Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 219 / Tuesday, November 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules 69303 

Dated: November 9, 2005. 

Mary E. Henigin, 

Acting Director, Office of Air Quality Planning 

and Standards. 

[FR Doc. 05–22694 Filed 11–14–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–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 Uinta 

Mountainsnail as Endangered 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition 

finding. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 

90-day finding on a petition to list the 

Uinta mountainsnail (Oreohelix 

eurekensis uinta) as endangered under 

the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act). We find that the petition 

does not present substantial scientific or 

commercial information indicating that 

listing O. e. uinta may be warranted. 

This finding is based on our 

determination that there is insufficient 

evidence to indicate that O. e. uinta is 

a valid subspecies, and, therefore, 

cannot be considered a listable entity 

pursuant to section 3(15) of the Act. 

Therefore, we will not initiate a status 

review in response to this petition. 

However, the public may submit to us 

new information concerning the status 

of or threats to O. e. uinta at any time. 

DATES: The finding announced in this 

document was made on November 7, 

2005. 

ADDRESSES: The complete file for this 

finding is available for public 

inspection, by appointment, during 

normal business hours at the Utah Fish 

and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, 2369 West Orton 

Circle, Suite 50, West Valley City, Utah 

84119. Submit new information, 

materials, comments, or questions 

concerning the status of or threats to 

this taxon to us at the above address. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Henry Maddux, Field Supervisor, Utah 

Fish and Wildlife Office (see 

ADDRESSES) (telephone 801–975–3330; 

facsimile 801–975–3331). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

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

Species 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 to indicate that 

the petitioned action may be warranted. 

We are to base this finding on 

information provided in the petition 

and other information that is readily 

available to us (e.g., in our files). 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. 

Our standard for substantial 

information within the Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) 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, if one has not already been 

initiated under our internal candidate 

assessment process. 

In making this finding, we relied on 

information provided by the petitioners 

and evaluated that information in 

accordance with 50 CFR 424.14(b). We 

also reviewed additional, readily 

available information pertinent to O. e. 

uinta to clarify certain points raised in 

the petition. We did not conduct 

additional research or subject the 

petition to rigorous critical review. Our 

process of coming to a 90-day finding 

under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 

section 424.14(b) of our regulations is 

limited to a determination of whether 

the information in the petition meets the 

‘‘substantial information’’ threshold. 

On August 29, 2001, we received a 

formal petition from the Utah 

Environmental Congress (UEC) to list O. 

e. uinta as an endangered species 

pursuant to section 4 of the Act. 

Although O. e. uinta was once thought 

extinct, a small number had been found 

in the Ashley National Forest, Uinta 

County, Utah, in 1998. The August 21, 

2001, petition was based largely on this 

discovery. The petition cited threats 

from grazing, prescribed fire, logging, 

and sedimentation from U.S. Forest 

Service (USFS) road-building 

operations. The petition also requested 

that critical habitat be designated 

simultaneously with the listing of O. e. 

uinta as endangered. 

In letters dated September 17 and 

October 3, 2001, we denied emergency 

listing because of measures taken by the 

Ashley National Forest to protect the 

population. On July 13, 2004, we 

received a 60-day notice of intent to sue 

from UEC and other groups. On January 

25, 2005, we received a complaint 

regarding our failure to make the 90-day 

and 12-month findings. In light of these 

legal actions, we discussed various 

options with the plaintiffs and 

tentatively agreed to submit a completed 

90-day finding to the Federal Register 

by November 7, 2005. 

Species Information 

Oreohelix eurekensis uinta is in the 

genus Oreohelix, commonly called the 

‘‘Mountain Snail.’’ This genus of land 

snails is endemic to western North 

America, with distributions ranging 

from southwestern Canada, including 

southern Saskatchewan and British 

Columbia, to western Chihuahua in 

northern Mexico (Pilsbry 1939). In terms 

of the biogeographical distribution of 

land snails, North America is generally 

split into Eastern and Western American 

‘‘Divisions’’ (Pilsbry 1939), while each 

division is further divided into land 

snail provinces (Frest 2002). The 

biogeographical distribution of 

Oreohelix includes the Rocky Mountain, 

Washingtonian, and Southwestern 

Provinces of the Western Division of 

North America (Frest 2002). 

