send a copy of this Second Further 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 

including the Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E7–10962 Filed 6–5–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a 

Petition To Remove the Bliss Rapids 

Snail (Taylorconcha serpenticola) 

From the List of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition 

finding and initiation of status review. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 

90-day 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 (Act). We find that the 

petition presents substantial scientific 

information that delisting the Bliss 

Rapids snail may be warranted, and are 

initiating a status review. We plan to 

conduct this review concurrent with the 

ongoing status review initiated on July 

27, 2004, which we are required to make 

every 5 years under section 4(c)(2)(A) of 

the Act. We are requesting submission 

of any new information on the Bliss 

Rapids snail since its original listing as 

a threatened species in 1992. At the 

conclusion of our status review, we will 

make the requisite recommendation 

under section 4(c)(2)(B) of the Act and 

issue a 12-month finding on the 

petition, as provided in section 

4(b)(3)(B) of the Act. 

DATES: The finding announced in this 

document was made on June 6, 2007. To 

be considered in the 12-month finding 

on this petition or the 5-year review, 

comments and information must be 

submitted to us by September 4, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit new 

information, materials, comments, or 

questions concerning this species by 

any one of the following methods: 

1. You may submit comments and 

information to the Field Supervisor, 

Attention: Bliss Rapids Snail Comments, 

Snake River Fish and Wildlife Office, 

1387 S. Vinnell Way, Suite 368, Boise, 

Idaho 83709. 

2. You may hand-deliver written 

comments and information to the above 

address. 

3. You may fax your comments to 

208–378–5262. 

4. You may go to the Federal 

rulemaking internet portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

5. You may e-mail your comments to 

fw1srbocomment@fws.gov. 

Please include ‘‘Bliss Rapids Snail 

Comments’’ in the subject line for faxes 

and e-mails. Please submit electronic 

comments in unformatted text, and 

avoid the use of special characters and 

encryption. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Susan Burch, Fish and Wildlife 

Biologist, Snake River Fish and Wildlife 

Office (see ADDRESSES); telephone: 208–

378–5243; or e-mail: 

susan_burch@fws.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 108 / Wednesday, June 6, 2007 / Proposed Rules 31251 

Public Information Solicited 

When we make a finding that 

substantial information exists to 

indicate that listing or delisting a 

species may be warranted, we are 

required to promptly commence a 

review of the status of the species. To 

ensure that the status review is 

complete and based on the best 

available scientific and commercial 

information, we are soliciting any 

additional information, comments, or 

suggestions on the Bliss Rapids snail 

from the public, State and Federal 

agencies, Tribes, the scientific 

community, industry or environmental 

entities, or any other interested parties. 

Information sought includes any data 

regarding historical and current 

distribution, biology and ecology, 

ongoing conservation measures for the 

species or its habitat, and threats to the 

species or its habitat. We also request 

information regarding the adequacy of 

existing regulatory mechanisms. 

Please note that comments merely 

stating support or opposition to the 

actions under consideration without 

providing supporting information, 

although noted, will not be considered 

in making a determination, as section 

4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that 

determinations as to whether any 

species is a threatened or endangered 

species shall be made ‘‘solely on the 

basis of the best scientific and 

commercial data available.’’ At the 

conclusion of the status review, we will 

issue the 12-month finding on the 

petition, as provided in section 

4(b)(3)(B) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 

seq.). 

If you wish to comment or provide 

information, you may submit your 

comments and materials concerning this 

finding to the Field Supervisor (see 

ADDRESSES) by the date listing in the 

DATES section. 

Before including your address, phone 

number, e-mail address, or other 

personal identifying information in your 

comment, you should be aware that 

your entire comment—including your 

personal identifying information—may 

be made publicly available at any time. 

While you can ask us in your comment 

to withhold your personal identifying 

information from public review, we 

cannot guarantee that we will be able to 

do so. If you wish us to withhold your 

name and/or address, you must state 

this prominently at the beginning of 

your comment. However, we will not 

consider anonymous comments. 

Comments and materials received will 

be available for public inspection, by 

appointment, during normal business 

hours at the address listed in the 

ADDRESSES section. 

Background 

Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Endangered 

Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended 

(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires that we 

make a finding on whether a petition to 

list, delist, or reclassify a species 

presents substantial scientific or 

commercial information indicating that 

the petitioned action may be warranted. 

The finding is based on information 

contained in the petition and 

information otherwise available in our 

files at the time we make the finding. To 

the maximum extent practicable, we are 

to make the finding within 90 days of 

receiving the petition, and publish our 

notice of the finding in the Federal 

Register. 

This finding summarizes the 

information included in the petition and 

information available to us at the time 

of the petition review. Under section 

4(b)(3)(A) of the Act and our regulations 

in 50 CFR 424.14(b), our review of a 90- 

day finding is limited to a determination 

of whether the information in the 

petition meets the ‘‘substantial scientific 

or commercial information’’ threshold. 

