Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 135 / Thursday, July 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules 34539 

photochemical modeling, spatial 

interpolation of ambient data from 

existing O3 monitors, or other 

quantitative assessment tools to 

determine the areas where there are 

projected maximum non-urban O3

concentrations, and where these regions 

with elevated O3 might overlap O3- 

sensitive ecosystems, and other 

important wilderness areas and 

Micropolitan Statistical Areas. Federal 

Land Managers, State, local, or Tribal 

ecosystem assessment experts, or 

academic researchers who are familiar 

with the patterns of vegetation damage 

and distribution of O3 sensitive species 

in their areas should also be consulted. 

A State may propose establishing or 

moving a site as part of their annual 

monitoring network plan due each year 

as provided in § 58.10; however, such 

quantitative assessments to determine 

the required non-urban O3 monitors 

shall be updated as part of the 

assessment of their air quality 

surveillance system due to the EPA 

Regional Administrator every 5 years as 

required by § 58.10. 

(d) In some cases, non-urban O3

monitors may already be operating by 

monitoring organizations (e.g., the 

National Park Service) other than the 

responsible State or local agency. State 

or local agencies may utilize such O3

monitors for one or more of the required 

non-urban monitors under the following 

provisions: 

(1) The O3 monitor in use by another 

monitoring organization meets the 

quality assurance, method requirements, 

and probe and siting criteria as provided 

for in Appendices A, C, and E of this 

part, including any applicable approved 

waivers according to the conditions of 

each applicable appendix. 

(2) The O3 monitor is included in the 

applicable State or local agency annual 

monitoring network plan as provided 

for § 58.10. 

(3) Data are included in the Annual 

Air Monitoring Data Certification as 

provided for in § 58.15. 

(4) Data are submitted according to 

the requirements of § 58.16. 

(5) Data are made available to the 

State or local agency in a timely manner 

for reports of the air quality index 

according to the requirements of § 58.50 

and to support other real-time data 

objectives such as national air quality 

mapping or forecasting. 

(6) If for any reason the O3 monitor is 

shut down, the applicable State or local 

agency must address how it proposes to 

meet the loss of data in the next 

required annual monitoring network 

plan as provided for in § 58.10. 

(e) States may choose to seek from the 

EPA Regional Administrator a deviation 

from non-urban requirements that either 

modify or waive these requirements, for 

example, in a small, relatively 

urbanized State, in situations where a 

State believes that one of the required 

non-urban monitors can meet more than 

one objective, or where a State can 

demonstrate that no Micropolitan 

Statistical Area will experience design 

value concentrations of at least 85 

percent of the NAAQS. When seeking 

approval of such deviations, the State 

must provide relevant information 

specific to the basis for which the 

waiver is sought. Any deviations based 

on the Regional Administrator’s waiver 

of requirements must be described in 

the annual monitoring network plan. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. E9–16802 Filed 7–15–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[FWS–R1–ES–2008–0084; 14420–1113– 

0000–C6] 

RIN 1018–AW16 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a 

Petition To Remove the Utah (Desert) 

Valvata Snail (Valvata utahensis) From 

the List of Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife and Proposed Rule 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition 

finding; proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 

12-month finding on a petition to 

remove the Utah (desert) valvata snail 

(Valvata utahensis) 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 

available scientific and commercial 

data, the Utah valvata snail is more 

widespread and occurs in a greater 

variety of habitats in the Snake River 

than known at the time of listing in 

1992. We now know that the Utah 

valvata snail is not limited to areas of 

cold-water springs or spring outflows; 

rather, it persists in a variety of aquatic 

habitats, including cold-water springs, 

spring creeks and tributaries, the 

mainstem Snake River and associated 

tributary stream habitats, and reservoirs 

influenced by dam operations. Given 

our current understanding of the 

species’ habitat requirements and 

threats, the species does not meet the 

definition of a threatened or endangered 

species under the Act. Therefore, we are 

proposing to remove the Utah valvata 

snail from the List, thereby removing all 

protections provided by the Act. 

DATES: We will accept comments from 

all interested parties until September 

14, 2009. We must receive requests for 

public hearings, in writing, at the 

address shown in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section by August 

31, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by one of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public 

Comments Processing, Attn: RIN 1018– 

AW16, Division of Policy and Directives 

Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 

222, Arlington, VA 22203. 

We will not accept e-mail or faxes. We 

will post all comments on http:// 

www.regulations.gov. This generally 

means that we will post any personal 

information you provide us (see the 

Public Comments Solicited section 

below for more information). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jeffery L. Foss, State Supervisor, Idaho 

Fish and Wildlife Office, 1387 S. 

Vinnell Way, Room 368, Boise, ID 83709 

(telephone 208/378–5243; facsimile 

208/378–5262). Persons who use a 

telecommunications device for the deaf 

(TDD) may call the Federal Information 

Relay Service (FIRS) at 800/877–8339, 

24 hours a day, 7 days a week. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Public Comments Solicited 

Our intent is to use the best available 

commercial and scientific data as the 

foundation for all endangered and 

threatened species classification 

decisions. Comments or suggestions 

from the public, other concerned 

governmental agencies, the scientific 

community, industry, or any other 

interested party concerning this 

proposed rule to remove the Utah 

valvata snail from the List are hereby 

solicited. Comments particularly are 

sought concerning: 

(1) Additional information regarding 

the range, distribution, and population 

size of the Utah valvata snail, including 

the locations of any additional colonies 

or populations; 

(2) Data on any threats (or lack 

thereof) to the Utah valvata snail; 

(3) Current or planned activities in the 

areas occupied by the Utah valvata snail 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
34540 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 135 / Thursday, July 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

and possible impacts of these activities 

on this species; and 

(4) Data on Utah valvata snail 

population trends. 

You may submit your comments and 

materials concerning this proposed rule 

by one of the methods listed in the 

ADDRESSES section. We will not accept 

comments sent by e-mail or fax or to an 

address not listed in the ADDRESSES

section. 

We will post your entire comment— 

including your personal identifying 

information—on http:// 

www.regulations.gov. If you provide 

personal identifying information in 

addition to the required items specified 

in the previous paragraph, such as your 

street address, phone number, or e-mail 

address, you may request at the top of 

your document that we withhold this 

information from public review. 

However, we cannot guarantee that we 

will be able to do so. 

Comments and materials we receive, 

as well as supporting documentation we 

used in preparing this proposed rule, 

will be available for public inspection 

on http://www.regulations.gov, or by 

appointment, during normal business 

hours at the Idaho Fish and Wildlife 

Office, 1387 S. Vinnell Way, Room 368, 

Boise, ID 83709; by telephone at 208/ 

378–5243. 