Factors determining habitat 

preferences of land snails include cover, 

effective moisture availability, and 

geologic history (Frest 2002). Most land 

snail species are calciphiles, meaning 

they are usually restricted to limestone, 

dolomite, or other substrates containing 

high levels of the element calcium (Frest 

2002). Moist soil conditions are favored 

and soil pH may be a factor in 

determining suitable habitat (Frest 

2002). Desiccation is the primary factor 

in mortality (Frest 2002). Moist forests, 

slope bases, north slopes, springs and 

seeps, edges of floodplains, and rock 

talus (a sloping mass of loose rock 

debris at the base of a cliff) are areas of 

land snail concentration (Frest 2002). 

Areas with vegetation or other forms of 

cover (e.g., rock overhangs and caves) 

that provide shade also are usually 

preferred by land snails; abundant 

downed woody debris is also important 

(Frest 2002). 

Western land snails are typically 

herbivores, but some may consume 

animal matter. Land snails contribute 

substantially to nutrient recycling, 

breaking down plant detritus and 

animal waste (Frest 2002). They are 

preyed upon extensively by small 

mammals, reptiles, amphibians, birds, 

and insects (Frest 2002). 

Land snails are ‘‘exceptional 

indicators’’ of ecosystem health (Frest 

2002). They are present in many 

environments, have specialized habitat 

needs, and are essentially sessile 

69304 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 219 / Tuesday, November 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

(permanently attached or established; 

not free to move about). Land snails 

respond quickly and are vulnerable to 

disturbances or anthropogenic habitat 

change (Frest 2002). 

Oreohelix species and subspecies vary 

in size, height of shell spire, degree of 

carination (i.e., presence and size of a 

keel or ridge around the outside whorl 

of the shell), width of umbilicus (i.e., 

the ventral opening formed in the center 

of the whorls), and color (Pilsbry 1939). 

The level of endemism (i.e., the degree 

to which an organism is restricted to a 

certain area) among Oreohelix species 

and subspecies is notable and is 

believed to be specifically associated 

with unique geology, soils, and 

vegetation (Frest 2002). Areas of high 

endemism include the Hells Canyon 

area of Oregon, Idaho, and Washington, 

the lower Salmon River drainage of 

Idaho, the Wasatch Range in Utah, and 

northwestern portions of Montana (Frest 

2002). Isolated geographic localities, 

such as ‘‘island’’ mountain ranges, 

appear to support endemic species of 

Oreohelix (Frest 2002). 

Distribution 

The genus Oreohelix contains 32 

species and 54 subspecies, including 

Orehelix eurekensis—the species most 

closely associated with O. e. uinta 

(Pilsbry 1933). O. eurekensis has been 

documented in six localities 

representing four widely separated 

populations scattered across northern 

Utah (Oliver and Bosworth 1999). 

O. e. uinta has been positively 

identified in at least two localities: (1) 

The Ashley National Forest (NF), Uinta 

County, Utah (Oliver and Boswerth 

2000)—the site identified in the 

petition; and (2) a more recently 

discovered site identified as Big Spring 

site, on the Sheep Creek geological loop 

on the west side of Flaming Gorge 

Reservoir, approximately 80 kilometers 

(50 miles) away from the first site (Bill 

Stroh, USFS biologist, pers. comm.). No 

long-term studies have been completed 

to indicate specific population trends 

and it is unknown if the populations are 

increasing or decreasing (Oliver and 

Bosworth 1999). There is speculation 

that other populations of O. e. uinta also 

may exist in the east Tavaputs Plateau 

region of Utah (George Oliver, Utah 

Dept. of Wildlife Resources, pers. 

comm.). 