Our standard for substantial information 

with regard to a 90-day petition finding 

is ‘‘that amount of information that 

would lead a reasonable person to 

believe that the measure proposed in the 

petition may be warranted’’ (50 CFR 

424.14(b)). If we find that substantial 

information was presented, we are 

required to promptly commence a 

review of the status of the species and 

publish the results of that status review 

in a 12-month finding. 

Species Information 

The Bliss Rapids snail (Taylorconcha 

serpenticola) is found primarily on 

rocky surfaces in riverine and coldwater 

spring habitats along a 65-mile (mi) (105 

kilometer (km)) stretch of the Snake 

River in the Hagerman area of southern 

Idaho (Richards et al. 2006, pp. 34–35). 

They can be locally abundant in springs 

and spring habitats (Richards et al. 

2006, pp. 37, 99), but when they occur 

in non spring influenced riverine 

habitats, it is in low densities (Richards 

et al. 2006, p 37). They are not known 

to occur in reservoirs or on organic, fine 

sediments (Richards et al. 2006, pp. 21, 

23–24). The Bliss Rapids snail appears 

to be a univoltine, meaning it has a 1- 

year life cycle and the adult population 

is replaced yearly (Hershler et al. 1994, 

pp. 239–240); however, they may have 

more than one reproductive event 

within a year (Richards 2004, p. 119). 

We listed the Bliss Rapids snail as 

threatened on December 14, 1992 (57 FR 

59244). At that time, we determined that 

the Bliss rapids snail was threatened by 

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). The Bliss 

Rapids snail was described as existing 

in discontinuously distributed 

populations along 204 river miles (328 

river km) in the middle Snake River, 

being primarily concentrated in the 

Hagerman reach in tailwaters of Bliss 

and Lower Salmon Dams and several 

unpolluted springs (i.e., Thousands 

Springs, Minnie Miller Springs, 

Banbury Springs, Niagara Springs, and 

Box Canyon Springs). We finalized the 

Snake River Aquatic Species Recovery 

Plan, which included the Bliss Rapids 

snail, in 1995 (Service 1995). Critical 

habitat has not been designated for this 

species. 

Review of Petition 

On December 26, 2006, we received a 

petition from the Governor of Idaho and 

the Idaho Power Company (IPC) 

requesting that the Bliss Rapids snail be 

removed from the List. The delisting 

petition cites a recent status review 

conducted by Richards et al. (2006), a 

review of Bliss Rapids snail sampling 

methodology prepared by Steward & 

Associates (2006), and information and 

data submitted to the Service at an 

August 24, 2006, informational meeting 

as support for their petition (Idaho 2006 

in litt.). The petition clearly identified 

itself as a petition and included the 

requisite identification information for 

the petitioners, as required in 50 CFR 

424.14(a). The petition cited 

information on the natural history of the 

Bliss Rapids snail, its population status, 

and advances in our understanding of 

the species’ ecology and threats since 

listing. The petition states that many of 

the threats identified in the 1992 listing 

rule are no longer viable or have been 

attenuated by subsequent actions. It also 

states that the Bliss Rapids snail is more 

abundant, is more continuously 

distributed, and exists in more diverse 

habitats than previously recorded. 

Threats Analysis 

The factors for listing, delisting, or 

reclassifying a species are described at 

50 CFR 424.11. We may delist a species 

only if the best scientific and 

commercial data available substantiate 

that it is neither endangered nor 

threatened. Delisting may be warranted 

as a result of: (1) Extinction, (2) 

recovery, and/or (3) a determination that 

the original data used for classification 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS
31252 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 108 / Wednesday, June 6, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

of the species as endangered or 

threatened were in error. 

Section 4(a)(1) of the Act requires that 

we determine whether a species is 

endangered or threatened based on one 

or more of the five following factors: (A) 

Present or threatened destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of habitat 

or range; (B) overutilization for 

commercial, recreational, scientific, or 

educational purposes; (C) disease or 

predation; (D) inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other 

natural or manmade factors affecting its 

continued existence. In making this 90- 

day finding, we evaluated whether 

information presented in the December 

2006 petition, when considered along 

with information in our files, constitutes 

substantial scientific or commercial 

information such that delisting may be 

warranted. Our evaluation of this 

information is presented below. 

A. Present or Threatened Destruction, 

Modification, or Curtailment of the 

Species’ Habitat or Range 

Habitat Use 

Petitioners claim that Bliss Rapids 

snails are able to live in a variety of 

habitats previously thought to be 

unsuitable for the species, including 

reservoirs, based primarily on a status 

report by Richards et al. (2006). 

Richards et al. (2006, p. 3) reviewed the 

available information on Bliss Rapids 

snail collections and reported that the 

species has been found in areas of the 

Snake River that do not have known 

spring influence. However, the 

likelihood of Bliss Rapids snail 

occurrence decreased with increasing 

temperature in riverine habitats 

(Richards et al. 2006, p. 42), and the 

highest mean density for the springinfluenced habitat in the Snake River 

was 307.2 snails per meter-squared (m2), 

compared to the highest mean density 

in non spring influenced habitat of 11.7 

snails per m2 (Richards et al. 2006, p. 