Public Hearing 

The Act provides for one or more 

public hearings on this proposal, if 

requested. Requests must be received by 

the date specified in the DATES section. 

Such requests must be made in writing 

and addressed to the State Supervisor 

(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section above). 

Species Information 

The Utah valvata snail (Valvata 

utahensis) was first recognized as a 

species in 1902 from specimens in Utah 

Lake and Bear Lake, Utah (Walker 1902, 

p. 125). Its common name has since 

been changed by the American Fisheries 

Society to the ‘‘desert valvata’’ in the 

benchmark text for aquatic invertebrate 

nomenclature, Common and Scientific 

Names of Aquatic Invertebrates from the 

United States and Canada (Turgeon et 

al. 1998, p. 109), presumably due to the 

fact that it is no longer known to occur 

in Utah. However, because the species 

is currently listed in the Code of Federal 

Regulations as the Utah valvata snail, 

Valvata utahensis will be referred to as 

the Utah valvata snail throughout this 

proposed rule. 

The Utah valvata snail is univoltine 

(produces one group of eggs per year) 

with a lifespan of about 1 year. 

Reproduction and spawning occur 

asynchronously between March and 

October, depending on habitat, with the 

majority of young spawned between 

August and October (Cleland 1954, pp. 

171–172; U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 

(USBR) 2003, p. 7). Emergence of a new 

cohort follows approximately 2 weeks 

after oviposition (Cleland 1954, p. 170; 

Dillon 2000, p. 103), and senescent 

snails (i.e., those approximately 374 

days old) die shortly after reproduction 

(Cleland 1954, pp. 170–171; Lysne and 

Koetsier 2006a, p. 287). 

Lysne and Koetsier (2006a, p. 288) 

determined the average size of adult 

Utah valvata snails to be 0.17 inches 

(4.32 millimeters (mm)). The Utah 

valvata snail has been observed to 

produce egg masses which contained 3 

to 12 developing snails (Lysne and 

Koetsier 2006a, p. 288). Egg masses are 

approximately 0.39 to 0.06 inches (1.0 

to 1.5 mm) in diameter, and young 

snails are approximately 0.03 inches 

(0.7 mm) in size upon emergence (Lysne 

and Koetsier 2006a, p. 289). Utah 

valvata snail young possess a turbinate 

shell form and an incipient carina (keelshaped ridge) on the dorsal surface of 

the shell, which distinguishes them 

from the morphologically similar 

Valvata humeralis. Based on field and 

laboratory observations, the Utah 

valvata snail is primarily a grazer (Lysne 

and Koetsier 2006a, p. 287; Frest and 

Johannes 1992, pp. 13–14). 

Range 

The Utah valvata snail, or at least its 

closely related ancestors, has been 

described as ranging widely across the 

western United States and Canada as far 

back as the Jurassic Period, 199.6 ± 0.6 

to 145.5 ± 4 million years ago (Taylor 

1985a, p. 268). Fossils of the Utah 

valvata snail are known from Utah to 

California (Taylor 1985a, pp. 286–287). 

The Utah valvata snail was likely 

present in the ancestral Snake River as 

it flowed south from Idaho, through 

Nevada, and into northeastern 

California (Taylor 1985a, p. 303). The 

Snake River escaped to join the 

Columbia River Basin approximately 2 

million years ago (Hershler and Liu 

2004, pp. 927–928). 

At the time of listing in 1992 (57 FR 

59244, December 14, 1992) we reported 

the range of the Utah valvata snail as 

existing at a few springs and mainstem 

Snake River sites in the Hagerman 

Valley, Idaho (River Mile (RM) 585), a 

few sites above and below Minidoka 

Dam (RM 675), and in the American 

Falls Dam tailwater near Eagle Rock 

damsite (RM 709). Surveys at the State 

of Idaho’s Thousand Springs Preserve 

(RM 585) indicated declining numbers 

of snails, with two colonies at or below 

6,000 individuals (57 FR 59245). 

New data collected since the time of 

listing indicate that the range of the 

species is discontinuously distributed in 

at least 255 miles (410 kilometers (km)) 

of the Snake River and some associated 

tributary streams, an increase of nearly 

122 river miles (196 km) from the 

previously known range. Their current 

range in the Snake River extends from 

RM 585 near the Thousand Springs 

Preserve (Bean 2005), upstream to the 

confluence of the Henry’s Fork with the 

Snake River (RM 837; Fields 2005, 

p. 11). Colonies of the Utah valvata snail 

have been found in the Snake River near 

the towns of Firth (RM 777.5), Shelley 

(RM 784.6), Payne (RM 802.6), Roberts 

(RM 815), and in the Henrys Fork 

approximately 9.3 miles (15 km) 

upstream from its confluence with the 

Snake River (at Snake RM 832.3) 

(Gustafson 2003). Based on limited 

mollusk surveys, the species has not 

been found upstream from the described 

location on the Henry’s Fork or in the 

South Fork of the Snake River. Tributary 

streams to the Snake River where Utah 

valvata snails have been collected 

include Box Canyon Creek (RM 588) 

(Taylor 1985b, pp. 9–10), and at one 

location in the Big Wood River (WRM 

35) (USBR 2003, p. 22). Big Wood River 

observations require further 

investigation and may be the result of 

seasonal transport of Utah valvata snails 

via irrigation canals that connect the Big 

Wood and Snake Rivers, or passive 

transport via waterfowl (Miller et al. 

2006, p. 2371) between large bodies of 

water (i.e., reservoirs). 

Habitat Use 

At the time of listing in 1992, the best 

available data indicated that Utah 

valvata snails ‘‘characteristically require 

cold, fastwater, or lotic habitats * * * 

in deep pools adjacent to rapids or in 

perennial flowing waters associated 

with large spring complexes’’ (57 FR 

59244, December 14, 1992). In 

numerous field studies conducted since 

then, the species has been collected at 

a wide range of depths, ranging from 

less than 3.2 feet (1 meter) (Stephenson 

and Bean 2003, pp. 98–99) to depths 

greater than 45 feet (14 meters) (USBR 

2003, p. 20), and at temperatures 

between 37.4 and 75.2 degrees 

Fahrenheit (F) (4 to 24 degrees Celsius 

(C)) (Lysne 2007; Gregg 2006). 