The Ashley NF site is an open, 45- 

degree, south-southwest-facing slope of 

broken limestone and loam. The sparse 

plant cover of the small area inhabited 

by Oreohelix eurekensis uinta is 

predominantly chokecherry (Prunus 

virgniana), rose (Rosa cf. woodsii), 

serviceberry (Amelanchier cf. alnifolia), 

pine (Pinus sp.), Douglas fir 

(Pseudotsuga menzeisii), thistle 

(Cirsium sp), and wax currant (Ribes 

cereum), although nine other species of 

forbs and two other species of shrubs 

also are present. Quaking aspen 

(Populus tremuloides) and sagebrush 

(Artemisia sp.) are prominent plants of 

the surrounding parts of the same slope 

(Oliver and Bosworth 2000). Eighty-four 

dead shells and three live specimens 

have been collected at the site and 

compared to paratype (specimens of the 

type series other than the holotype) 

specimen collections to verify their 

taxon (Oliver and Bosworth 2000). 

Although we have global positioning 

system (GPS) coordinates for the Big 

Spring site on the Sheep Creek 

geological loop, we have little 

descriptive information on the 

localities. Eleven small, dead snails 

were found approximately 3.8 

centimeters (1.5 inches) under the 

surface in one locality, and, in another 

locality, others were found in dry soil 

approximately 0.65 centimeter (0.25 

inch) under the surface, under a 

gooseberry. Shells were collected by the 

USFS on September 25, 2003, and later 

identified by George Oliver (Utah 

Department of Wildlife Resources 

(UDWR)). 

Taxonomy 

Oreohelix eurekensis uinta is in the 

class Gastropoda, family Oreohelicidae, 

and genus Oreohelix. Oreohelix 

eurekensis was originally described as 

Oreohelix hemphilli eurekensis by 

Henderson and Daniels (1916), but was 

subsequently elevated to full specific 

status as Oreohelix eurekensis 

(Henderson 1924). O. e. eurekensis was 

recognized as a subspecies by 

Henderson and Daniels (1916), and O. e. 

uinta was proposed as a subspecies by 

Brooks (1939). Brooks proposed 

subspecific status for O. e. uinta based 

primarily on its relatively wider 

umbilicus, an exceedingly variable 

feature in Oreohelix taxa (Roscoe and 

Grosscup 1964). Roscoe and Grosscup 

(1964) suggested that younger 

specimens of O. eurekensis could not be 

distinguished from O. e. uinta and that 

O. e. uinta may simply be a subadult of 

O. eurkensis. The senior author had 

‘‘grave doubts as to the validity’’ of O. 

e. uinta even as a subspecies (Roscoe 

and Grosscup 1964). 

Experienced staff of the UDWR 

reviewed multiple references in an 

effort to understand the taxonomic 

history of Oreohelix eurekensis uinta. 

Of the 15 references they identified from 

1936 through 2000, only 6 discussed 

taxonomy and 4 of those only minimally 

(James F. Karpowitz, UDWR, in litt., 

August 18, 2005). With the types of 

information that would be necessary to 

reconcile the issue of taxonomy (e.g., 

morphology of soft anatomy, molecular 

genetics, and breeding experiments) 

lacking, authors either deferred to 

Brooks (1939), who justified the 

subspecies status based on slight 

morphological distinction and 

geographic disjunction, or explicitly 

questioned the validity of the taxon 

(Karpowitz in litt. 2005). Brooks (1939) 

stated ‘‘this race is so similar to [typical 

Oreohelix eureka] found * * * about 

125 miles * * * from [the new locality] 

* * * that it would hardly be thought 

distinguishable if it were not from a 

different mountain system.’’