37). Richards et al. (2006, p. 54) also 

reported that more Bliss Rapids snails 

were found in shallow depths than in 

deeper ones. Of 607 samples taken in 

the 3 reservoirs within the range of the 

Bliss Rapids snail, none contained Bliss 

Rapids snails (Richards et al. 2006, pp. 

38–39), and, therefore, the Richards et 

al. (2006) study does not support the 

petitioners’ claim that reservoirs are 

suitable habitat. Their absence from 

reservoirs and areas of organic, fine 

sediments suggests that this species may 

be limited to aerobic substrates flushed 

by moving water (Richards et al. 2006, 

p. 23). 

At the time of listing, in 1992, we 

stated that: ‘‘Bliss Rapids snails occur 

on stable, cobble-boulder substratum 

only in flowing waters in the 

unimpounded reaches of [the] mainstem 

Snake River and also in a few spring 

alcove habitats in the Hagerman Valley. 

The species does not burrow in 

sediments and normally avoids surfaces 

with attached plants. Known river 

populations (or colonies) of the Bliss 

Rapids snail occur only in areas 

associated with spring influences or 

rapids edge environments and tend to 

flank shorelines. They are found at 

varying depths if dissolved oxygen and 

temperature requirements persist and 

are found in shallow (< 1 cm (.4 in)) 

permanent cold springs (Frest and 

Johannes 1992a)’’ (57 FR 59245). 

Information in our files suggests that 

populations are consistently larger, at 

least in terms of density and relative 

abundance, in coldwater springs and 

spring-fed tributaries compared to 

mainstem Snake River locations 

(Stephenson and Bean 2003, p. 12; 

Stephenson et al. 2004, pp. 14, 24; Clark 

et al. 2005, pp. 7, 46–47; Richards et al. 

2006, pp. 37–38, 97–99), and the 

likelihood of Bliss Rapids snail 

occurrence decreases with increasing 

water temperature in riverine habitats 

(Richards et al. 2006, p. 42). 

Based on information presented by 

the petitioner, along with information in 

our files, most of the basic habitat 

requirements for Bliss Rapids snails are 

reaffirmed. Current information 

documents the occurrence of low 

densities of Bliss Rapids snails in Snake 

River reaches without obvious spring 

influence (based on visual inspection). 

The petitioners’ claim that Bliss Rapids 

snails can live in reservoirs is not 

supported by the information provided. 

In fact, data provided by the petitioner 

strongly suggest that reservoirs do not 

provide suitable habitat for the species 

and likely impede metapopulation 

connectivity (Richards et al. 2006, pp. 

38–39, p. 119). 

Range 

The petitioners claim that the species 

is more widely distributed than 

previously known. They provided a 

status report by Richards et al. (2006) as 

the primary source of information to 

support their claim. Richards et al. 

(2006, pp. 33–34) found that, as of 2006, 

the Bliss Rapids snail was documented 

at 837 collection points in the freeflowing mid-Snake River, as compared 

with less than 15 collection points at the 

time of listing. Richards et al. (2006, pp. 

119, 123) also state that Bliss Rapids 

snails exist as possibly 27 discontinuous 

populations along the Snake River, 

including 5 within river habitats and 22 

in spring or spring-influenced habitats. 

Richards et al. (2006, pp. 34–35) state 

that Bliss Rapids snails were recorded 

in every one of the 22 non-reservoir 

miles (35 km) from River Mile (RM) 

547.7, upstream to the head of Upper 

Salmon Falls Reservoir at RM 589.2 (a 

distance of 41.5 river miles (66.8 river 

km)). A total of 19.5 of those 41.5 river 

miles (31.4 of those 66.8 river km) are 

in-reservoir habitat, and therefore are 

not suitable for Bliss Rapids snails. 

At the time of listing we stated that: 

‘‘Based on live collections, the species 

currently exists as discontinuously 

distributed populations over 204 river 

miles within its historic range. These 

populations are primarily concentrated 

in the Hagerman reach in tailwaters of 

Bliss and Lower Salmon Dams and 

several unpolluted springs (i.e., 

Thousand Springs, Minnie Miller 

Springs, Banbury Springs, Niagara 

Springs, and Box Canyon Springs)’’ (57 

FR 59245). 

Information in our files now suggests 

that the farthest upstream population 

noted in the listing rule (i.e., the 

observation above American Falls at RM 

749.8 (57 FR 59243)) may have been in 

error. Several factors, when considered 

together, support this conclusion: (1) 

The reported observation is 151 river 

miles (243 river km) away from the 

nearest confirmed location of the Bliss 

Rapids snail (i.e., Niagara Springs at RM 

599), (2) the vouchered specimen cannot 

be located, and (3) hundreds of samples 

for snails have been collected in and 

above American Falls Reservoir since 

the reported collection without further 

evidence of the species at that location. 