Recent work conducted by the Idaho 

Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) in 

the upper Snake River demonstrated 

that Utah valvata snail presence was 

positively correlated with water depth 

(up to 18.37 feet (5.6 meters)) and 

temperature (up to 63 degrees F (17.2 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 135 / Thursday, July 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules 34541 

degrees C)) (Fields 2005, pp. 8–9), and 

Utah valvata snail density was 

positively correlated with macrophyte (a 

water plant large enough to be observed 

with the unaided eye) coverage, water 

depth, and temperature (Fields 2006, p. 

6). Similarly, Hinson (2006, pp. 28–29) 

analyzed available data from several 

studies conducted by the USBR (2001– 

2004), Idaho Power Company (IPC) 

(1995–2002), IDFG, Idaho 

Transportation Department (2003–2004) 

and others, and demonstrated a positive 

relationship between Utah valvata snail 

presence and macrophytes, depth, and 

fine substrates. One study reported Utah 

valvata snails in organically enriched 

fine sediments with a heavy macrophyte 

community, downstream of an 

aquaculture facility (RM 588) (Hinson 

2006, pp. 31–32). 

Survey data and information reported 

since the time of listing demonstrate 

that the Utah valvata snail is able to live 

in reservoirs, which were previously 

thought to be unsuitable for the species 

(Frest and Johannes 1992, pp. 13–14; 

USBR 2002, pp. 8–9; Fields 2005, p. 16; 

Hinson 2006, pp. 23–33). We now know 

the Utah valvata snail persists in a 

variety of aquatic habitats, including 

cold-water springs, spring creeks and 

tributaries, the mainstem Snake River 

and associated tributary stream habitats, 

and reservoirs. 

Alterations of the Snake River, 

including the construction of dams and 

reservoir habitats, have changed fluvial 

processes resulting in the reduced 

likelihood of naturally high river flows 

or rapid changes in flows, and the 

retention of fine sediments (U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(USEPA) 2002, pp. 4.30–4.31), which 

may also increase potential habitat for 

the species (e.g., Lake Walcott and 

American Falls Reservoirs). Utah 

valvata snail surveys conducted 

downstream from American Falls Dam 

(RM 714.1) to Minidoka Dam (RM 

674.5), from 1997 and 2001–2007, 

consistently found Utah valvata snails 

on fine sediments within this 39-mile 

(62.9 km) river/reservoir reach of the 

Snake River (USBR 1997, p. 4; USBR 

2003, p. 8; USBR 2004, p. 5; USBR 2005, 

p. 6; USBR 2007, pp. 9–11; USFWS 

2005, p. 119). Surveys conducted 

downstream of Minidoka Dam (RM 

674.5) to Lower Salmon Falls Dam (RM 

573.0) have detected Utah valvata 

snails, including one record from the 

tailrace area of Minidoka Dam in 2001 

(USFWS 2005, p. 120). 

In summary, based on available 

information, the Utah valvata snail is 

not as specialized in its habitat needs as 

we thought at the time of listing. In the 

Snake River, the species inhabits a 

diversity of aquatic habitats throughout 

its 255-mile (410 km) range, including 

cold-water springs, spring creeks and 

tributaries, mainstem and free-flowing 

waters, reservoirs, and impounded 

reaches. The species occurs on a variety 

of substrate types including both fine 

sediments and more coarse substrates in 

areas both with and without 

macrophytes. It has been collected at 

water depths ranging from less than 3.2 

feet (1 meter) to greater than 45 feet (14 

meters), and at water temperatures 

ranging from 37.4 to 75.2 degrees F (3 

to 24 degrees C). 

Population Density 

The density of Utah valvata snails at 

occupied sites can vary greatly. For 

example, at one cold-water spring site at 

the Thousand Springs Preserve, the 

average density in 2003 was 197 snails/ 

square meter (m2) (ranging between 0 

and 1,724 snails/m2) (Stephenson et al. 

2004, p. 23). In the mainstem Snake 

River between American Falls Reservoir 

and Minidoka Dam in 2002, Utah 

valvata snail densities averaged 91 

snails/m2 (ranging from 0 to 1,188 snails 

per m2), and in American Falls 

Reservoir densities averaged 50 snails/ 

m2 (range unavailable) (USBR 2003, 

p. 20). Above American Falls Reservoir 

in the mainstem Snake River, Utah 

valvata snail densities at six sites 

averaged 117 snails/m2 (ranging from 0 

to 1,716 snails/m2) (Fields 2006, pp. 12– 

13). 

Within reservoirs, the proportional 

occurrence of snails is relatively high. 

For all field studies and surveys, the 

highest proportions of samples where 

Utah valvata snails are present have 

been collected in lower Lake Walcott 

Reservoir (USBR 2002, p. 5; USBR 2003, 

p. 6). For sample years 2001 to 2006, the 

relative proportion of samples 

containing Utah valvata snails ranged 

from 40 (in 2004) to 62 (in 2002) percent 

of samples collected. Similarly, 

American Falls reservoir samples 

contain a high proportion of Utah 

valvata snails with 21 (in 2001) to 33 (in 

2003) percent in collections between 

2002 through 2004. Such high 

proportional occurrence in reservoirs is 

additional evidence that Utah valvata 

snails are not restricted to cold-water 

springs or their outflows. 

Previous Federal Actions 

We listed the Utah valvata snail as 

endangered on December 14, 1992 (57 

FR 59244). Based on the best available 

data at that time we determined that the 

Utah valvata 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 Utah valvata snail. Critical habitat 

has not been designated for this species. 

On April 11, 2006, we initiated a 

5-year review for the species in 

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

Act (71 FR 18345). On December 26, 

2006, the Service received a petition 

from the Governor of Idaho and 

attorneys from several irrigation 

districts and canal districts requesting 

that the Utah valvata 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 Utah valvata 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 

review (72 FR 31264). As part of our 

best available scientific and commercial 

data analysis, we conducted a 30-day 

peer review on a draft status-review 

document, which was completed in 

September 2007 (USFWS 2007). The 

Summary of Factors Affecting the 

Species section below represents the 

best available scientific and commercial 

data resulting from our analysis and 

applicable updates from the previous 

peer review process. 

Summary of Factors Affecting the 

Species 

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

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. 

Changes in the List can be initiated by 

the Service or through the public 

petition process. Section 4 (b)(3)(A) of 

the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires 

that, for any petition containing 

substantial scientific and commercial 

information that listing 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 

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) Present or 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
34542 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 135 / Thursday, July 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

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. 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; and/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. 