Karpowitz (in litt. 2005) also quoted 

Bickel (unpublished report, 1977) as 

stating that the taxonomic status of both 

Orehelix eurekensis and O. e. uinta was 

‘‘undetermined, probably a synonym or 

subspecies of Oreohelix yavapai.’’ It is 

clear that, based on the sum total of 

information reviewed, there has never 

been a systematic analysis of O. e. uinta 

or its relatives and there is no 

persuasive or strongly defensible 

scientific basis for any of the possible 

taxonomic arrangements (i.e., 

subspecies or species) that have been 

proposed (Karpowitz in litt. 2005). 

Thus, we conclude that there is 

insufficient scientific evidence to 

indicate that O. e. uinta is a valid 

subspecies. Therefore, we further 

conclude that the Uinta mountainsnail 

cannot at this time be considered a 

listable entity pursuant to section 3(15) 

of the Act. 

Additional Considerations 

The petition presented information 

pursuant to the five factors listed in 

section 4 of the Act in an effort to 

identify threats that may be leading to 

the decline of the Uinta mountainsnail. 

These factors are pertinent only in cases 

where the organism being proposed for 

listing is a listable entity as defined by 

section 3(15) of the Act. Nonetheless, 

we reviewed the information included 

in the petition, and other information 

readily available to us, in an effort to 

identify possible voluntary management 

actions that may assist with Uinta 

mountainsnail conservation. We 

reiterate that this discussion of threats is 

not a basis for our finding. 

The petition suggests that prescribed 

fire may have extirpated the species, 

although Oliver and Bosworth (2000) 

clearly stated that previous attempts to 

locate O. e. uinta by Clarke and Hovingh 

(1994) were in the wrong location and 

that their reference to possible 

extirpation from the burn was 

unfounded. Although prescribed fire 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 219 / Tuesday, November 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules 69305 

may be detrimental to mountainsnails, 

USFS has confirmed that there are 

currently no prescribed burns scheduled 

for the type location on the Ashley NF 

(Bill Stroh, USFS biologist, pers. 

comm.). The USFS also has confirmed 

that there are no timber harvests 

scheduled or anticipated in the site 

location, nor are there any planned road 

construction projects (Bill Stroh, USFS 

biologist, pers. comm.). The site has 

been fenced and is being monitored by 

USFS personnel. 

At this time, the petitioned 

population of mountainsnails seems 

most at risk from scientific collection, 

an issue not addressed in the petition 

but the subject of ongoing coordination 

between USFS, UDWR, and the Service. 

The rarity of the species also is in 

question in that at least two populations 

of O. e.s uinta have been positively 

identified, with two other suspected 

populations from the east Tavaputs 

Plateau (George Oliver, UDWR, pers. 

comm.). 

Finding 

We have reviewed the petition, 

literature cited in the petition, and other 

pertinent information readily available 

to us. Based on this review, we find the 

petition does not present substantial 

information indicating that listing the 

Uinta mountainsnail may be warranted. 

This finding is based on the lack of 

conclusive scientific evidence to 

indicate that O. e. uinta is a valid 

subspecies. Therefore, we have 

concluded that the Uinta mountainsnail 

cannot be considered a listable entity 

pursuant to section 3(15) of the Act. We 

will not be commencing a status review 

in response to this petition. However, 

we will continue to monitor the taxon’s 

population status and trends, potential 

threats, and ongoing management 

actions that might be important with 

regard to the conservation of the Uinta 

mountainsnail across its range. We 

encourage interested parties to continue 

to gather data that will assist with these 

conservation efforts. New information 

should be submitted to the Field 

Supervisor, Utah Field Office (see 

ADDRESSES). 

References Cited 

A complete list of all references cited 

herein is available, upon request, from 

the Utah Field Office (see ADDRESSES). 

Author 

The primary author of this notice is 

Marianne Crawford, Utah Field Office, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, (see 

ADDRESSES). 

Authority 

The authority for this action is section 4 of 

the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

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

Dated: November 7, 2005. 

Marshall Jones, 

Deputy Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 05–22629 Filed 11–14–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P