Given the information provided by 

the petitioner and other information in 

our files, we now know the Bliss Rapids 

snail to be distributed discontinuously 

over approximately 65 river miles (105 

river km), rather than over 204 river 

miles (328 river km), as we stated in the 

listing rule (57 FR 59243). However, if 

we discount the observation above 

American Falls, which we now believe 

to be unreliable, the species is more 

widely and more continuously 

distributed than previously thought 

(Richards et al. 2006, p. 28). 

Construction of New Hydropower Dams 

The petition states that threats to Bliss 

Rapids snail habitat from future hydropower development are not as they were 

perceived when the species was listed 

in 1992. The petitioners provided the 

following documents as evidence that 

hydropower permits are no longer 

moving forward: (1) A 2002 notice of 

surrender of preliminary permit for the 

River Side Project (Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission (FERC) 2002), 

(2) 2002 Federal Energy Regulatory 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 108 / Wednesday, June 6, 2007 / Proposed Rules 31253 

Commission (FERC) orders denying 

application for preliminary permits for 

the Eagle Rock and Star Falls 

Hydroelectric Projects (FERC 2002a, 

2002b), and (3) a 2003 notice of 

surrender of preliminary permit for the 

Auger Falls Project (FERC 2003). The 

petitioners also provided documents 

from the State of Idaho (Idaho 2006) and 

Richards et al. (2006) indicating that all 

recent permits for the construction of 

new dams along the Mid-Snake River 

reach where the Bliss Rapids snail 

occurs have either lapsed or have been 

denied by the FERC. 

At the time of listing, there were six 

active proposals for new hydroelectric 

projects in the middle-Snake River. In 

our listing rule, 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 

these snails’’ (57 FR 59251). 

We have no information in our files 

suggesting that future hydropower 

development in the middle-Snake River 

is likely to occur; therefore, we accept 

the petitioner’s claim that the threats 

from hydropower development have 

dissipated since the time of listing. 

Operation of Existing Hydropower Dams 

The status report provided by the 

petitioner (Richards et al. 2006) states 

that threats to Bliss Rapids snail habitat 

from the operation of hydropower dams 

(i.e., peak loading) are not as they were 

perceived when the species was listed 

in 1992. Richards et al. (2006, p. 92) 

state that free-flowing Bliss Rapids snail 

habitat downstream of the dams is 

improved because fine sediments settle 

in the reservoirs above the dams, 

resulting in reduced fine sediments and 

increased rocky substrates, the preferred 

habitat of the Bliss Rapids snail, 

downstream of the dam. They also state 

that rapid changes in flow below 

hydropower dams have not eliminated 

Bliss Rapids snails from shallow 

shoreline areas; on the contrary, highest 

densities of riverine Bliss Rapids snail 

populations directly below hydropower 

dams occurred in the zones of highest 

flow fluctuations (Richards et al. 2006, 

p. 92). 

Richards et al. (2006) cite a laboratory 

exposure study (Richards 2006) that 

concluded Bliss Rapids snails could 

survive for many hours to several days 

in moist conditions (i.e., undersides of 

cobbles) when air temperatures were 

greater than 32 °F (0 °C). In an ongoing 

field study, Richards (unpublished data, 

cited in Richards et al. 2006, pp. 125–

126) also found that Bliss Rapids snails 

could survive on the damp undersides 

of exposed cobbles alongside the midSnake River for up to several days. 

Because fluctuation of water levels due 

to load-following only occurred for 

several hours at a time (William H. 

Clark, Idaho Power Company, personal 

communication, cited in Richards et al. 

2006, p. 126), Richards et al. (2006, pp. 

125–126) concluded that direct 

mortality to Bliss Rapids snails from 

exposure due to load-following events 

should be minimal. The petitioners did 

not provide any data that assesses the 

sub-lethal effects (e.g., impacts to 

reproduction, food sources, etc.) of 

peak-loading. 

At the time of listing, we stated: 

‘‘Peak-loading, the practice of artificially 

raising and lowering river levels to meet 

short-term electrical needs by local runof-the-river hydroelectric projects also 

threatens [the Bliss rapids snail]. Peakloading 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.’’

Information in our files suggests that 

air temperatures within the range of 

Bliss Rapids snails regularly fall below 

32 °F (0 °C) between November and 

March (Richards 2006, p. 28) and that 

the amount of time Bliss Rapids snails 

can survive while exposed to air 

temperatures below freezing is 

significantly less than at 32 °F (0 °C) 

(e.g., in less than an hour, half of the 

individuals in a laboratory trial 

subjected to a temperature of 19 °F (¥7 

°C) died) (Richards 2006, p. 12). 

Therefore, peak-loading during winter 

months may cause Bliss Rapids some 

snail mortality (Richards 2006, p. 15), 

but field studies have not been 

conducted to assess the likely impact on 

the population. Furthermore, we have 

no data in our files that assesses the sublethal effects of peak-loading on Bliss 

Rapids snails. 