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 Utah 

valvata as an endangered species, we 

stated: ‘‘Six proposed hydroelectric 

projects, including two high dam 

facilities, would alter free-flowing river 

reaches within the existing range of [the 

Utah valvata snail]. Dam construction 

threatens the [Utah valvata 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). 

Since the time of listing, proposed 

hydroelectric projects discussed in the 

1992 final 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 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). Additionally, 

recent studies have shown that the Utah 

valvata snail is not as limited in its 

habitat needs as we had thought at the 

time of listing (see Species Information 

section above). 

Operation of Existing Hydropower Dams 

In the 1992 final rule, we discussed 

peak-loading, the practice of artificially 

raising and lowering river levels to meet 

short-term electrical needs by local runof-the-river hydroelectric projects, as a 

threat to the Utah valvata snail. Peakloading was described as ‘‘a frequent 

and sporadic practice that results in 

dewatering mollusk habitats in shallow, 

littoral shoreline areas’’ (57 FR 59252). 

Studies conducted since the time of 

listing have shown the Utah valvata 

snail is able to persist in reservoirs, 

contrary to our understanding of the 

species at the time of listing (USFWS 

2005, p. 105; 57 FR 59244, 59245). For 

example, Lake Walcott (RM 702.5 to 

673.5; upstream of Minidoka Dam) 

appears to contain the largest 

population of Utah valvata snails in the 

Snake River system (USFWS 2005, pp. 

111–112). This is likely due to relatively 

good water quality in the reservoir 

compared to downstream sections of the 

Snake River near Hagerman where water 

quality is influenced by agricultural, 

municipal, and aquaculture flows into 

the river. In lower Lake Walcott, there 

is a large area of suitable Utah valvata 

snail habitat that remains submerged 

despite annual drawdowns (the 

reservoir fluctuates by no more than 5 

feet (1.5 meters) annually, thereby 

limiting the number of snails affected by 

dewatering and desiccation). Further, 

surveys conducted in the mainstem 

Snake River in 1997, 1998, and 2001, 

from American Falls Dam (RM 714.1) to 

Lake Walcott (RM 702.5) indicate a 

fairly large and viable population of 

Utah valvata snails even though 

shoreline habitats in this stretch 

undergo annual dewatering (USFWS 

2005, p. 119). In American Falls 

reservoir, dam operations and 

fluctuating flows have been estimated to 

kill between 5 and 40 percent of the 

Utah valvata snails in most years. 

Nevertheless, Utah valvata snails 

continue to persist in these reservoirs 

with relatively high proportional 

occurrence (USFWS 2005, p. 119). 

Degraded Water Quality 

In the final listing rule, we stated: 

‘‘The quality of water in [snail] habitats 

has a direct effect on the species [sic] 

survival. The [Utah valvata snail] 

require[s] cold, well-oxygenated 

unpolluted water for survival. Any 

factor that leads to deterioration in 

water quality would likely extirpate [the 

Utah valvata snail]’’ (57 FR 59252). As 

described above in the Species 

Information section, our understanding 

of the species’ habitat requirements has 

changed substantially since 1992. 

Furthermore, new information has 

become available indicating both (a) 

improvements to Snake River water 

quality, and (b) the ability of Utah 

valvata snail to inhabit and persist in 

reaches of the Snake River rich in 

nutrients (e.g., nitrogen and 

phosphorus). 

Factors that are known to degrade 

water quality in the Snake River include 

reduced water flow, warming due to 

impoundments, and increases in the 

concentration of nutrients, sediment, 

and pollutants reaching the river from 

agricultural and aquaculture inputs 

(USFWS 2005, p. 106). Several waterquality assessments have been 

completed for the Snake River by the 

USEPA, USBR, U.S. Geological Survey 

(USGS), and IPC. All of these 

assessments generally demonstrate that 

water quality in the Snake River of 

southern Idaho meets Idaho’s waterquality criteria for the protection of 

aquatic life for some months of the year, 

but may be poor in reservoirs or during 

summer high temperatures and low 

flows, based on water-quality criteria 

such as dissolved oxygen (Clark et al. 

1998, pp. 20–21, 24–27; Clark et al. 

2004, pp. 38–40; Clark and Ott 1996, p. 

553; Clark 1997, pp. 1–2, 19; Meitl 2002, 

p. 33). 

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, total coliforms) in excess of 

State or Federal guidelines. Nutrientenriched waters primarily enter the 

Snake River via springs, tributaries, fishfarm effluents, municipal wastetreatment facilities, and irrigation 

returns (USEPA 2002, pp. 4–18 to 4–24). 

Irrigation water returned to rivers is 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 135 / Thursday, July 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules 34543 

generally warmer, contains pesticides or 

pesticide byproducts, has been enriched 

with nutrients from 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. 

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. 42–45). 

Additionally, concentrations of lead, 

cadmium, and arsenic have been 

detected in snails collected from the 

Snake River (Richards 2003). 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). 

The effects of pollutants detected in 

the Snake River (e.g., metals, pesticides, 

excess nutrients) on the growth, 

reproduction, and survival of the Utah 

valvata snail have not been evaluated. 

However, the evidence available to us 

(including several intensive survey 

efforts) does not indicate that the 

population is declining or that the range 

of the species is contracting. 

Furthermore, the Utah valvata snail has 

been documented to occur in lowoxygen, organically-enriched sediments 

with heavy macrophyte communities 

downstream of an aquaculture facility 

(RM 588) (Hinson 2003, p. 17), 

indicating that the species may not be 

as sensitive to these pollutants as we 

once suspected. Based on the current 

best available information, we are not 

aware that water quality in the Snake 

River limits growth, reproduction, or 

survival of the Utah valvata snail in any 

portion of its range. 

There have been substantial declines 

in total dissolved solids (TSS) primarily 

as a result of changing irrigation 

practices. There have also been 

substantial declines in TP from 

changing agricultural practices and 

changing aquaculture feeds in the 

middle Snake River downstream of Lake 

Walcott. Data collected by the Idaho 

Department of Environmental Quality 

(IDEQ) show decreases of TSS near 64 

percent compared to 1990 levels, and 

decreases of TP near 33 percent 

compared to 1990 levels (Buhidar 2006). 