Although there are some uncertainties 

regarding the actual effects of peakloading on Bliss Rapids snails in the 

wild, the petitioners have presented 

substantial information suggesting that 

the threats from peak-loading may be 

less than we perceived at the time of 

listing. 

Water Quality 

The status report provided by the 

petitioner (Richards et al. 2006, pp. 5–

6) states that threats to Bliss Rapids 

snail habitat from water pollution are 

not as they were perceived when the 

species was listed in 1992. Richards et 

al. (2006, pp. 5–6, 86) state that 

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. 

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 occurred since listing 

(Richards et al. 2006, p. 5), water quality 

of the river from RM 600 to 589 is 

subject to ‘‘very large inflows’’ of 

agriculture and aquaculture wastewater 

flowing to the river below Twin Falls to 

lower Salmon Falls dam at RM 572; as 

a result, nutrient and sediment 

concentrations increase during low 

summer flows (Richards et al. 2006, p. 

91). Furthermore, the highest densities 

and occurrence frequencies of Bliss 

Rapids snails in riverine habitats were 

immediately downstream of the midSnake river reach considered to be the 

most seriously polluted reach of the 

river (from Shoshone Falls downstream 

to Upper Salmon Falls Dam (Richards et 

al. 2006, p. 33)). 

Information in our files shows that 

phosphorus concentrations, the key 

nutrient leading to hypereutrophic 

conditions in the middle Snake River, 

exceeded Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) 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 EPA, U.S. Bureau of 

Reclamation (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 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS
31254 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 108 / Wednesday, June 6, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

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

Environmental Quality’s (IDEQ) 2005 

performance and progress report to the 

EPA states that projects are meeting the 

Idaho non-point source pollution 

program goals (IDEQ 2006, p. 8). 

However, others report that water 

quality has not improved appreciably 

between 1989 and 2002 (Hardy et al. 

2005, pp. 19–21, 49, 51). 

Although the highest densities and 

occurrence frequencies of Bliss Rapids 

snails in riverine habitat were recorded 

immediately downstream of the midSnake River reach considered to be the 

most seriously polluted reach of the 

river (from Shoshone Falls downstream 

to Upper Salmon Falls Dam), this reach 

also receives a large infusion of 

coldwater spring outflow. No riverine 

Bliss Rapids snails were detected 

upstream of Upper Salmon Falls Dam 

(Richards et al. 2006, pp. 31–32, 35–37). 

Given the information provided by 

the petitioner and other information in 

our files, we find that there are some 

uncertainties regarding the effects of 

degraded water quality in the Snake 

River on Bliss Rapids snails; however, 

we believe the petitioners have 

presented substantial information 

suggesting that the threats from 

degraded water quality may be less than 

we perceived at the time of listing. 

Water Diversions (Springs) 

The status report provided by the 

petitioner (Richards et al. 2006, p. 6) 

states that some coldwater spring 

habitats within the range of the Bliss 

Rapids snail previously threatened by 

water development have been preserved 

in corporate or public trusteeship. 

Information in our files shows that 

springs occupied by Bliss Rapids snails 

that are protected from further water 

development include Thousand 

Springs, Box Canyon Springs 

(Newcomer in litt. 2005), and Banbury 

Springs (Holmstead and Holthuijzen 

2005). However, there are hundreds of 

other springs in the Hagerman Valley, 

and nearly all exist on private land in 

areas that have not been surveyed for 

Bliss Rapids snails due to lack of access. 

We do not know whether these springs 

are being protected or whether they 

have already been developed for 

aquaculture, hydropower, or irrigation 

water. 

Based on information provided by the 

petitioner, along with other information 

in our files, some spring habitats 

occupied by Bliss Rapids snails are 

being protected in preserves. However, 

the status of coldwater springs on some 

private lands remains largely unknown. 

Water Diversions (Snake River) 

The status report provided by the 

petitioner (Richards et al. 2006, p. 5) 

states that threats to Bliss Rapids snail 

habitat from diversion of water from the 

Snake River for irrigation and 

aquaculture are not as they were 

perceived when the species was listed 

in 1992. According to Richards et al. 

(2006, p. 83), over the past 35 years, the 

river has experienced higher energy 

flushing cycles than in the prior 60 

years. High mean annual flows reached 

approximately 18,000 cubic feet per 

second (cfs) in 1984 and 1997. In 2006, 

flushing flows had again occurred with 

sustained mean daily flows at King Hill 

in excess of 20,000 cfs (Richards et al. 

2006, pp. 83–84). 

At the time of listing, we stated: 

‘‘Water quality continues to degrade in 

the middle Snake River from increased 

water use and withdrawal, aggravated 

by recent drought-induced low flows. 

This 121 mile (195 kilometer) stretch of 

the Snake River [i.e., the middle Snake 

River] is impacted by agricultural return 

flows; runoff from between 500 and 600 

dairies and feedlots; effluent from over 

140 private, state, and Federal fish 

culture facilities; and point source (e.g., 

municipal sewage) discharges (Idaho 

Department of Health and Welfare 

(IDHW) 1991a). These factors contribute 

to increased nutrient loads and 

concentrations which in turn adversely 

impact the lotic species. Nutrient 

loading contributes to dense blooms of 

free-living and attached filamentous 

algae, which the species cannot utilize. 

This algae will often cover rock 

surfaces, effectively displacing suitable 

snail habitats and food resources. 

Stream sediments also become anoxic as 

high biochemical oxygen demand 

during the aquatic growing season and 

seasonal algae die offs occur.’’

We accept the characterization of the 

flow data at King Hill provided by the 

petitioner. However, the petitioners 

have not explained how a few years of 

flushing flows reduces the threat of high 

concentrations of pollutants due to low 

Snake River flows in other years. 

Therefore, we find that the petition has 

not presented substantial information 

suggesting that threat of mainstem 

Snake River water diversions to Bliss 

Rapids snails has diminished. 

Groundwater Mining 

The status report provided by the 

petitioner (Richards et al. 2006, p. 5) 

states that threats to Bliss Rapids snail 

coldwater spring influenced habitats 

from groundwater mining for irrigation 

and aquaculture are not as they were 

perceived when the species was listed 

in 1992. Average annual spring flows 

increased from about 4,400 cfs in 1910 

to approximately 6,500 cfs in the early 

1960s because of widespread flood 

irrigation causing artificial recharge of 

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

87). As a result of more efficient water 

practices from 1960 to the present (i.e., 

switching from flood irrigation to more 

efficient center-pivot irrigation systems) 

more water was pumped from the 

aquifer while water percolation into the 

aquifer declined, resulting in declines in 

average annual spring flows to about 

5,000 cfs (Richards et al. 2006, pp. 84, 

87). 

The petitioners also provided a 

number of documents indicating that 

there is a moratorium on some 

groundwater development in the eastern 

Snake River plain (Idaho 2004) and that 

there are current efforts to artificially 

recharge the Snake River aquifer to 

stabilize or increase spring flows (Idaho 

2005). These efforts have the potential 

to benefit the Bliss Rapids snails, but 

their effects have not yet been realized 

in terms of stable or increasing spring 

flows (Richards et al. 2006, p. 84). 

Information in our files shows that 

there are several in-stream flow targets, 

set by the State of Idaho, which have the 

potential to conserve populations of 

Bliss Rapids snails (IDWR 2006a). 

However, water rights with earlier 

priority dates have the right to fill their 

needs before the minimum stream flow 

is considered. 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 2006b). Therefore, the current 

and future conservation benefits of 

recently established in-stream flow 

targets for the Bliss Rapids snail are 

uncertain. 

Information provided by the 

petitioner, along with other information 

in our files, indicates that the State of 

Idaho has taken steps to improve 

groundwater recharge, and limit new 

groundwater development with the 

eastern Snake River plain; however, the 

Snake River Plain aquifer level 

continues to decline and instream-flow 

targets and moratoriums on new 

groundwater development do not 

prevent those with senior water rights 

from diminishing flows in drought years 

or during low flows. Therefore, we find 

that the petitioners have not presented 

substantial information indicating that 

the threat of groundwater mining to the 

Bliss Rapids snail may be less than the 

best available information indicated at 

the time of listing in 1992. 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 108 / Wednesday, June 6, 2007 / Proposed Rules 31255 

B. Overutilization for Commercial, 

Recreational, Scientific, or Educational 

Purposes 

The petitioners did not provide 

information regarding the 

overutilization of Bliss Rapids snails for 

commercial, recreational, scientific, or 

educational purposes, and we do not 

have information in our files suggesting 

that this factor is a threat to the species. 

C. Disease or Predation 

The petitioners did not provide 

information regarding the effects of 

disease or predation on Bliss Rapids 

snails. At the time of listing, we stated 

that changes in the fish fauna of the 

middle Snake River had been suggested 

as a potential threat to the Bliss Rapids 

snail (57 FR 59254). At that time, we 

had no data to support this suggestion, 

and we still have no information in our 

files suggesting that disease or predation 

are significant threats to the Bliss 

Rapids snail. 

D. The Inadequacy of Existing 

Regulatory Mechanisms 

The petitioners provided numerous 

documents regarding water rights, 

aquifer recharge, and groundwater 

management in the Snake River and 

Snake River Plain aquifer (Idaho 2006 in 

litt.). These documents indicate that the 

State of Idaho has regulatory 

mechanisms to limit or exclude the 

development of new surface water or 

groundwater rights within the range of 

the Bliss Rapids snail. These documents 

also indicate that the State has 

regulatory mechanisms to prioritize 

existing water rights based on seniority. 