The specific water-quality parameters 

required for the survival and persistence 

of the Utah valvata snails are not 

known. However, the Utah valvata snail 

occurs over a relatively large 

documented range of over 255 river 

miles (410 km) (USFWS 2005, pp. 110– 

113) and has the ability to tolerate and 

persist in a variety of aquatic habitats 

with some degree of water-quality 

degradation (Lysne and Koetsier 2006b, 

pp. 234–237). For example, studies 

conducted by the USBR in 2003 in Lake 

Walcott Reservoir indicated the highest 

Utah valvata snail densities occurred in 

the lower reservoir, where the 

sediments had the greatest percentage of 

organic content (an indicator that 

oxygen levels are likely low) (Hinson 

2006, p. 19). 

Summary of Factor A: Our 

understanding of the habitat needs of 

the Utah valvata snail has changed 

substantially since the species was 

listed in 1992. Survey data collected 

since 1992 indicate that the geographic 

range of the species in the Snake River 

is approximately 122 river miles (196 

km) larger than known at the time of 

listing, that it occurs in a variety of 

substrate types (e.g., fines to cobble size) 

and flows, and that it tolerates a range 

of water-quality parameters. Threats 

pertaining to the construction of new 

hydropower dams as cited in the 1992 

final rule have not been realized as the 

plans for dam construction have expired 

or been withdrawn. The operation of 

existing hydropower dams and 

reservoirs likely affect the distribution 

of the Utah valvata snail along the 

shoreline areas due to fluctuating flows 

and seasonal dewatering; however, the 

species appears to persist in these 

reservoirs with relatively high 

proportional occurrence. There is no 

information to suggest that degraded 

water quality is affecting the species’ 

population numbers or distribution. 

Evidence indicates that improvements 

have been made in Snake River waterquality parameters including TSS and 

TP in some Snake River reaches since 

listing. Therefore, destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of the Utah 

valvata snail’s habitat or range is not 

currently putting the species in danger 

of extinction, and is not likely to result 

in the endangerment or extinction of the 

species in the foreseeable future. 

Factor B. Overutilization for 

Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 

Educational Purposes 

Based on the best available scientific 

and commercial data, we believe that 

overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes is not currently putting the 

Utah valvata 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 

limited in scope and extent. While 

collection could result in mortality of 

individuals within a small area, they are 

unlikely to have population-level effects 

because only a few individuals and 

institutions are interested in collecting 

the species and the life-history strategy 

of the species makes populations 

relatively resilient to limited mortality 

(i.e., invests little in reproduction, 

relatively high reproductive output 

(many eggs laid at a time), early age of 

reproduction, and short lifespan). 

Factor C. Disease or Predation 

Parasitic trematodes similar to those 

of the genus Microphallus have been 

identified in some freshwater snails 

(e.g., Pyrgulopsis robusta) that share 

similar habitats in the Snake River in 

Idaho (Dybdahl et al. 2005, p. 8). 

However, the occurrence of trematode 

parasites on Utah valvata has not been 

studied. 

Predators of the Utah valvata snail 

have not been documented; however, 

we assume that some predation by 

native and non-native species occurs. 

Aquatic snails in general are prey for 

numerous invertebrates and vertebrates 

(Dillon 2000, pp. 274–304), and 

predation on other 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; McCarthy and 

Fisher 2000, p. 387). 

Based on the best available scientific 

and commercial data, we believe that 

the threat of disease or predation is not 

placing the Utah valvata snail in danger 

of extinction, and is not likely to result 

in the endangerment or extinction of the 

species in the foreseeable future. The 

life-history strategy of the Utah valvata 

makes populations relatively resilient to 

limited mortality due to parasites or 

disease (i.e., invests little in 

reproduction, relatively high 

reproductive output (many eggs laid at 

a time), early age of reproduction, and 

short lifespan). 

Factor D. Inadequacy of Existing 

Regulatory Mechanisms 

In the final listing rule, 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 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
34544 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 135 / Thursday, July 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

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 for unlisted snails. 

Below, we address each of these 

concerns in turn. 

Groundwater Withdrawal Regulations 

Since 1992, new information has 

become available clarifying the habitat 

requirements of the Utah valvata snail. 

The species is not limited to cool, fastwater, or lotic habitats, or perennial 

flowing waters associated with large 

spring complexes, as previously 

believed. The species is able to live in 

a variety of aquatic habitats, and is 

locally abundant throughout a 255-mile 

(410 km) stretch of the Snake River in 

tributary streams, mainstem Snake 

River, and in reservoirs that are 

managed for annual drawdowns. 

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 Utah valvata 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., fish and wildlife, hydropower, or 

agriculture). Another IDWR regulatory 

mechanism is the ability of the Idaho 

Water Resource Board to appropriate 

water for minimum stream flows when 

in the public interest (IDWR 2006b). 

Since 1992, the IDWR and other State 

agencies have also created additional 

regulatory mechanisms that limit future 

surface and groundwater development, 

including the continuation of various 

moratoria on new consumptive water 

rights and the designation of Water 

Management Districts (Caswell 2007). 

The State is working with numerous 

interested parties to stabilize aquifer 

levels and enhance cold-water-spring 

outflows from the Eastern Snake River 

Plains. The recently proposed 

Comprehensive Aquifer Management 

Plan (CAMP) for the Eastern Snake 

River Plains area identifies water 

conservation measures to be 

implemented (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) 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 centralpivot 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. 

Nevertheless, the extinction or 

endangerment of the Utah valvata snail 

is unlikely given its ability to survive 

and persist in a wide variety of aquatic 

habitats not dependent upon 

groundwater outflows. 

Pollution Control Regulations 

Since 1992, reductions in sediment 

(TSS) and phosphorus (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 Utah valvata snail. These 

programs are tiered off of 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 

two 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 EPA 

in stream segments within the range of 

the Utah valvata snail in the Snake 

River or its tributaries (Buhidar 2006), 

although most apply only to TSS, TP, or 

temperature. 

State Invertebrate Species Regulations 

There are no State regulatory 

protections for the Utah valvata snail in 

Idaho. The primary threats to the 

species, as identified in our listing rule, 

were related to the loss or alteration of 

habitat. The lack of specific regulations 

protecting individual Utah valvata 

snails does not, by itself, imply that the 

species is threatened or endangered. 

Federal Consultation Regulations 

The discussion regarding the lack of 

a Federal regulatory mechanism in the 

1992 listing rule was primarily related 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 135 / Thursday, July 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules 34545 

to the proposed construction of six 

dams within the range of the species 

coupled with our belief at the time of 

listing that the species required cold, 

fast-water, or lotic habitats. As stated 

above, dams are no longer being 

proposed for construction and our 

understanding of Utah valvata snail 

habitat requirements has changed. Thus, 

the importance of a regulatory 

mechanism to address these threats is 

no longer a significant issue with regard 

to the conservation of the Utah valvata 

snail. 

Summary of Factor D: Although there 

are no specific State regulations 

protecting the Utah valvata snail, the 

primary threats identified in the final 

listing rule were related to the loss or 

alteration of the species’ habitat. 

Furthermore, as our understanding of 

the species’ habitat requirements has 

changed, so has our understanding of 

the species’ conservation and regulatory 

needs. Regulatory mechanisms such as 

Idaho’s water-quality standards and 

TMDLs will continue to apply to 

habitats that the Utah valvata snails 

occupy should we finalize this delisting 

proposal. Therefore, the inadequacy of 

existing regulatory mechanisms does 

not presently endanger the Utah valvata 

snail, nor is it likely to do so 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 were not yet 

abundant in cold-water spring flows 

with colonies of the Utah valvata snail, 

but that they likely did compete with 

the species in the mainstem Snake River 

habitats (57 FR 59254). Surveys have 

found that Utah valvata snails and New 

Zealand mudsnails frequently co-occur 

in cold-water spring, mainstem Snake 

River, and reservoir habitats (37 percent 

co-occurrence in combined habitat 

types), which may indicate that these 

two species are able to co-exist or that 

they actually have slightly different 

resource preferences (e.g., periphytic vs. 

perilithic algae) (Hinson 2006, p. 42). 

However, Hinson (2006, p. 41) also 

notes that the overlap in habitat 

utilization between the Utah valvata 

snail and the New Zealand mudsnail 

could lead to direct competition for 

resources between these two species. 

The USBR reported that New Zealand 

mudsnails are increasing in Lake 

Walcott, yet the densities observed were 

substantially lower than those observed 

in mainstem Snake River habitats 

downstream (USBR 2003, p. 19, USBR 

2005, p. 6). Further upstream, the 

distribution of New Zealand mudsnails 

currently appears to be limited to the 

upper end of American Falls Reservoir 

near the input of the Snake and Portneuf 

rivers (USBR 2003, p. 21). Surveys 

conducted even further upstream in the 

Snake River and tributaries (Field 2004, 

2005, pp. 8–12) found moderate-to-high 

densities of the New Zealand mudsnail 

at five sites. However, Field (2005, p. 

10) stated that the current distribution 

of New Zealand mudsnails in the Snake 

River above American Falls Reservoir 

could more strongly reflect patterns of 

introductions rather than habitat 

preferences. Populations of the New 

Zealand mudsnail are not known to 

occur in the Wood River. 

Summary of Factor E: The New 

Zealand mudsnail frequently co-occurs 

with the Utah valvata snail and may be 

competing for habitat or food. The New 

Zealand mudsnail can reach extremely 

high densities in the middle Snake 

River (Richards et al. 2001, p. 375), and 

has been recorded at moderate-to-high 

densities at five sites in tributaries to the 

Snake River and the Snake River above 

American Falls Reservoir. Populations 

of the New Zealand mudsnail are not 

known to occur in the Wood River. The 

overall impact on the Utah valvata snail 

from the invasion of the New Zealand 

mudsnail is unknown (Lysne 2003, pp. 

85–86; Hinson 2006, p. 41). However, 

after approximately 20 years of cooccurrence there is no evidence 

suggesting that the New Zealand 

mudsnail has caused local extirpations 

of the Utah valvata snail. Although this 

does not rule out potential future effects 

to the Utah valvata snail’s distribution 

or abundance, the current evidence does 

not support the conclusion that the New 

Zealand mudsnail presently endangers 

the Utah valvata snail, nor that it is 

likely to do so in the foreseeable future. 

Foreseeable Future 

For the purposes of this proposed 

rule, the ‘‘foreseeable future’’ is the 

period of time over which events or 

effects reasonably can or should be 

anticipated, or trends reasonably 

extrapolated, such that reliable 

predictions can be made concerning the 

status of the species. As discussed above 

in the Summary of Factors section, we 

determined that the primary threats that 

were identified at the time the Utah 

valvata snail was listed in 1992 

(construction of new, and operation of 

existing, hydropower dams; water 

quality and quantity; inadequacy of 

regulatory mechanisms; and the 

introduction of a new invasive snail 

(i.e., the New Zealand mudsnail)) no 

longer exist (e.g., new dams), have 

improved (e.g., water quality), or have 

not been as severe as expected (e.g., the 

New Zealand mudsnail). All 

indications, based on our improved 

understanding of the Utah valvata 

snail’s range, habitat requirements, and 

ecology, suggest that the Utah valvata 

snail is more widely distributed and 

occurs in a variety of ecological settings 

over a 255-mile (410 km) range of the 

Snake River. Much of the Snake River 

within the range of the Utah valvata is 

influenced by seasonal dam operations 

for hydroelectric or agricultural 

purposes, yet the species persists in 

these varied mainstem Snake River 

systems, including impounded reservoir 

habitats (e.g., Lake Walcott and 

American Falls reservoirs). In short, 

given the available information, we can 

not reasonably predict or anticipate that 

threats to the Utah valvata snail will 

increase in severity in the future such 

that they would lead the species to 

become threatened or endangered 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range. 

Conclusion of the Rangewide 5-Factor 

Analysis 

As required by the Act, we considered 

the five potential threat factors to assess 

whether the Utah valvata snail is 

threatened or endangered throughout its 

range (our analysis of whether there are 

significant portions of the species’ range 

that are threatened or endangered 

follows this section). Information 

collected since the species’ listing in 

1992 indicates that the Utah valvata 

snail is widely distributed and occurs in 

a variety of ecological settings over a 

255-mile range of the Snake River. 

Much of the Snake River within the 

range of the Utah valvata is influenced 

by seasonal dam operations for 

hydroelectric or agricultural purposes, 

yet the species persists in these varied 

mainstem Snake River systems, 

including impounded reservoir habitats 

(e.g., Lake Walcott and American Falls 

reservoirs). None of the threats that we 

identified in the 1992 listing appear to 

be significant to the species in light of 

our current understanding of its status. 

Nor have we identified any other threats 

to the species. Therefore, we find that 

the Utah valvata snail is not in danger 

of extinction throughout its range, nor is 

it likely to become so in the foreseeable 

future. 

The Service has determined that the 

original data for classification of the 

Utah valvata snail used in 1992 were in 

error. However, it is important to note 

that the original data for classification 

constituted the best available scientific 

and commercial data available at the 

time and were in error only in the sense 

that they were incomplete. The primary 

considerations for proposing to delist 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
34546 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 135 / Thursday, July 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

the Utah valvata snail are described in 

the five-factor analysis above. 

Significant Portion of the Range 

Analysis 

Having determined that the Utah 

valvata snail does not meet the 

definition of a threatened or endangered 

species throughout its range, we must 

next consider whether there are any 

significant portions of its range where it 

is in danger of extinction or is likely to 

become endangered in the foreseeable 

future. On March 16, 2007, a formal 

opinion was issued by the Solicitor of 

the Department of the Interior, ‘‘The 

Meaning of ‘In Danger of Extinction 

Throughout All or a Significant Portion 

of Its Range’ ’’ (U.S. DOI 2007). We have 

summarized our interpretation of that 

opinion and the underlying statutory 

language below. 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 of the 

species 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 (i) the portions may be 

significant and (ii) 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. 

Moreover, 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 of a 

species’ range 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. 

The terms ‘‘resiliency,’’ 

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

intended to be indicators of the 

conservation value of portions of the 

species’ range. Resiliency of a species 

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 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 genetically 

based 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. 

Applying the process described above 

we evaluated a recent genetic study of 

the Utah valvata snail (Miller et al. 

2006) and the ecological settings in 

which the species occurs throughout its 

range. We divided the range into three 

population units for further analysis: 

The Wood River population unit, the 

Snake River population unit, and the 

Hagerman population unit. Both the 

Wood River and Hagerman populations 

are separated geographically, and in the 

case of the Hagerman population, 

genetically and ecologically. 

Geographically, the Upper Snake and 

Henry’s Fork Rivers and reservoirs of 

the Snake River are proximal and have 

a greater potential for connectivity of 

the Utah valvata snail populations in 

these reaches. They were analyzed as 

one unit: the Snake River population 

unit. We then evaluated whether each 

unit constitutes a significant portion of 

the range of the species, and if so, 

whether that portion was threatened or 

endangered. 

Wood River Population Unit 

There is a high degree of uncertainty 

concerning the distribution and 

abundance of the species in the Wood 

River since there has been only one 

documented colony and systematic 

surveys have not been conducted. Based 

on the limited information we have on 

the Utah valvata snail in the Wood 

River, this colony does not appear to 

exist in an unusual or unique ecological 

setting or contain a large portion of the 

habitat or individuals (in fact, it appears 

to constitute an extremely small portion 

of the overall habitat and number of 

individuals). Further, recent genetic 

work conducted by Miller et al. (2006, 

pp. 2367–2372) found that the Wood 

River occurrence is not genetically 

divergent or unique from the Snake 

River population unit. Because of 

genetic similarities between Utah 

valvata snails in the Snake River and 

Wood River units, the Wood River unit 

could provide some redundancy to the 

species if the Snake River unit (see 

below for further information) is 

extirpated by a catastrophic event. 

However, given that Utah valvata are 

distributed discontinuously along 255 

miles (410 km) of the Snake River unit, 

a catastrophic event of the magnitude 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 135 / Thursday, July 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules 34547 

necessary to simultaneously eliminate 

all Utah valvata colonies from the Snake 

River unite is highly unlikely. In 

addition, due to the geographic 

separation of the Wood River unit from 

the Snake River unit, it is unlikely that 

the Wood River unit would be a 

significant source of snails to recolonize 

the Snake River. Therefore, given these 

factors, we determined the Wood River 

population unit did not provide a 

significant contribution to the species 

with regard to redundancy, resiliency, 

and representation, and was not 

evaluated further. 

Snake River Population Unit 

The Snake River population unit 

contains the largest and widest ranging 

portion of the overall Utah valvata snail 

population and contributes substantially 

to the resiliency, representation, and 

redundancy of the species. As 

mentioned above, the Snake River 

population was analyzed as one unit 

because the Upper Snake and Henry’s 

Fork Rivers and reservoirs of the Snake 

River are proximal and have a greater 

potential for connectivity of the Utah 

valvata populations in these reaches. 

Other information contributing to its 

significance includes: (1) Additional 

surveys in this unit would likely find 

more colonies of Utah valvata snail, 

since most surveys conducted since 

1992 have been project based and 

systematic surveys have not yet 

occurred throughout much of this reach; 

(2) the uppermost reaches of the Snake 

River unit, including the Henry’s Fork 

River where Utah valvata snail occurs, 

is not influenced by dam and other 

water management operations, and 

water quality is considered to be better 

than that found in the Wood River or 

Hagerman reaches further downstream 

in the Snake River; (3) Lower Lake 

Walcott Reservoir has high densities 

and high proportional occurrence of the 

Utah valvata snail and likely provides 

refugia for the species primarily due to 

the human-induced stability of this 

reservoir environment; and (4) 

genetically, the Snake River population 

unit represents the ancestral haplotypes 

of this species (Miller et al. 2006, p. 

2368). 

For all of these reasons, we 

determined that the Snake River 

population unit of the Utah valvata snail 

constitutes a significant portion of the 

species’ range. The Snake River 

population unit was then evaluated to 

determine if the Utah valvata snail is 

threatened or endangered in this portion 

of its range. This unit covers a wide 

geographic range and provides a wide 

variety of suitable habitats for Utah 

valvata snail in both reservoir and 

riverine reaches. This unit likely 

contains the largest number of 

individuals and colonies of the Utah 

valvata snail and would likely sustain 

the species into the foreseeable future 

independent of the other population 

units. 

Water quality is relatively good in the 

upstream (Henry’s Fork) reaches of this 

unit compared to other population 

units, and the New Zealand mudsnail 

has not become established throughout 

this unit. Therefore, in the context of 

new information regarding the species’ 

habitat and ecology, we likewise 

conclude that the Snake River 

population unit of Utah valvata snail is 

not threatened or endangered. 

Hagerman Population Unit 

The best available data indicate that 

the Hagerman population unit is likely 

isolated and separated geographically 

from other Utah valvata snail colonies 

further upstream that constitute the 

Snake River population unit, but overall 

represents a small area of occupancy 

compared to the rest of the range of the 

species. The geographic isolation of the 

Hagerman population unit is an 

important consideration; the Miller et 

al. (2006) genetics paper suggests that 

Utah valvata snails found in cold-water 

spring outflows at the Thousand Springs 

Preserve may have been genetically 

isolated for over 10,000 years and 

should be evaluated to determine if they 

can reproduce with other Utah valvata 

snails elsewhere in their range. This 

population unit also has a unique 

ecological setting compared to the other 

two units, as the species mainly occurs 

in tributary springs (and at their coldwater outflows), and not in reservoir or 

riverine habitats. 