At the time of listing, we found 

inadequate regulatory mechanisms to be 

a threat because (1) regulations were 

inadequate to curb further water 

withdrawal from groundwater spring 

outflows or tributary spring streams, (2) 

it was unlikely that pollution control 

regulations would reverse the trend in 

nutrient loading any time soon, (3) there 

was a lack of protections for invertebrate 

species in Idaho, and (4) regulations did 

not require FERC or the U.S. Army Corp 

of Engineers to address Service concerns 

regarding licensing hydroelectric 

projects or permitting projects under the 

Clean Water Act for unlisted snails. 

Information provided by the 

petitioner, along with information in 

our files, suggests that the threat to Bliss 

Rapids snails from inadequate 

regulatory mechanisms may be less than 

we perceived at the time of listing. 

Although there are no regulatory 

mechanisms in place to prevent senior 

diversions under current water rights 

allocations from dewatering the stream 

(see Groundwater Mining section 

above), there are now regulatory 

mechanisms to limit future surface 

water and groundwater development, 

and some pollution control regulations 

have been implemented (see Water 

Quality section above). 

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors 

Affecting Its Continued Existence 

The status report provided by the 

petitioner (Richards et al. 2006, p. 5) 

states that threats to the Bliss Rapids 

snail from the New Zealand mudsnail 

(Potamopyrgus antipodarum) are not as 

they were perceived when the species 

was listed in 1992. Richards et al. (2006, 

p. 6) note that the New Zealand 

mudsnail has not caused any local 

extirpations of Bliss Rapids snails, and 

that they have not colonized headwater 

spring habitats. However, in areas where 

the species do coexist, Richards et al. 

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

Rapids snails may be competitively 

excluded by New Zealand mudsnails, 

and that Bliss Rapids snail densities 

would be higher in the absence of New 

Zealand mudsnails. 

At the time of listing, we stated that 

New Zealand mudsnails were not 

abundant in coldwater 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). 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). Furthermore, New 

Zealand mudsnails have become 

established in every spring-fed creek or 

tributary to the Hagerman Reach that 

has been surveyed (USFWS 2007). 

Based on information provided by the 

petitioner, along with information in 

our files, New Zealand mudsnails 

appear to limit Bliss Rapids snail 

densities, except in headwater spring 

habitats. Although the information 

provided by the petitioners clarifies our 

understanding of competitive 

interactions between New Zealand 

mudsnails and Bliss Rapids snails, the 

primary conclusions of their review are 

consistent with our analysis at the time 

of listing. Therefore, we find that the 

petitioners have not provided 

substantial information indicating that 

the threats to Bliss rapids snails from 

New Zealand mudsnails may be less 

than the best available information 

indicated at the time of listing in 1992. 

Finding 

We have reviewed the delisting 

petition and the supporting documents, 

as well as other information in our files. 

We find that the delisting petition and 

other information in our files presents 

substantial information that delisting 

the Bliss Rapids snail may be warranted, 

and we are initiating a status review. 

Petitioners have provided a detailed 

status report that updates the state of 

knowledge regarding Bliss Rapids snail 

habitat use, distribution, and threats. 

The status report provides substantial 

information indicating that the Bliss 

Rapids snail is more widely distributed 

in the Hagerman area of southern Idaho 

than previously recorded, that it has 

been documented in areas without 

obvious spring influence based on 

visual inspections, and that threats from 

hydropower development and ongoing 

operation of hydropower dams may not 

be what we perceived when we listed 

the species in 1992. The status report 

also provides substantial information 

indicating that additional regulatory 

mechanisms now exist that could limit 

water development and water pollution 

in Bliss Rapids snail habitat. Based on 

our review of the petition and 

information in our files, other threats to 

the species remain, but we will fully 

evaluate these and determine whether 

or not delisting is warranted, in our 12- 

month finding in accordance with 

section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act. 

5-Year Review 

Section 4(c)(2)(A) of the Act requires 

that we conduct a review of listed 

species at least once every 5 years. We 

are then, under section 4(c)(2)(B), to 

determine whether or not any species 

should be removed from the List 

(delisted), or reclassified from 

endangered to threatened, or threatened 

to endangered. We initiated a 5-year 

review for the Bliss Rapids snail on July 

27, 2004 (69 FR 44676). Because we are 

initiating a 12-month finding with this 

notice, and because the 12-month 

finding and 5-year review serve a 

similar purpose (i.e., to determine the 

appropriate classification of a species 

under the Act), the results of our 12- 

month finding will be adopted for our 

5-year review. 

References 

A complete list of all references cited 

in this finding is available, upon 

request, from the Snake River Fish and 

Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section). 

Author 

The primary author of this document 

is Jesse D’Elia, Pacific Regional Office, 

Portland, Oregon. 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS
31256 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 108 / Wednesday, June 6, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

Authority 

The authority for this action is section 

4 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 

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

Dated: May 25, 2007. 