In light of the above, we concluded 

that the Hagerman population unit may 

constitute a significant portion of the 

range of the Utah valvata snail. To 

determine if the Utah valvata snail is 

either threatened or endangered in this 

portion of the range, we evaluated the 

threat factors of water quality and 

effects, current hydropower operations, 

and the New Zealand mudsnail, and 

potential for other invasive species 

effects in the future. 

Currently, water quality is not 

considered to be a threat that is of high 

severity or magnitude to the Hagerman 

population unit for the reasons outlined 

in Factor A of the rangewide analysis. 

Furthermore, two cold-water spring 

outflows, Box Canyon and Thousand 

Springs, provide a relatively highquality and stable aquatic environment 

for some Utah valvata snail colonies. 

Although flows have recently declined 

in some cold-water springs due to 

groundwater withdrawals, and water 

quantity and quantity could decrease 

over time if flows are not preserved, the 

Utah valvata snail would continue to 

persist in the mainstem Snake River in 

the Hagerman reach where it can 

tolerate variable water temperatures and 

water quality. Although there is 

evidence of some density-dependent 

effects and competition where the New 

Zealand mudsnail co-occurs with the 

Utah valvata snail, the Utah valvata 

snail continues to persist in these 

habitats. Despite approximately 20 years 

of co-occurrence of the New Zealand 

mudsnail and Utah valvata snail, there 

is no evidence suggesting that the New 

Zealand mudsnail has caused local 

extirpations of the Utah valvata snail in 

Hagerman reach. Therefore, we 

conclude that the Hagerman population 

unit of the Utah valvata snail is not 

threatened or endangered in this portion 

of its range. 

In summary, our understanding of the 

Utah valvata snail’s habitat 

requirements, range, and threats has 

changed since the time of listing. From 

studies conducted since 1992, we now 

know that the species occurs over a 

much larger geographic range in the 

Snake River and is able to live in a 

variety of aquatic habitats and is not 

limited to cold, fast-water, or lotic 

habitats, or in perennial flowing waters 

associated with large spring complexes 

as previously believed. In addition, the 

proposed construction of six new 

hydropower facilities as discussed at the 

time of listing is no longer a threat. The 

Utah valvata snail is now known to 

occur in, and persist in, aquatic habitats 

influenced by dam operations (e.g., 

reservoirs, and at elevated water 

temperatures), and the species co-exists 

in a variety of Snake River aquatic 

habitats with the invasive New Zealand 

mudsnail. We have determined that 

none of the existing or potential threats, 

either alone or in combination with 

others, are likely to cause the Utah 

valvata snail to become in danger of 

extinction within the foreseeable future 

throughout all or any significant portion 

of its range. The Utah valvata snail no 

longer requires the protection of the Act, 

and, therefore, we are proposing to 

remove it from the Federal List of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. 

Effects of This Rule 

If made final, this rule would revise 

50 CFR 17.11(h) to remove the Utah 

valvata snail from the Federal List of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. 

The prohibitions and conservation 

measures provided by the Act, 

particularly through sections 7 and 9, 

would no longer apply to this species. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
34548 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 135 / Thursday, July 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

Federal agencies would no longer be 

required to consult with the Service 

under section 7 of the Act in the event 

that activities they authorize, fund, or 

carry out may affect the Utah valvata 

snail. There is no critical habitat 

designated for this species. 

Peer Review 

In accordance with our joint policy 

published in the Federal Register on 

July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we will seek 

the expert opinions of at least three 

appropriate and independent specialists 

regarding this proposed rule. The 

purpose of such review is to ensure that 

our proposed rule is based on 

scientifically sound data, assumptions, 

and analyses. We will send peer 

reviewers copies of this proposed rule 

immediately following publication in 

the Federal Register and will invite 

them to comment, during the public 

comment period, on the specific 

assumptions and conclusions regarding 

the proposal to delist the Utah valvata 

snail. We will consider all comments 

and information received during the 

comment period on this proposed rule 

during preparation of a final 

rulemaking. Accordingly, the final 

decision may differ from this proposal. 

Public Hearings 

Section 4(b)(5)(D) of the Act requires 

that we hold one public hearing on this 

proposal, if requested. Requests must be 

received within 45 days of the date of 

publication of the proposal in the 

Federal Register (see DATES). Such 

requests must be made in writing and be 

addressed to the State Supervisor at the 

address in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section above. 

Clarity of This Proposed Rule 

We are required by Executive Orders 

12866 and 12988 and by the 

Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 

1998, to write all rules in plain 

language. This means that each rule we 

publish must: 

(a) Be logically organized; 

(b) Use the active voice to address 

readers directly; 

(c) Use clear language rather than 

jargon; 

(d) Be divided into short sections and 

sentences; and 

(e) Use lists and tables wherever 

possible. 

If you feel that we have not met these 

requirements, send us comments by one 

of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES

section. To better help us revise the 

rule, your comments should be as 

specific as possible. For example, you 

should tell us the numbers of the 

sections or paragraphs that are unclearly 

written, which sections or sentences are 

too long, the sections where you feel 

lists or tables would be useful, etc. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) 

This rule does not contain any new 

collections of information that require 

approval by OMB under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act. This rule will not 

impose recordkeeping or reporting 

requirements on State or local 

governments, individuals, businesses, or 

organizations. An agency may not 

conduct or sponsor, and a person is not 

required to respond to, a collection of 

information unless it displays a 

currently valid OMB control number. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

We have determined that 

environmental assessments and 

environmental impact statements, as 

defined under the authority of the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969, need not be prepared in 

connection with regulations adopted 

pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act. We 

published a notice outlining our reasons 

for this determination in the Federal 

Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 

49244). 

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 author of this document 

is the Idaho Fish and Wildlife Office 

(see ADDRESSES). 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, and 

Transportation. 

Proposed Regulation Promulgation 

Accordingly, we propose to amend 

part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 

50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 

as set forth below: 

PART 17—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for part 17 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 16 U.S.C. 

1531–1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201–4245; Pub. L. 99– 

625, 100 Stat. 3500, unless otherwise noted. 

§ 17.11 [Amended] 

2. Section 17.11(h) is amended by 

removing the entry for ‘‘Snail, Utah 

valvata’’ under ‘‘SNAILS’’ from the List 

of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. 

Dated: July 7, 2009. 

James J. Slack, 

Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–16837 Filed 7–15–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1