Randall B. Luthi, 

Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 07–2812 Filed 6–5–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a 

Petition To List the Yellow-Billed Loon 

as Threatened or Endangered 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition 

finding and initiation of status review. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 

90-day finding on a petition to list the 

yellow-billed loon (Gavia adamsii) as 

threatened or endangered, under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended. We find that the petition 

presents substantial scientific 

information indicating that the 

petitioned action may be warranted. As 

a result of this action, the Service also 

announces the commencement of a 

thorough status review to determine if 

listing the yellow-billed loon may be 

warranted. We ask the public to submit 

to us any pertinent information 

concerning the status of or threats to 

this species. We will also be working 

with other agencies to gain additional 

data where gaps in our current 

information on this species exist. In 

addition, together with the Bureau of 

Land Management, the Alaska 

Departments of Fish and Game and 

Natural Resources, the U.S. Geological 

Survey, and the National Park Service, 

we have developed a Conservation 

Agreement for the yellow-billed loon, 

which addresses a subset of threats to 

the loon in a subset of the species’

range. We invite comments on 

management strategies and research 

needs that should be considered in 

annual reviews of the Conservation 

Agreement. 

DATES: The finding announced in this 

document was made on June 6, 2007. To 

be considered in the 12-month finding 

for this petition comments and 

information must be submitted to us by 

August 6, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: Data, information, and 

comments concerning this finding may 

be submitted by any one of the 

following methods: 

1. You may mail or hand-deliver 

written comments and information to: 

Yellow-billed Loon Comments, 

Endangered Species Branch, Fairbanks 

Fish and Wildlife Field Office, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, 101–12th Ave., 

Room 110, Fairbanks, AK 99701. 

2. You may fax your comments to 

(907) 456–0208. Please clearly indicate 

that you are submitting comments for 

the Yellow-billed Loon finding on the 

cover sheet. 

3. You may send your comments by 

electronic mail (e-mail) to 

YBLoon@fws.gov. Please see the Public 

Information Solicited section of this 

document for information on submitting 

e-mail comments. 

4. You may submit comments via the 

Internet at the Federal eRulemaking 

Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 

Follow the instructions for submitting 

comments. 

The petition, findings, and supporting 

information are available for public 

inspection, by appointment, during 

normal business hours, at the Fairbanks 

Fish and Wildlife Field Office at the 

address listed above. The Yellow-billed 

Loon Conservation Agreement, which 

addresses a subset of threats to the loon 

in a subset of the species’ range, is 

available at or can be requested from the 

address listed above. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Ted Swem, Fairbanks Fish and Wildlife 

Field Office (see ADDRESSES) (telephone 

907–456–0441; facsimile 907–456–

0208). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Public Information Solicited 

When we make a finding that 

substantial information is presented to 

indicate that listing a species may be 

warranted, we are required to promptly 

commence a review of the status of the 

species. To ensure that the status review 

is complete and based on the best 

available scientific and commercial 

information, we are particularly seeking 

the following information on the 

yellow-billed loon: 

(1) Additional information on the life 

history, ecology, and distribution of the 

species; 

(2) The status of the species and any 

trend information from the United 

States, Canada, Europe, and Asia; 

(3) Potential threats to the species on 

its nesting grounds, wintering areas, or 

migration corridors; 

(4) Ongoing management measures 

that may be important with regard to the 

conservation of the yellow-billed loon 

throughout its range; 

(5) The extent and nature of the use 

of the species for subsistence purposes; 

(6) The species’ tolerance for human 

interaction and studies documenting 

flushing distances; 

(7) The incidence of mortality as a 

result of bycatch from fishing on lakes 

and at sea; 

(8) Conservation and management 

strategies that should be considered for 

inclusion in annual reviews of the 

Yellow-billed Loon Conservation 

Agreement; and 

(9) Whether the U.S. breeding 

population constitutes a distinct 

population segment. 

If you wish to comment, you may 

submit your comments and materials 

concerning this finding to the 

Endangered Species Branch Chief (see 

ADDRESSES). If you wish to comment by 

e-mail, please include ‘‘Attn: Yellowbilled Loon’’ in the beginning of your 

message. Please include your name and 

return address in your e-mail message 

(anonymous comments will not be 

considered). If you do not receive a 

confirmation from the system that we 

have received your e-mail message, or in 

the event that our Internet connection is 

not functional, please submit your 

comments in writing using one of the 

alternate methods described above. 

Before including your address, phone 

number, e-mail address, or other 

personal identifying information in your 

comment, you should be aware that 

your entire comment—including your 

personal identifying information—may 

be made publicly available at any time. 

While you can ask us in your comment 

to withhold your personal identifying 

information from public review, we 

cannot guarantee that we will be able to 

do so. 

Background 

Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) 

(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires that we 

make a finding on whether a petition to 

list, delist, or reclassify a species 

presents substantial scientific or 

commercial information to indicate that 

the petitioned action may be warranted. 

We are to base this finding on 

information provided in the petition, 

supporting information submitted with 

the petition, and information otherwise 

available in our files at the time we 

make the determination. To the 

maximum extent practicable, we are to 

make this finding within 90 days of our 

receipt of the petition and publish our 

notice of this finding promptly in the 

Federal Register. 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS