[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 177 (Tuesday, September 13, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 56608-56630]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-23272]



[[Page 56607]]

Vol. 76

Tuesday,

No. 177

September 13, 2011

Part III





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 42 Great Basin and Mojave Desert Springsnails as 
Threatened or Endangered With Critical Habitat; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 177 / Tuesday, September 13, 2011 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 56608]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2011-0001; 92210-0-0008-B2]


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on 
a Petition To List 42 Great Basin and Mojave Desert Springsnails as 
Threatened or Endangered With Critical Habitat

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition finding and initiation of status 
reviews.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 
90-day finding on a petition to list 42 Great Basin and Mojave Desert 
springsnails as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species 
Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We addressed 3 of the 42 petitioned 
species in a 90-day finding dated August 18, 2009, in which we found 
that substantial scientific or commercial information was presented 
indicating that listing may be warranted for those 3 species. In this 
finding, we find that the petition does not present substantial 
scientific or commercial information indicating that listing 7 of the 
remaining 39 may be warranted. In addition, we find that the petition 
presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating 
that listing may be warranted for 32 of the remaining 39 species. 
Therefore, with the publication of this notice, we are initiating 
status reviews of these 32 species to determine if listing is 
warranted. To ensure that the status reviews are comprehensive, we are 
requesting scientific and commercial data and other information 
regarding these 32 species. Based on the status reviews, we will issue 
12-month findings on these 32 species, which will address whether the 
petitioned actions are warranted, as provided in the Act. If an 
emergency situation develops for any of the 42 petitioned species that 
warrants emergency listing, we will act immediately to provide 
necessary protection.

DATES: To allow us adequate time to conduct the status reviews, we 
request that we receive information on or before November 14, 2011. 
Please note that if you are using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see 
ADDRESSES section, below), the deadline for submitting an electronic 
comment is midnight Eastern Daylight Saving Time on this date.

ADDRESSES: You may submit information by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In 
the box that reads ``Enter Keyword or ID,'' enter the Docket number for 
this finding, which is FWS-R8-ES-2011-0001. You should then see an icon 
that reads ``Submit a Comment.'' Please ensure that you have found the 
correct rulemaking before submitting your comment.
     U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing, 
Attn: [FWS-R8-ES-2011-0001], Division of Policy and Directives 
Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, 
Suite 222, Arlington, VA 22203.
We will post all information we receive on http://www.regulations.gov. 
This generally means that we will post any personal information you 
provide us (see the ``Request for Information'' section below for more 
details).
    After November 14, 2011, you must submit information directly to 
the Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section below). 
Please note that we might not be able to address or incorporate 
information that we receive after the above requested date.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jill Ralston, Deputy State Supervisor, 
Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1340 
Financial Blvd, Suite 234, Reno, NV 89502, by telephone 775-861-6300, 
or by facsimile 775-861-6301. If you use a telecommunications device 
for the deaf (TDD), please call the Federal Information Relay Service 
(FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Request for Information

    When we make a finding that a petition presents substantial 
information indicating that listing a species may be warranted, we are 
required to promptly review the status of the species (status review). 
For the status review to be complete and based on the best available 
scientific and commercial information, we request information on the 32 
springsnail species from governmental agencies, Native American Tribes, 
the scientific community, industry, and any other interested parties. 
We seek information on:
    (1) The species' biology, range, and population trends, including:
    (a) Habitat requirements for feeding, breeding, and sheltering;
    (b) Genetics and taxonomy;
    (c) Historical and current range including distribution patterns;
    (d) Historical and current population levels, and current and 
projected trends; and
    (e) Past and ongoing conservation measures for the species, their 
habitat, or both.
    (2) The factors that are the basis for making a listing 
determination for a species under section 4(a) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 
1531 et seq.), which are:
    (a) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of its habitat or range;
    (b) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes;
    (c) Disease or predation;
    (d) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
    (e) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued 
existence.
    If, after the status review, we determine that listing any of the 
32 springsnail species is warranted, we will propose critical habitat 
(see definition in section 3(5)(A) of the Act), under section 4 of the 
Act, to the maximum extent prudent and determinable at the time we 
propose to list the species. Therefore, within the geographical range 
currently occupied by each of the 32 springsnail species, we request 
data and information on:
    (1) What may constitute ``physical or biological features essential 
to the conservation of the species;''
    (2) Where these features are currently found; and
    (3) Whether any of these features may require special management 
considerations or protection.
    In addition, we request data and information on ``specific areas 
outside the geographical area occupied by the species'' that are 
``essential to the conservation of the species.'' Please provide 
specific comments and information as to what, if any, critical habitat 
you think we should propose for designation if the species is proposed 
for listing, and why such habitat meets the requirements of section 4 
of the Act.
    Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as 
scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to 
verify any scientific or commercial information you include.
    Submissions merely stating support for or opposition to the action 
under consideration without providing supporting information, although 
noted, will not be considered in making a determination. Section 
4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that determinations as to whether any 
species is an endangered or threatened species must be made ``solely on 
the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.''

[[Page 56609]]

    You may submit your information concerning this status review by 
one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. If you submit 
information via http://www.regulations.gov, your entire submission--
including any personal identifying information--will be posted on the 
Web site. If you submit a hardcopy that includes personal identifying 
information, you may request at the top of your document that we 
withhold this personal identifying information from public review. 
However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will 
post all hardcopy submissions on http://www.regulations.gov.
    Information and supporting documentation that we received and used 
in preparing this finding is available for you to review at http://www.regulations.gov, or you may make an appointment during normal 
business hours at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Nevada Fish and 
Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Background

    Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)) requires 
that we make a finding on whether a petition to list, delist, or 
reclassify a species presents substantial scientific or commercial 
information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. We 
are to base this finding on information provided in the petition, 
supporting information submitted with the petition, and information 
otherwise available in our files. 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 the finding promptly in the Federal Register.
    Our standard for substantial scientific or commercial 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 
scientific or commercial information was presented, we are required to 
promptly conduct a species status review, which we subsequently 
summarize in our 12-month finding.

Petition History

    On February 27, 2009, we received a formal petition dated February 
17, 2009, from the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), Tierra Curry, 
Noah Greenwald, Dr. James Deacon, Don Duff, and the Freshwater Mollusk 
Conservation Society (hereinafter referred to as the petitioners), 
requesting that we, the Service, list 42 species of Great Basin 
springsnails in Nevada, Utah, and California as threatened or 
endangered with critical habitat under the Act. The petition clearly 
identified itself as a petition and included the appropriate 
identification information for the petitioners, as required in 50 CFR 
424.14(a).
    In an October 19, 2009, letter to the petitioners, we acknowledged 
receipt of the petition, and responded that we reviewed the information 
presented in the petition and determined that issuing an emergency 
regulation temporarily listing the species under section 4(b)(7) of the 
Act was not warranted. We also stated that compliance with various 
court orders, settlement agreements and other statutory deadlines 
required us to expend all of our listing and critical habitat funding 
for Fiscal Year 2009; thus, we anticipated making an initial finding in 
Fiscal Year 2010. This finding addresses the petition.

Previous Federal Actions

    Three of the 42 petitioned springsnail species were addressed in a 
separate 90-day finding on a petition to list 206 species in the 
midwest and western United States (August 18, 2009; 74 FR 41649); thus, 
these three species are not included in this finding. In the finding 
dated August 18, 2009, we found substantial scientific or commercial 
information was presented indicating that listing may be warranted for 
the longitudinal gland pyrg (Pyrgulopsis anguina), Hamlin Valley pyrg 
(Pyrgulopsis hamlinensis), and sub-globose snake pyrg (Pyrgulopsis 
saxatilis). Therefore, this finding addresses the remaining 39 
springsnail species from the petition dated February 17, 2009.
    On December 14, 2009, one of the petitioners, CBD, filed a 60-day 
notice of intent to sue indicating that the Service failed to comply 
with its mandatory duty to make a preliminary 90-day finding on the 
petition to list these 42 springsnail species, as well as findings for 
numerous other species. On April 26, 2010, CBD amended its complaint in 
Center for Biological Diversity v. Salazar, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, Case No.: 1:10-cv-230-PLF (D.D.C.), adding an allegation that 
the Service failed to issue its 90-day petition findings on the 42 
springsnail species within the mandatory statutory timeframe.

Evaluation of Information for This Finding

    Section 4 of the Act and its implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424 
set forth the procedures for adding a species to, or removing a species 
from, the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and 
Plants. A species may be determined to be an endangered or threatened 
species due to one or more of the five factors described in section 
4(a)(1) of the Act:
    (a) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of its habitat or range;
    (b) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes;
    (c) Disease or predation;
    (d) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
    (e) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued 
existence.
    In making this 90-day finding, we evaluated whether information 
regarding threats to the 39 springsnail species as presented in the 
petition and other information available in our files, is substantial, 
thereby indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. Our 
evaluation of this information is presented below.

Summary of Common Species Information

    The 39 species of springsnails included in the petition and 
evaluated in this finding are endemic, aquatic macroinvertebrates of 
Great Basin and Mojave Desert freshwater springs of Nevada, Utah, and 
California (Table 1). All of the petitioned species are from the phylum 
Mollusca, class Gastropoda, superorder Caenogastropoda (Bouchet and 
Rocroi 2005, pp. 4-368). Thirty-four of the species are in the genus 
Pyrgulopsis, family Hydrobiidae, and five species are in the genus 
Tryonia, family Cochliopidae (Table 1) (Wilke et al. 2001, pp. 1-21). 
Both in the petition and in our files, little to no information is 
available on population numbers or population trends for the majority 
of these springsnail species. Life history information for the 39 
species is available in the petition, and in references cited in the 
petition and this finding. In this finding, we included a short summary 
of distribution information for each species.

[[Page 56610]]



                 Table 1--Names and Locations of 39 Springsnail Species Included in This Finding
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Scientific name                   Common name          Hydrographic area(s)     County (Co.), state
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species for which substantial information indicating listing may be warranted was not presented or available:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pyrgulopsis aloba....................  Duckwater pyrg.........  Railroad Valley North..  Nye Co., NV.
Pyrgulopsis anatine..................  Southern Duckwater pyrg  Railroad Valley North..  Nye Co., NV.
Pyrgulopsis gracilis.................  Emigrant pyrg..........  White River Valley.....  Nye Co., NV.
Pyrgulopsis lockensis................  Lockes pyrg............  Railroad Valley North..  Nye Co., NV.
Pyrgulopsis montana..................  Camp Valley pyrg.......  Meadow Valley Wash       Lincoln Co., NV.
                                                                 (Camp Valley).
Pyrgulopsis papillata................  Big Warm Spring pyrg...  Railroad Valley North..  Nye Co., NV.
Pyrgulopsis villacampae..............  Duckwater Warm Spring    Railroad Valley North..  Nye Co., NV.
                                        pyrg.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species for which substantial information indicating listing may be warranted was presented or available:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pyrgulopsis avernalis................  Moapa pebblesnail......  Upper Muddy River        Clark Co., NV.
                                                                 Springs.
Pyrgulopsis breviloba................  Flag pyrg..............  Dry Lake and White       Lincoln and Nye Cos.,
                                                                 River.                   NV.
Pyrgulopsis carinifera...............  Moapa Valley pyrg......  Upper Muddy River        Clark Co., NV.
                                                                 Springs.
Pyrgulopsis coloradensis.............  Blue Point pyrg........  Black Mountains Area     Clark Co., NV.
                                                                 (Lake Mead).
Pyrgulopsis crystalis................  Crystal springsnail....  Amargosa Desert........  Nye Co., NV.
Pyrgulopsis deaconi..................  Spring Mountains pyrg..  Las Vegas Valley and     Clark Co., NV.
                                                                 Pahrump Valley.
Pyrgulopsis erythropoma..............  Ash Meadows pebblesnail  Amargosa Desert........  Nye Co., NV.
Pyrgulopsis fairbanksensis...........  Fairbanks springsnail..  Amargosa Desert........  Nye Co., NV.
Pyrgulopsis fausta...................  Corn Creek pyrg........  Las Vegas Valley.......  Clark Co., NV.
Pyrgulopsis hubbsi...................  Hubbs pyrg.............  Pahranagat Valley......  Lincoln Co., NV.
Pyrgulopsis isolatus.................  Elongate gland           Amargosa Desert........  Nye Co., NV.
                                        springsnail.
Pyrgulopsis landyei..................  Landyes pyrg...........  Steptoe Valley.........  White Pine Co., NV.
Pyrgulopsis lata.....................  Butterfield pyrg.......  White River Valley.....  Nye Co., NV.
Pyrgulopsis marcida..................  Hardy pyrg.............  Cave Valley and White    Lincoln, Nye, and White
                                                                 River Valley.            Pine Cos., NV.
Pyrgulopsis merriami.................  Pahranagat pebblesnail.  Pahranagat Valley and    Lincoln and Nye Cos.,
                                                                 White River Valley.      NV.
Pyrgulopsis nanus....................  Distal gland             Amargosa Desert........  Nye Co., NV.
                                        springsnail.
Pyrgulopsis neritella................  Neritiform Steptoe       Steptoe Valley.........  White Pine Co., NV.
                                        Ranch pyrg.
Pyrgulopsis orbiculata...............  Sub-globose Steptoe      Steptoe Valley.........  White Pine Co., NV.
                                        Ranch pyrg.
Pyrgulopsis peculiaris...............  Bifid duct pyrg........  Snake Valley and Spring  White Pine Co., NV;
                                                                 Valley.                  Millard Co., UT.
Pyrgulopsis pisteri..................  Median gland Nevada      Amargosa Desert........  Nye Co., NV.
                                        pyrg.
Pyrgulopsis planulata................  Flat-topped Steptoe      Steptoe Valley.........  White Pine Co., NV.
                                        pyrg.
Pyrgulopsis sathos...................  White River Valley pyrg  White River Valley.....  Lincoln, Nye and White
                                                                                          Pine Cos., NV.
Pyrgulopsis serrata..................  Northern Steptoe pyrg..  Steptoe Valley.........  Elko and White Pine
                                                                                          Cos., NV.
Pyrgulopsis sterilis.................  Sterile Basin pyrg.....  Ralston Valley and       Nye Co., NV.
                                                                 Stone Cabin Flat.
Pyrgulopsis sublata..................  Lake Valley pyrg.......  Lake Valley............  Lincoln Co., NV.
Pyrgulopsis sulcata..................  Southern Steptoe pyrg..  Steptoe Valley.........  White Pine Co., NV.
Pyrgulopsis turbatrix................  Southeast Nevada pyrg..  Las Vegas Valley,        Clark and Nye Cos., NV.
                                                                 Indian Springs,
                                                                 Pahrump Valley,
                                                                 Amargosa Flat, and
                                                                 Frenchman Flat.
Tryonia angulata.....................  Sportinggoods tryonia..  Amargosa Desert........  Nye Co., NV.
Tryonia clathrata....................  Grated tryonia.........  Upper Muddy River        Clark, Lincoln, and Nye
                                                                 Springs, White River     Cos., NV.
                                                                 Valley, and Pahranagat
                                                                 Valley.
Tryonia elata........................  Point of Rocks tryonia.  Amargosa Desert........  Nye Co., NV.
Tryonia ericae.......................  Minute tryonia.........  Amargosa Desert........  Nye Co., NV.
Tryonia variegata....................  Amargosa tryonia.......  Amargosa Desert........  Inyo Co., CA; Nye Co.,
                                                                                          NV.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Summary of Common Threats

    The petition identified several potential threats common to most, 
if not all, of the petitioned springsnail species: groundwater 
development (withdrawal, extraction, pumping, etc.), spring 
development, water pollution, recreation, grazing, invasive species, 
global climate change, isolated populations, and inadequate regulatory 
mechanisms (CBD et al. 2009, pp. 21-60). These threats are generally 
described in the petition with little to no information in the petition 
or available in our files that correlates the threats to existing or 
probable impacts on the individual springsnail species. In this 
section, we summarize these common threats and provide the rationale as 
to whether or not information in the petition and available in our 
files is substantial, thereby indicating that listing any of the 39 
petitioned species may be warranted. Our conclusion for each species as 
it relates to each of the five factors, as well as specific threat 
information if available, is then summarized later in the finding in 
species sections below.

[[Page 56611]]

Factor A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or 
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range

Groundwater Development
    The petition identifies groundwater development (withdrawal, 
extraction, pumping, etc.) as ``an overarching and imminent threat'' 
(CBD et al. 2009, p. 23) to the persistence of the petitioned 
springsnail species and their aquatic habitats as this may reduce or 
eliminate spring discharge, thus altering the springhead environment 
and the specific conditions (e.g., flow, substrate, water temperature) 
required by springsnails. As this threat relates to impacts to the 
petitioned species, it is primarily characterized in the petition as 
``unsustainable groundwater withdrawal rates'' from: (1) Existing water 
rights and applications for water rights that exceed the amount of 
perennial yield of a specific basin or sub-basin where springsnails 
occur; and (2) existing and proposed groundwater development and 
pumping projects in groundwater basin(s) where springsnails occur or 
basin(s) hydrologically connected to other basins where springsnails 
occur (CBD et al. 2009, pp. 23-32).
    The petition presented significant information regarding 
groundwater development as it relates to perennial yield versus 
committed water resources within hydrographic basins where the 
petitioned springsnails may occur. The information they provide is 
referenced to the Nevada Division of Water Resources (NDWR) database 
(http://water.nv.gov/). We accessed and reviewed the NDWR database on 
January 12, 2010, and saved hard copies of pertinent information for 
each basin where the petitioned springsnails may occur. Where we 
discuss perennial yield, committed water resources, and effects of 
groundwater development within this finding we are referring to 
information we have reviewed from the NDWR database. The Nevada State 
Engineer (NSE) approves and permits groundwater rights in Nevada, and 
defines perennial yield as ``the amount of usable water from a ground-
water aquifer that can be economically withdrawn and consumed each year 
for an indefinite period of time. It cannot exceed the natural recharge 
to that aquifer and ultimately is limited to maximum amount of 
discharge that can be utilized for beneficial use.'' In some basins, 
system yield estimates may also be included with perennial yield 
estimates. System yield is defined as ``the amount of usable 
groundwater and surface water that can be economically withdrawn and 
consumed each year for an indefinite period of time without depleting 
the source.'' The NSE considers system yield with perennial yield 
estimates in basins with ``significant groundwater discharges to 
streams.'' The NSE estimates perennial yield for 256 basins and sub-
basins (areas) in Nevada, and may ``designate'' a groundwater basin, 
meaning the basin ``is being depleted or is in need of additional 
administration, and in the interest of public welfare, [the NSE may] 
declare preferred uses (such as municipal, domestic) in such basins.'' 
Many of the hydrographic areas in which the petitioned springsnails 
occur are ``designated'' by the NSE, and permitted groundwater rights 
approach or exceed the estimated average annual recharge. Furthermore, 
the petition provides evidence that such commitment of water resources 
beyond perennial yield may result in detrimental impacts to spring and 
stream conditions, and thereby could impact habitats and microhabitat 
conditions of many of the petitioned species in the designated basins. 
When groundwater extraction exceeds aquifer recharge it may result in 
surface water level decline, spring drying and degradation, or the loss 
of aquatic habitat (Zektser et al. 2005, pp. 396-397). Based on this 
summary, groundwater development resulting from permitted groundwater 
rights that approach or exceed perennial yield may be a potential 
threat and is identified as such for specific species in the species 
sections below.
    As noted in the petition, several groundwater development projects 
have been proposed by various entities and are at different stages of 
planning and implementation. The petition asserts which springs and 
springsnails would be affected by these groundwater development 
projects (CBD et al. 2009, pp. 23-32). However, based on the 
information in the petition and in our files, we determined for certain 
springs and their associated petitioned springsnails there is not 
substantial information indicating that they may be threatened by the 
proposed groundwater projects because the basins in which groundwater 
development is proposed do not have a hydrologic connection to the 
springs and flow systems where the species occur (Welch et al. 2007, 
pp. 71-79). These springs are upgradient and outside of the zone of 
influence of the carbonate aquifer (e.g., in the alluvial aquifer or 
mountain block aquifer). Therefore based on this summary, there is not 
substantial information indicating that listing may be warranted for 9 
of the 39 petitioned springsnail species because the proposed 
groundwater projects in these systems are not potential threats. This 
is appropriately noted for each specific species it applies to in the 
species sections below.
    For other systems, significant uncertainties still remain regarding 
many of the groundwater development projects and these uncertainties 
are factored into our evaluation of the information. These 
uncertainties include, but are not limited to: (1) Timing of pending 
applications for water rights not yet permitted by the NSE; (2) timing 
of authorization by the NSE to use those existing, permitted water 
rights that are required to perform testing, monitoring, or other 
measures before they can be fully utilized; (3) outcome of protests, 
lawsuits, and legal proceedings against water rights applications and 
groundwater development projects; (4) progress of project planning, 
timing of issuance of necessary permits (e.g., right-of-way permits, 
National Environmental Policy Act compliance), and project analyses 
that may correlate impacts to spring systems; (5) varying results of 
different models being used to determine project impacts and timing of 
projected impacts (e.g., some project impacts are projected to be 100-
200 years in the future); (6) availability of funding for construction 
and implementation of projects, including monitoring; and (7) locations 
of wells and other infrastructure in relation to the petitioned 
species. Whether or not there is substantial information indicating 
that listing may be warranted due to groundwater development from 
existing and proposed projects is appropriately identified for the 
specific species it applies to in the species sections below.
    In addition to habitat impacts from groundwater development, 
inadequate regulation of groundwater development is cited as a threat 
in the petition (CBD et al. 2009, pp. 28-29, 57); therefore, as the 
potential threat of groundwater development relates to regulatory 
mechanisms, we analyzed this potential threat under Factor D below.
Spring Development, Grazing, and Recreation
    The petition identifies spring development (e.g., capturing and 
piping spring flow), grazing, and recreation as threats to the 
persistence of the petitioned springsnails (CBD et al. 2009, pp. 33-
39). In general, all of these activities have been known to degrade 
spring environments by decreasing or eliminating flow and altering 
water quality, substrate condition, and vegetative cover, composition, 
and

[[Page 56612]]

structure. This, in turn, decreases available habitat for species that 
require flowing, high-quality water, such as springsnails. Sada and 
Vinyard (2002, pp. 277 and 283) reviewed historical anthropogenic 
changes in the aquatic biota of the Great Basin and found that water 
flow diversions and livestock grazing in riparian areas likely 
contributed to historical declines or losses of several springsnail 
species. Yet, overall site disturbance from spring development and 
grazing did not always equate to low numbers of springsnails, as some 
sites classified as moderately to highly disturbed were also described 
as having springsnails that were common or abundant (Sada 2006, p. 6).
    In many cases, these activities have been occurring on the 
landscape for some time, and for the majority of species, the petition 
does not present specific information that there may be an increase in 
the intensity of the activity or that the activity may expand into 
additional occupied sites in the future. The petition does not directly 
relate loss of springsnail populations or reduction in numbers of 
individuals to these activities for 31 of the petitioned springsnail 
species. In addition, State and Federal agencies, conservation 
organizations, and private landowners are conducting management 
actions, restoration, and planning activities that remove spring 
developments, restore systems to a more natural state, and control or 
reduce the impacts of livestock grazing and recreationists at springs 
occupied by five of the petitioned springsnails. Specific information 
pertaining to each of the petitioned species is included in the species 
sections below. Based on this summary, there is not substantial 
information to indicate that 26 of the petitioned springsnail species 
may warrant listing due to spring development, grazing, and recreation 
and this is noted in the individual species sections below. However, 
for the remaining 8 petitioned springsnail species specific information 
indicates that these activities may be potential threats, and as 
appropriate, is noted below in the species sections.
    The petition identifies invasive, nonnative species as a threat to 
the persistence of the petitioned springsnails through: habitat loss 
and degradation such as alteration of water quality, substrate 
condition, or vegetative cover, composition, and structure; predation; 
and competition (CBD et al. 2009, pp. 33-39). Since these potential 
impacts of invasive species raised in the petition cross several of the 
five factors, we analyzed this potential threat under Factor E.

Factor B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 
Educational Purposes

    The petition identifies improper collection for scientific, 
educational and recreational purposes as a potential threat that could 
contribute to the decline of the petitioned springsnails (CBD et al. 
2009, p. 42). The petition indicates that unauthorized collection of 
invertebrates was observed at one location where a petitioned 
springsnail species occurs, but no information was included on whether 
or not the petitioned springsnail species was collected or if the 
invertebrate collection activity affected the springsnail population. 
The petition also cites a location in central Arizona where population 
sampling without replacement of aquatic organisms resulted in a stark 
but temporary (1 year) decline in the population size of the 
springsnail species sampled at that location (CBD et al. 2009, p. 42). 
However, the petition provides no data or information that directly 
relates overutilization or collection to loss of springsnail 
populations or reduction in numbers of individuals for any of the 
petitioned springsnails. We have no information in our files to 
indicate that overutilization may be a threat to any of the petitioned 
springsnail species. Therefore, we conclude there is not substantial 
information indicating that listing may be warranted due to 
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes for all of the 39 petitioned springsnail species 
because these activities do not pose a potential threat.

Factor C. Disease or Predation

    The petition asserts the risk of predation and disease is increased 
for springsnail populations with the invasion of exotic species, but 
provides no supporting information. Natural predation of springsnails 
by various taxa is also noted but no information is provided as to the 
significance of this threat to springsnails or their populations. We 
have no information in our files to indicate that disease and predation 
may be threats to any of the petitioned springsnail species. Therefore, 
based on this summary, there is not substantial information indicating 
that listing may be warranted due to disease and predation for all of 
the 39 petitioned springsnails species. In regard to invasive (exotic) 
species, we address this potential threat under Factor E.

Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

    The petitioned springsnails occur on private, Federal, and State 
lands, and as such are subject to a variety of land management 
strategies. The petition states that none of the 39 petitioned 
springsnail species have legal protective status and asserts that all 
are imperiled or critically imperiled (CBD et al. 2009, p. 47). The 
petition maintains that, although Federal and State land management may 
incorporate conservation for fish, wildlife and plant resources, 
conservation for springsnails is often by default through other 
species' conservation, is not generally given high priority, or is 
limited by lack of funding or staff (CBD et al. 2009, pp. 47-56). In 
addition, the petition asserts that an expired 1998 Memorandum of 
Understanding among the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, 
National Park Service, Geological Survey, Fish and Wildlife Service, 
Smithsonian Institution, and The Nature Conservancy, as well as State 
wildlife conservation strategies/plans, State Natural Heritage 
Programs, other conservation programs, habitat conservation plans, and 
groundwater development stipulated agreements do not provide regulatory 
protection to any of the petitioned springsnails (CBD et al. 2009, pp. 
51-59). Furthermore, according to the petition, despite Federal or 
State conservation programs, springsnails are threatened on State and 
Federal lands by invasive species; overgrazing by cattle, feral horses, 
and burros; spring development and groundwater pumping; and climate 
change (CBD et al. 2009, pp. 48-52).
    We do not consider land ownership and associated management 
activities, memorandums of understanding, conservation strategies, or 
other conservation agreements, plans, or programs to be regulatory 
mechanisms since the conservation activities associated with these 
types of documents are discretionary. Many of these agreements, 
strategies, and plans were not intended to provide regulatory 
protection, but rather to facilitate voluntary cooperation or 
partnerships between and among agencies and entities to promote 
conservation. If specific laws, statutes, permits, or other mechanisms 
regulate specific activities and actions by landowners, entities, or 
agencies that relate to a potential threat to the petitioned 
springsnails, we have determined whether there is substantial 
information regarding the inadequacy of those mechanisms in this 
finding.
    Specifically, the inadequate regulation of groundwater development

[[Page 56613]]

is considered a threat in the petition (CBD et al. 2009, p. 57). 
Through various permit and approval mechanisms, the NSE regulates 
groundwater rights in Nevada. In many hydrologic basins in Nevada where 
the petitioned springsnails occur, the permitted groundwater usage 
approaches or exceeds the estimated perennial yield of the basin. This 
commitment of water resources by the NSE beyond perennial yield may 
result in detrimental impacts to spring and stream condition in the 
designated basins, and thereby could impact habitats and microhabitat 
conditions of many of the petitioned species. For the springsnail 
species where substantial information indicates that listing may be 
warranted based on the inadequacy of this regulatory mechanism, it is 
noted in the individual species sections below.

Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting its Continued 
Existence

Nonnative and Invasive Species
    The petition identifies invasive, nonnative species (fish, 
invertebrates, amphibians, and vegetation) as a threat to the 
persistence of the petitioned springsnails through: habitat loss and 
degradation such as alteration of water quality, substrate condition, 
or vegetative cover, composition, and structure; predation; and 
competition (CBD et al. 2009, pp. 43-45). Since the potential impacts 
of invasive species raised in the petition cross several of the five 
factors, we have determined whether there is substantial information 
regarding this potential threat under Factor E. As summarized above for 
the common threats under Factor A, Sada and Vinyard (2002, pp. 277 and 
283) found that nonnative species was one of several prevalent threats 
to springsnail species of the Great Basin, and historical declines or 
losses of several springsnail species, in some cases, have been 
attributed to the introduction of nonnative species. Thirty-four of the 
42 petitioned species were included in the study, but Sada and Vinyard 
did not conclude that a population decline in any of the 34 species 
occurred as a result of nonnative species introductions (Sada and 
Vinyard 2002, pp. 284-287). Sada and Vinyard (2002, pp. 277 and 286-
287) did have sufficient information to confirm that major population 
declines occurred in 1970 in 7 out of the 10 petitioned Amargosa Desert 
species due to regional economic conditions and human immigration (see 
species section for the Amargosa Desert for more information). At one 
thermal spring system (Upper Muddy River) in southern Nevada, Sada 
(2008, p. 69) observed that the niche overlap between the nonnative 
red-rimmed melania (Melanoides tuberculata) and native springsnails 
(Moapa pebblesnail, Moapa Valley pyrg, and grated tryonia) was small 
and that competitive interactions were minor. The abundance of, or 
habitat use by, the native springsnails was minimally affected by the 
presence of the nonnative red-rimmed melania. Sada (2008, p. 69) states 
that these observations provide insight into the potential impacts of 
nonnative red-rimmed melania on native springsnails. The negative 
impacts or influences of competition, or other life-history 
interactions, may be negligible at other thermal springs as well, if 
nonnative and native snail species utilize different temperatures, 
substrates, and water velocities within the systems.
    In many cases, nonnative species have been present on the landscape 
for some time, and for 36 of the 39 springsnail species, the petition 
does not present specific information that additional occupied 
springsnail sites may be threatened by an increase or expansion of 
nonnative species. The petition also does not correlate loss of 
springsnail populations or reduction in numbers of individuals directly 
to the introduction or presence of invasive, nonnative species for the 
majority of species. Management actions and restoration activities have 
been implemented by various agencies to avoid or reduce the potential 
impacts of nonnative species to fish and wildlife resources in certain 
areas. Some of these actions have occurred at springs with petitioned 
springsnails; however, we are unaware of information supporting the 
benefit or detriment of such actions to springsnails. If available, 
specific nonnative species information pertaining to the petitioned 
species or the springs systems they occupy is included in the species 
section below. Therefore based on this summary, there is not 
substantial information to indicate that listing may be warranted for 
36 of the 39 petitioned springsnail species, due to threats from 
nonnative and invasive species; this is reiterated for specific species 
in the individual species sections below. However, for three of the 
petitioned species, specific information regarding effects from 
nonnative and invasive species is available to indicate a potential 
threat, and as appropriate, is noted for specific species in those 
species sections below.
Inherent Vulnerability of Isolated Populations and Limited Distribution
    The petition asserts that springsnails are inherently vulnerable to 
extirpation due to their isolation and limited distribution (CBD et al. 
2009, p. 47). Local endemism is common in springsnails (Hershler and 
Sada 2002, p. 225), with many of the species in the western United 
States restricted to a single spring, spring complex, or drainage 
system (Hershler 1998, p. 1; Hershler et al. 1999, p. 377, Liu et al. 
2003, p. 2775). Additionally, the spring systems in which these species 
are located are typically isolated and separated from other surface 
waters by large expanses of dry land. This isolation and limited 
distribution, coupled with low vagility, increases the vulnerability of 
species or local populations of springsnails to extirpation from 
stochastic demographic and natural events, and anthropogenic factors.
    However, many springsnails have evolved and continue to persist in 
isolation with limited distribution (Hershler and Sada 2002, p. 255). 
Thus, for all 39 of the petitioned springsnail species, we do not find 
substantial information indicating that isolation with limited 
distribution, in and of itself, is a potential threat. For some of the 
petitioned springsnail species, isolation and limited distribution are 
aspects we considered in determining whether there is substantial 
information that indicates that a natural or anthropogenic threat, or a 
combination of threats, may be affecting a specific springsnail 
species, and as appropriate, this is discussed for those specific 
species in the species sections below.
Global Climate Change
    The petition identified global climate change (CBD et al. 2009, p. 
46) as a significant threat to the petitioned springsnail species ``due 
to potential increased frequency and intensity of drought, altered 
precipitation patterns, shifting ecological zones, decreased 
groundwater levels and increasing demand for freshwater.'' Climate, 
particularly temperature and precipitation, is a primary factor 
affecting spring system structure, function, and dynamics in the Great 
Basin and Mojave Desert. In general, spring ecosystems are adapted to 
short-term climatic changes and the highly variable and unpredictable 
climatic patterns characteristic of the Basin and Range Province. 
Because springsnails are aquatic obligates with limited dispersal 
ability, their presence in a spring is indicative of perennial water

[[Page 56614]]

that has likely persisted for thousands of years (Sada and Pohlmann 
2006, p. 10), including through past climatic fluctuations.
    In the long term, major and relatively rapid shifts in climatic 
patterns that are characteristic predictions of global climate change 
have the potential to cause large-scale changes to spring ecosystems. 
Climate change has occurred over the past century in high northern 
latitudes (increased precipitation) and areas below 10 degrees south 
and 30 degrees north (decreased precipitation), with associated changes 
in components of the hydrologic cycle (e.g., precipitation patterns, 
snow melt, evaporation, soil moisture, and runoff) (Bates et al. 2008, 
p. 3).
    The petition did not provide climate change information specific to 
Nevada, Utah, and California, or the basins and spring systems occupied 
by the 39 petitioned springsnails species. Based on information in our 
files, the recent projections of climate change in the Great Basin and 
Mojave Desert over the next century include: increased temperatures, 
with an increased frequency of extremely hot days in summer; more 
variable weather patterns and more severe storms; more winter 
precipitation in the form of rain, with potentially little change or 
decreases in summer precipitation; and earlier, more rapid snowmelt 
(United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) 1998, pp. 1-
4; Chambers and Pellant 2008, pp. 29-33). According to a report of the 
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Bates et al. 2008, p. 36), 
higher temperatures and earlier snow melt due to climate change could 
result in increased evapotranspiration and shifts in the timing or 
amount of groundwater recharge and runoff (EPA 1998, pp. 1-4), 
potentially resulting in decreased summer flows in springs and streams. 
Compounding these issues could be increased water demand and 
groundwater development for human consumption.
    In summary, it is difficult to predict local climate change impacts 
due to substantial uncertainty in trends of hydrological variables 
(e.g., natural variability can mask long-term climate trends); 
limitations in spatial and temporal coverage of monitoring networks; 
and differences in the spatial scales of global climate models and 
hydrological models (Bates et al. 2008, p. 3). Thus, while the 
information in the petition and our files indicates that climate change 
from a large-scale or regional level has the potential to affect spring 
ecosystems in the Great Basin and Mojave Desert in the longterm, there 
is much uncertainty and the information is unreliable at a finer scales 
to predict what habitat attributes could be affected by climate change. 
Given the current uncertainty and unreliability of information as 
summarized above, we determine that there is not substantial 
information indicating that listing may be warranted for all of the 39 
petitioned springsnail species due to global climate change; this is 
identified as such for specific species in the species sections below.

Species for Which Substantial Information was Not Presented

    In this summary section, the springsnail species are grouped by 
hydrographic areas or basins in alphabetical order for ease in 
discussing common threats within those areas. Within each hydrographic 
area, the springsnails are listed in alphabetical order by their 
scientific name.

Railroad (Duckwater) Valley Northern Hydrographic Area Species

    Pyrgulopsis aloba (Duckwater pyrg): known from two unnamed springs 
northwest and southeast of Duckwater on tribal lands within the 
Duckwater Reservation, Nye County, Nevada (Hershler 1998, p. 62).
    Pyrgulopsis anatine (southern Duckwater pyrg): occurs at a single 
spring southeast of Old Collins Spring on tribal lands within the 
Duckwater Reservation, Nye County, Nevada (Hershler 1998, p. 64).
    Pyrgulopsis lockensis (Lockes pyrg): known from one spring on 
Lockes Ranch, State of Nevada lands, Nye County, Nevada (Hershler 1998, 
p. 58).
    Pyrgulopsis papillata (Big Warm Spring pyrg): occurs at Big Warm 
Spring and Little Warm Spring on tribal lands within the Duckwater 
Reservation, Nye County, Nevada (Hershler 1998, p. 59).
    Pyrgulopsis villacampae (Duckwater Warm Spring pyrg): known from 
Big Warm Spring and Little Warm Spring on tribal lands within the 
Duckwater Reservation, Nye County, Nevada (Hershler 1998, p. 63).
    Factor A: The petition states that groundwater development, spring 
development, water pollution, recreation, and grazing are threats that 
may affect the five petitioned Railroad Valley springsnails. The 
petition mentions that groundwater resources in the Railroad Valley 
Southern hydrographic area (173A) are over committed; however, 
none of the five petitioned species of Railroad Valley springsnails 
occur in that area. Rather, these species occur in the Railroad Valley 
Northern hydrographic area. The perennial yield of the Railroad Valley 
Northern hydrographic area (173B) is 75,000 acre-feet per year 
(afy) (92,510,000 cubic-meters per year (m\3\/year)), and there are 
24,943 afy (30,770,000 m\3\/year) committed; thus, the permitted 
groundwater rights do not approach or exceed the estimated average 
annual recharge in this hydrographic area. Based on the preceding 
discussion, the information presented in the petition for these species 
is incorrect, and there is no information providing evidence that 
groundwater development may affect habitat for the five petitioned 
Railroad Valley springsnails. Neither the petition, nor our files 
contain substantial information indicating that listing the five 
petitioned Railroad Valley springsnails may be warranted due to threats 
from groundwater development.
    The petition specifically cites a diversion (spring development) in 
Big Warm Spring as a threat to the five Railroad Valley springsnails. 
However, in 2006 and 2008, Big Warm Spring and Little Warm Spring 
underwent extensive restoration efforts, including removal of the cited 
diversion, which have reduced or eliminated the threats to the habitat 
for these species (Poore 2008b, pp. 1-10). Through a Safe Harbor 
Agreement and several grants from the Service's Partners for Fish and 
Wildlife Program and through section 6 of the Act, conservation is 
being implemented to avoid threats such as spring development, water 
pollution, recreation, and grazing to Big Warm Spring and Little Warm 
Spring (Service 2007, pp. 1-25; Service 2009, pp. 1-36). In 2005, 
Lockes Ranch was purchased by the State of Nevada through a Recovery 
Lands Acquisition grant for protection of the federally threatened 
Railroad Valley springfish (Crenichthys nevadae). Although the State 
does not regulate invertebrates, this purchase provides protection to 
riparian habitat, spring systems, and associated wildlife. The State of 
Nevada actively manages grazing and recreation, or has eliminated these 
activities from portions of Lockes Ranch such that these past threats 
to the species are reduced. In fall 2008, the four springs on Lockes 
Ranch underwent extensive restoration, which included creation of a new 
sinuous channel, improvement of existing channels, dewatering of a man-
made irrigation ditch that was previously used for stock watering, and 
removal of nonnative vegetation surrounding the four spring systems 
(Poore 2008a, pp. 1-4). The petition does not provide evidence 
suggesting that these restoration efforts are beneficial or

[[Page 56615]]

detrimental to the petitioned Railroad Valley springsnail species.
    In summary, these restoration activities and acquisition have 
significantly reduced the threat of grazing and recreation, and 
eliminated the threats associated with spring diversions. Based on the 
preceding discussion we have determined that the information in the 
petition and in our files does not present substantial information to 
indicate that listing the Railroad Valley springsnail species, may be 
warranted due to threats from spring development, water pollution, 
recreation, and grazing.
    Based on the above discussions, we have determined that the 
petition does not present substantial information to indicate that 
listing the Duckwater pyrg, southern Duckwater pyrg, Lockes pyrg, Big 
Warm Spring pyrg, or the Duckwater Warm Spring pyrg as threatened or 
endangered may be warranted due to the present or threatened 
destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range.
    Factors B and C: The petition asserts that the five Railroad Valley 
petitioned springsnails are threatened by collection for scientific or 
educational purposes and disease or predation. The petition does not 
provide any information to indicate that collection, disease or 
predation is impacting the any of the five Railroad Valley species or 
to indicate these activities are occurring in, or are likely to occur 
in their habitats. The petitioners offer no evidence of population 
decline for any of the five Railroad Valley springsnail species as a 
result of Factors B or C, and these species continue to persist in 
their habitats. Therefore based on the preceding discussion and the 
discussion in the ``Summary of Common Threats'' for Factors B and C, we 
have determined that the information in the petition and in our files 
does not present substantial information to indicate that listing the 
Duckwater pyrg, southern Duckwater pyrg, Lockes pyrg, Big Warm Spring 
pyrg, or the Duckwater Warm Spring pyrg may be warranted due to the 
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific or educational 
purposes and disease or predation.
    Factor D: We have determined that the information in the petition 
and in our files does not present substantial information to indicate 
that listing the five Railroad Valley springsnails may be warranted due 
to threats associated with Factors A, B, C, and E. It follows that the 
adequacy or inadequacy of mechanisms to regulate any of these threats 
is not at issue. Further, the petition does not present any additional 
information that there are existing regulatory mechanisms designed to 
protect the species that are inadequate. Therefore, we have determined 
that the information in the petition and in our files does not present 
substantial information to indicate that listing the Duckwater pyrg, 
southern Duckwater pyrg, Lockes pyrg, Big Warm Spring pyrg, or the 
Duckwater Warm Spring pyrg may be warranted due to the inadequacy of 
existing regulatory mechanisms.
    Factor E: The petition states that inherent vulnerability of 
isolated springsnail populations, invasive species, and global climate 
change are threats that may affect the five Railroad Valley petitioned 
springsnails. Specifically regarding invasive species and the five 
Railroad Valley springsnails, the Service and NDOW are continuously 
working to eradicate nonnative species in Big Warm Spring (Goldstein 
and Hobbs 2009, pp. 1-14). Little Warm Spring and the spring system at 
Lockes Ranch currently do not contain nonnative species that could 
threaten the petitioned Railroad Valley springsnails, and it is unknown 
if the two other unnamed springs where the petitioned Railroad Valley 
springsnails are known to occur contain nonnative species. The petition 
does not provide any information regarding the potential threat from 
isolation and limited distribution. We do not consider isolation and 
limited distribution, in and of itself, to be a threat to the five 
Railroad Valley species. The petitioners offer no evidence of 
population decline for any of the five Railroad Valley springsnail 
species as a result of isolated populations, invasive species, and 
global climate change under Factor E. The petitioned Railroad Valley 
springsnails continue to persist in their habitats. Therefore, based on 
the preceding discussion and discussion of isolated springsnail 
populations, invasive species, and global climate change in the 
``Summary of Common Threats,'' we have determined that the information 
in the petition and in our files does not present substantial 
information to indicate that listing the Duckwater pyrg, southern 
Duckwater pyrg, Lockes pyrg, Big Warm Spring pyrg, or the Duckwater 
Warm Spring pyrg may be warranted due to other natural or manmade 
factors such as threats from isolation,, invasive species, and global 
climate change.
    Railroad Valley Summary: Based on our evaluation of the information 
provided in the petition and available in our files, we have determined 
that the petition does not present substantial information to indicate 
that listing of the Duckwater pyrg, southern Duckwater pyrg, Lockes 
pyrg, Big Warm Spring pyrg, or the Duckwater Warm Springs pyrg may be 
warranted due to threats associated with any of the five factors.

Spring Valley (Meadow Valley Wash/Camp Valley) Hydrographic Area 
Species

    The Pyrgulopsis montana (Camp Valley pyrg) is known from a single 
unnamed spring on private land in Camp Valley, Lincoln County, Nevada 
(Hershler 1998, pp. 31-33; Garside and Schilling 1979, p. 46). Data 
from the 1992 survey indicates that the Camp Valley pyrg was abundant 
(abundant is the highest qualitative population description; e.g. 
abundant > common > scarce > absent.) (Sada 2003, database record 701).
    Factor A: The petition identifies groundwater development, spring 
development, water pollution, recreation, and grazing as threats. The 
petition incorrectly asserts that the unnamed spring where the Camp 
Valley pyrg occurs is within the region of influence to be affected by 
groundwater development projects (CBD et al. 2009, p. 89). The petition 
cites generalized studies of that model future groundwater development 
(Schaefer and Harrill 1995; Harrill and Prudic 1998; Deacon et al. 
2007) to support its assertion that it will affect the Camp Valley pyrg 
and its habitat. Schaefer and Harrill (1995, p. 7) indicated that, for 
their analysis, the data that were used in their model were highly 
generalized and that their assumptions were simplifications of the 
actual system. In addition, the locations of proposed wells and the 
pumping schedule were likely to be revised. Thus, their results were 
only indications of potential generalized results and are not specific 
to the Camp Valley pyrg. Harrill and Prudic (1998) and Deacon et al. 
(2007) present overviews of the groundwater system in southern Nevada, 
western Utah, and southeastern California; however, neither study 
presents specific information regarding potential impacts to the Camp 
Valley pyrg.
    References cited in the petition regarding groundwater development 
projects that petitioners use to assert that this activity is a 
potential threat to the species (cited below) do not support the claims 
in the petition that the Camp Valley pyrg or its habitat will be 
affected by proposed groundwater development projects. The Camp Valley 
pyrg occurs in an unnamed spring within the Spring Valley hydrographic 
area (201), This hydrographic area was not identified as being 
within the Region of Influence for two groundwater development projects

[[Page 56616]]

in Lincoln County (Lincoln County Land Act Groundwater Development and 
Utility Right-of-Way Project (BLM 2008, pp. 3-12) and Kane Springs 
Valley Groundwater Development Project (BLM 2008, pp. 3-10)). After 
evaluating the hydrologic evidence presented, the NSE did not identify 
the unnamed spring where the Camp Valley pyrg occurs as a location 
where impacts will occur as a result of the groundwater development 
(NDWR 2007, pp. 1-23; NDWR 2008, pp. 1-40). The Spring Valley 
hydrographic area has not been classified as a ``Designated Groundwater 
Basin'' by the NSE. The perennial yield of the Spring Valley 
hydrographic area is 25,000 afy (30,840,000 m\3\/year), and there are 
1,112 afy (1,372,000 m\3\/year) committed; thus, permitted groundwater 
rights do not exceed the estimated average annual recharge. Based upon 
the preceding discussion we have determined that the information in the 
petition and in our files does not present substantial information to 
indicate that listing the Camp Valley pyrg may be warranted due to 
threats from groundwater development.
    The unnamed spring where the Camp Valley pyrg occurs was assessed 
as being heavily disturbed by cattle (ranking ranged from 1 if 
undisturbed to 4 if heavily disturbed) during a 1992 survey (Hershler 
1998, p. 33; Sada 2003, database record 701), however Sada showed that 
the Camp Valley pyrg was abundant (Sada 2003, database record 701). 
Based on this information, the species was abundant despite livestock 
activity in its habitat. There is no indication that livestock activity 
has or may increase in intensity or extent, or that the activity 
ceased. Therefore, we have determined that the information in the 
petition and in our files does not present substantial information that 
listing may be warranted because grazing does not seem to be affecting 
the species.
    The petition does not present specific information with regard to 
the potential threats of spring development, and groundwater water 
development. Although the petition mentions water pollution, and 
recreation it does not present any supporting information to its 
assertions that these activities are impacting or are likely to impact 
the Camp Valley pyrg or its habitat. Therefore, based on the preceding 
discussion and the discussion of spring development, water pollution, 
and recreation in the ``Summary of Common Threats'' section above, for, 
we have determined that the information in the petition and in our 
files does not present substantial information to indicate that listing 
the Camp Valley pyrg may be warranted due to threats from spring 
development, water pollution, or recreation.
    We have determined that the petition does not present substantial 
information to indicate that listing the Camp Valley pyrg as threatened 
or endangered may be warranted due to the present or threatened 
destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range
    Factors B, C, and E: The petition proposes that collection for 
scientific or educational purposes, disease or predation, invasive 
species, inherent vulnerability of isolated springsnail populations, 
and global climate change are threats. As discussed in the ``Summary of 
Common Threats Section'' above, the petition does not provide any 
specific information relative to the Camp Valley pyrg to indicate that 
collection for scientific or education purposes, disease or predation, 
invasive species, and global climate change are threats to the species. 
The Camp Valley pyrg is currently known from one spring, and the extent 
of springsnail surveys in the area is unknown. The petition (CBD et al. 
2009, p. 89) does not provide any specific information regarding the 
potential threat from isolation and limited distribution. We do not 
consider isolation and limited distribution, in and of itself, to be a 
threat to the Camp Valley pyrg. Therefore based on the preceding 
discussion and the discussion of potential threats of overutilization, 
disease or predation, invasive species, inherent vulnerability of 
isolated springsnail populations, and global climate change in the 
``Summary of Common Threats'' section above, we have determined that 
the information in the petition and in our files does not present 
substantial information to indicate that listing the Camp Valley pyrg 
may be warranted due to overutilization for commercial, recreational, 
scientific, or educational purposes, disease or predation, or other 
natural or manmade factors such as threats from invasive species, 
isolation, and global climate change.
    Factor D: We have determined that the information in the petition 
and in our files does not present substantial information to indicate 
that listing the Camp Valley pyrg under Factors A, B, C, and E may be 
warranted as detailed above.It follows that the adequacy or inadequacy 
of mechanisms to regulate these threats is not at issue. Further, the 
petition does not present any additional information that there are 
existing regulatory mechanisms designed to protect the species that are 
inadequate. Therefore, based on the preceding discussion we have 
determined that the information in the petition and in our files does 
not present substantial information to indicate that listing the Camp 
Valley pyrg may be warranted due to the inadequacy of existing 
regulatory mechanisms.
    Spring Valley Summary: Based on our evaluation of the information 
provided in the petition and available in our files, we have determined 
that the petition does not present substantial information to indicate 
that listing of the Camp Valley pyrg may be warranted due to threats 
associated with any of the five factors.

White River Valley Hydrographic Area Species

    Pyrgulopsis gracilis (Emigrant pyrg): found on private land in 
Emigrant Springs, Nye County, Nevada (Hershler 1998, pp. 45 and 47). 
Emigrant Springs is located in White River Valley (HB 207). 
Sada (2003, database record 734) identified that the Emigrant pyrg was 
common at Emigrant Springs during a survey in 1992.
    Factor A: The petition identifies groundwater development, spring 
development, water pollution, recreation, and grazing as threats to the 
Emigrant pyrg. The petition provided information (Schaefer and Harrill 
1995; Harrill and Prudic 1998; Deacon et al. 2007) that broadly 
describes predicted impacts of groundwater development to general 
areas, but did not provide any information to indicate that groundwater 
development is a potential threat to Emigrant Springs or the Emigrant 
pyrg. The Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) is proposing to 
withdraw groundwater from the Cave Valley hydrographic area 
(180) (SNWA 2008, p. 1-1). There is evidence for a hydrologic 
connection suggesting that groundwater may flow between Cave Valley and 
White River Valley based on isotopic similarities of groundwater in 
Cave Valley that emerge at Butterfield Springs and Flag Springs, but 
not at Emigrant Springs where this springsnail species occurs (NDWR 
2008, pp. 16-17). After evaluating all hydrological evidence presented, 
the NSE did not identify Emigrant Springs as a location where impacts 
will occur as a result of the groundwater development in Cave Valley 
(NDWR 2008, pp. 16-17). The White River hydrographic area 
(207) has not been classified as a ``Designated Groundwater 
Basin'' by the NSE. The perennial yield of the White River hydrographic 
area is 37,000 afy (45,640,000 m\3\/year), and there are 31,699 afy 
(39,100,000 m\3\/year) committed; thus, permitted groundwater rights do 
not exceed the estimated average annual recharge. Therefore, the

[[Page 56617]]

information in the petition does not provide reliable information that 
groundwater providing habitat for the Emigrant pyrg will be affected 
from current or by proposed groundwater development.. Based on the 
above discussion we have determined that the information in the 
petition and in our files does not present substantial information to 
indicate that listing the Emigrant pyrg may be warranted due to 
groundwater development.
    A survey of Emigrant Springs (southernmost of the complex) in 1992 
(Hershler (1998, p. 12; Sada 2003, database record X) described it as 
highly impacted by cattle, but effects on the springsnail population 
were not described. Springsnails were described as common during the 
survey though it is unknown whether there were differences in abundance 
of the sympatric Emigrant pyrg and Hardy pyrg. Sada (2005; as cited in 
Golden et al. 2007, p. 162) indicated that the Emigrant pyrg was 
common. We have no additional information, nor was any information 
presented in the petition, on whether livestock activity has or may 
increase in intensity or extent, or if it has ceased. The species 
remains common in abundance despite this potential activity in its 
habitat, which may suggest that grazing under past conditions and use 
levels has not acted as a threat to the Emigrant pyrg. Therefore, we 
have determined that the information in the petition and in our files 
does not present substantial information to indicate that listing the 
Emigrant pyrg may be warranted because grazing does not seem to be 
affecting the species.
    Although the petition mentions spring development, water pollution, 
and recreation it does not present any supporting information to its 
assertions that these activities are impacting or are likely to impact 
the Emigrant pyrg, or its habitat. Therefore, based on this preceding 
discussion we have determined that the information in the petition and 
in our files does not present substantial information to indicate that 
that listing the Emigrant pyrg may be warranted due to spring 
development, water pollution, or recreation.
    Factors B, C, and E: The petition proposes that collection for 
scientific or educational purposes, disease or predation, invasive 
species, inherent vulnerability of isolated springsnail populations, 
and global climate change are threats to the Emigrant pyrg. The 
petition does not cite any specific information (CBD et al. 2009, p. 
114) correlating these potential threats with impacts to the Emigrant 
pyrg or provide any specific information to indicate the activities are 
occurring in or are likely to occur in its habitat at Emigrant Spring, 
where the Emigrant pyrg occurs. The petition does not provide any 
specific information regarding the potential threat from isolation and 
limited distribution, and we do not consider isolation and limited 
distribution, in and of itself, to be a threat to the Emigrant pyrg. 
Therefore, based on the preceding discussion and the discussion of the 
potential threats of overcollection, disease or predation, invasive 
species, inherent vulnerability of isolated springsnail populations, 
and global climate change in the ``Summary of Common Threats'' section 
above, we have determined that the information in the petition and in 
our files does not present substantial information to indicate that 
listing the Emigrant pyrg may be warranted due to overutilization for 
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes, disease 
or predation, or other natural or manmade factors such as threats from 
invasive species, isolation, and global climate change.
    Factor D: Since we have determined that the information in the 
petition and in our files does not present substantial information to 
indicate that listing the Emigrant pyrg may be warranted due to threats 
associated with Factors A, B, C, and E as detailed above, the adequacy 
or inadequacy of mechanisms to regulate these threats is not at issue. 
Further, the petition does not present any additional information that 
there are existing regulatory mechanisms designed to protect the 
species that are inadequate. Therefore, based on the preceding 
discussion we have determined that the information in the petition and 
in our files does not present substantial information to indicate that 
listing the Emigrant pyrg may be warranted due to the inadequacy of 
regulatory mechanisms.
    White River Valley Summary: Based on our evaluation of the 
information provided in the petition and available in our files, we 
have determined that the petition does not present substantial 
information to indicate that listing of the Emigrant pyrg may be 
warranted due to threats associated with any of the five factors.

Species for Which Substantial Information was Presented

    In this summary section, the springsnail species are grouped by 
hydrographic areas or basins in alphabetical order for ease in 
discussing common threats within those areas. Within each hydrographic 
area, the springsnails are listed in alphabetical order by their 
scientific name.

Amargosa Desert Hydrographic Area Species

    Ten species from the Amargosa Desert hydrographic area were 
included in the petition. All but one of these species occur only in 
Nye County, Nevada, and most are present on Service-managed lands at 
Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge (NWR).
    Pyrgulopsis crystalis (Crystal springsnail) is limited to Crystal 
Pool (Hershler and Sada 1987, p. 801; Hershler 1994, p. 32) located in 
Ash Meadows NWR.
    Pyrgulopsis erythropoma (Ash Meadows pebblesnail) is distributed 
primarily within Ash Meadows NWR among 6 springs and 5 spring brooks, 
all of which are located within 0.5 kilometer (km) (0.3 mile (mi)) of 
one another, at the Point of Rocks Spring complex (Hershler and Sada 
1987, p. 795).
    Pyrgulopsis fairbanksensis (Fairbanks springsnail) is restricted to 
its type locality at Fairbanks Spring, within Ash Meadows NWR, where it 
is common on the travertine at the spring orifice (Hershler and Sada 
1987, p. 796).
    Pyrgulopsis isolatus (elongate-gland springsnail) is restricted to 
its type locality at an unnamed spring west of Carson Slough and south 
of the claypits on private land (Hershler and Sada 1987, pp. 807 and 
810).
    Pyrgulopsis nanus (distal-gland springsnail) is known from four 
small springbrooks within 10 km (6.2 mi) of one another (Hershler and 
Sada 1987, p. 804) and is found primarily on public land. These springs 
and their associated springbrooks include: Collins Ranch on Ash Meadows 
NWR, Five Springs on private land and Ash Meadows NWR, North Collins 
Ranch on Ash Meadows NWR, and Mary Scott Spring on BLM-managed land 
(Service 1990, p. 10).
    Pyrgulopsis pisteri (median-gland springsnail or Median-gland 
Nevada pyrg) is located at Marsh Spring on BLM-managed land, North 
Scruggs Springs on Ash Meadows NWR, and below School Springs in an 
observation pond on Ash Meadows NWR, all within 2 km (1.2 mi) of each 
other (Hershler and Sada 1987, p. 807).
    Tryonia angulata (Sportinggoods tryonia) is common in three 
springs, which include Fairbanks Spring on Ash Meadows NWR, Crystal 
Pool on Ash Meadows NWR, and Big Spring on BLM land (Hershler and Sada 
1987, pp. 811 and 817).
    Tryonia elata (Point of Rocks tryonia) is found on travertine mound 
in two small springs at Point of Rocks where it

[[Page 56618]]

is common in stream outflows in silted areas (Hershler and Sada 1987, 
p. 831) on BLM land and Ash Meadows NWR.
    Tryonia ericae (minute tryonia) occurs in North Scruggs Spring and 
a spring north of Collins Ranch Spring, which are located within 4 km 
(2.5 mi) of each other on Ash Meadows NWR (Hershler and Sada 1987, p. 
830).
    Tryonia variegata (Amargosa tryonia) occurs on private and public 
land in at least 21 small springs in Nye County, Nevada, and 2 springs 
in Inyo County, California (Hershler and Sada 1987, p. 826).
    Factor A: The petition proposes groundwater development, spring 
development, water pollution, recreation, and grazing are threats to 
all 10 species of springsnails occurring in the Amargosa Desert 
hydrographic area. The Amargosa Desert hydrographic area (230) 
has been classified as a ``Designated Groundwater Basin'' by the NSE in 
which permitted groundwater rights exceed the estimated average annual 
recharge. The perennial yield of Amargosa Desert is 24,000 afy 
(29,600,000 m\3\/year), and approximately 25,282 afy (31,180,000 m\3\/
year) are committed for use. When groundwater extraction exceeds 
aquifer recharge, it may result in surface water level decline, spring 
drying and degradation, or loss of aquatic habitat (Zektser et al. 
2005, pp. 396-397). On July 16, 2007, the Nevada State Engineer issued 
Ruling 5750 denying numerous water rights applications in the Amargosa 
Valley, and finding that the groundwater basin is over-appropriated 
(NDWR 2007, p. 22). On November 4, 2008, the Nevada State Engineer 
issued Order 1197 further stipulating that any new applications for 
water rights in the Amargosa Valley will be denied (NDWR 2008, p. 1). 
Most groundwater monitoring wells in the Amargosa Valley have shown a 
significant decline in water levels since 1992, especially in the 
Amargosa Farms area (northwest of Ash Meadows). In some areas of 
Amargosa Valley, groundwater pumping is currently occurring at about 
twice the rate predicted to be sustainable. Water levels for some wells 
in the Ash Meadows area were relatively stable 1992-2002 (USGS 2002, 
pp. 1, 53 and 66). Mayer (2006, pp. 19 and 28) indicates groundwater 
monitoring wells and spring discharges on the Refuge are currently 
stable to slightly declining. The Service has permitted water rights 
for 16,376 afy (20,200,000 m\3\/year) of annual spring discharge on Ash 
Meadows NWR (Mayer 2005, pp. 2-3). This constitutes approximately 96 
percent of the 17,025 afy (21,000,000 m\3\/year) annual discharge by 
the springs and seeps at Ash Meadows (Mayer 2000, pp. 2-3), and offers 
some protection for the springsnails and other aquatic species; 
however, as previously noted, permitted groundwater rights exceed the 
estimated average annual recharge in the hydrographic area where the 10 
Amargosa Desert springsnails and their spring habitats occur. Based 
upon the preceding discussion and additional rationale discussing 
groundwater development in the ``Summary of Common Threats,'' we have 
determined there is substantial information in the petition and our 
files to indicate that listing the 10 Amargosa Desert springsnails may 
be warranted due to threats from groundwater development.
    The petition does not provide specific information regarding spring 
development, recreation, and grazing as potential threats to the 10 
Amargosa Desert springsnails. Based on information in our files, the 
Service and other partnering agencies have completed and continue to 
implement extensive efforts to restore wetland, riparian, and spring 
systems and other protective measures (e.g., installation of boardwalks 
and fencing in sensitive areas to manage use) at Ash Meadows NWR and on 
BLM land within the Ash Meadows NWR boundary that benefit aquatic and 
riparian species, including 9 of the Amargosa Desert species that occur 
on the Ash Meadows NWR and on BLM land. These actions have reduced or 
eliminated the potential threats from spring diversion, grazing, and 
recreation for the springsnail populations on Ash Meadows NWR and on 
BLM land within the Ash Meadows NWR boundary. In 1995, the Service 
excluded grazing from springsnail habitats by constructing roughly 16 
mi (25.7 km) of perimeter fencing around Ash Meadows NWR (including BLM 
land within Ash Meadows NWR) and any trespass animals, such as burros, 
cattle, or horses, are removed. It is unknown if the two springs in 
California occupied by the Amargosa tryonia springsnail are grazed or 
if fencing excludes grazing. The petition does not provide specific 
information regarding water pollution as a potential threat to the 10 
Amargosa Desert springsnails, nor is there any information in our files 
regarding water pollution in the springs where the 10 Amargosa Desert 
springsnails occur. Therefore, based on the preceding discussion and 
additional rationale in the ``Summary of Common Threats,'' in which we 
conclude the petition does not directly relate loss of springsnail 
populations or reduction in numbers of individuals to these activities 
for the majority of species, we have determined that the information in 
the petition and our files does not indicate that spring development, 
water pollution, recreation, and grazing may be threats to any of the 
10 Amargosa Desert springsnails. However, we will further consider this 
and any additional information on these activities received during our 
status review for these species.
    Factors B, C, and E: The petition proposes that collection for 
scientific or educational purposes, disease or predation, inherent 
vulnerability of isolated springsnail populations, and global climate 
change are threats to all 10 Amargosa Desert springsnails. The petition 
does not provide specific information regarding the potential threat 
from isolation and limited distribution, and we do not consider 
inherent vulnerability due to isolation and limited distribution, in 
and of itself, as a threat to the 10 Amargosa Desert springsnails. As 
discussed in the ``Summary of Common Threats'' section above, the 
petition does not provide specific information, nor does the Service 
have any information in its files regarding collection for scientific 
or educational purposes, disease or predation for any of the petitioned 
springsnails, including the 10 Amargosa Desert species. Additionally, 
the petition does not contain specific information, nor does the 
Service have specific information about the potential effects of global 
climate change as potential threats to the 10 Amargosa Desert 
springsnails due to the current uncertainty in model predictions. 
Therefore, based on this and the preceding discussion in the ``Summary 
of Common Threats,'' we have determined that there is not substantial 
information in the petition and our files indicating that collection 
for scientific or educational purposes, disease or predation, inherent 
vulnerability of isolated springsnail populations, and global climate 
change may be threats to any of the 10 Amargosa Desert springsnails. 
However, we will further consider this and any additional information 
on these activities and other potential threats received during our 
status review for these species.
    The petition further asserts that invasive species are a threat to 
the 10 Amargosa Desert springsnails. Hershler and Sada (1987, pp. 778-
779 and 839-843) indicate that invasive species are present in the 
springs. The nonnative red-rimmed melania is present in thermal springs 
on Ash Meadows NWR and on BLM land within the Ash Meadows NWR boundary. 
A study in the thermal, Upper Muddy River spring system of competition 
from red-rimmed

[[Page 56619]]

melania suggest that this competition may not be a threat because there 
are only minor niche overlap and interactions between native and 
nonnative snails (Sada 2008, p. 69). Other nonnatives species (fish, 
amphibians, crustaceans, and vegetation) have been present in the past 
or currently exist in the springs on Ash Meadows NWR and on BLM land 
within the Ash Meadows NWR boundary; however, the Service and its 
partners have implemented and continue to implement ongoing management 
actions and restoration activities to eradicate, manage, or reduce the 
impacts of nonnative species at springs with springsnails on Ash 
Meadows NWR and on BLM land within the Ash Meadows NWR boundary. 
Information is not available in the petition or our files about the 
status of any threat from nonnative species on private land. Based on 
the preceding discussion and additional rationale regarding invasive 
species in the ``Summary of Common Threats,'' we have determined that 
there is not substantial information in the petition and our files 
indicating that invasive species may be a threat to any of the 10 
Amargosa Desert springsnails. However, we will further consider this 
and any additional information on these potential threats received 
during our status review for these species.
    Factor D: The petition states that inadequate regulatory mechanisms 
are a threat to the 10 Amargosa Desert springsnails due to the 
permitting of groundwater rights by the NSE that exceed perennial 
yield. Permitted groundwater rights in the Amargosa Desert hydrographic 
area currently exceed the average annual recharge (see details under 
Factor A above). Based on the preceding discussion and additional 
rationale discussing regulatory mechanisms in the ``Summary of Common 
Threats,'' we have determined that there is substantial information in 
the petition and in our files to indicate that listing the 10 Amargosa 
Desert springsnails may be warranted due to the inadequacy of existing 
regulatory mechanisms related to the permitting of groundwater rights 
and use.
    Amargosa Desert Summary: Based on our evaluation of the information 
provided in the petition and available in our files, we have determined 
that the petition presents substantial information to indicate that 
listing of Crystal springsnail, Ash Meadows pebblesnail, Fairbanks 
springsnail, elongate-gland springsnail, distal gland springsnail, 
median-gland springsnail, sportinggoods tryonia, Point of Rocks 
tryonia, minute tryonia, and Amargosa tryonia may be warranted due to 
the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of 
its habitat or range (Factor A) resulting from groundwater development 
and the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms (Factor D) related 
to the permitting of groundwater rights and use.

Black Mountains (Lake Mead) Hydrographic Area Species

    Pyrgulopsis coloradensis (Blue Point pyrg) is found in Blue Point 
Spring in Lake Mead National Recreation Area (National Park Service 
managed lands), Clark County, Nevada (Hershler 1998, p. 29). Hershler 
(1998, p. 29) described the population as occurring in limited 
abundance and becoming increasingly scarce in the past decade. The Blue 
Point pyrg was not located during intensive surveys between 1999 and 
2001, and was believed to be extinct (Sada field notes 2001 as cited in 
Sada 2002, pp. 2-3). The petition indicates that the Blue Point pyrg 
was found during a survey in 2008 (CBD et al. 2009, p. 82).
    Factor A: The petition proposes that groundwater development, 
spring development, water pollution, recreation, and grazing are 
threats to this species. The Black Mountains hydrographic area 
(215) has been classified as a ``Designated Groundwater 
Basin'' by the NSE in which permitted groundwater rights approach or 
exceed the estimated average annual recharge. The perennial yield of 
the Black Mountains hydrographic area is 1,300 afy (1,604,000 m\3\/
year) and system yield is 7,000 afy (8,634,000 m\3\/year), while 6,882 
afy (8,489,000 m\3\/year) are committed for use--which is approaching 
the estimated average annual recharge. When groundwater extraction 
exceeds aquifer recharge, it may result in surface water level decline, 
spring drying, and degradation or loss of aquatic habitat (Zektser et 
al. 2005, pp. 396-397). Therefore, based on the preceding discussion 
and additional rationale discussing groundwater development in the 
``Summary of Common Threats,'' we have determined that there is 
substantial information in the petition and in our files to indicate 
that listing the Blue Point pyrg may be warranted due to threats from 
groundwater development.
    As discussed in the ``Summary of Common Threats'' section above, 
the petition does not present any specific information, nor is there 
any information in our files regarding spring development, water 
pollution, recreation, and grazing as potential threats to the Blue 
Point pyrg. Therefore, we have determined that there is not substantial 
information in the petition and in our files indicating that spring 
development, water pollution, recreation, and grazing may be threats to 
the Blue Point pyrg. However, we will further consider this and any 
additional information on these activities received during our status 
review for this species.
    Factors B and C: The petition proposes that collection for 
scientific or educational purposes and disease or predation are threats 
to the Blue Point pyrg. As discussed in the ``Summary of Common 
Threats'' section, the petition does not present any specific 
information, nor is there any information in our files regarding 
collection for scientific or educational purposes and disease or 
predation as potential threats to the Blue Point pyrg. Therefore, we 
have determined that there is not substantial information in the 
petition and in our files indicating that collection for scientific or 
educational purposes and disease or predation may be threats to the 
Blue Point pyrg. However, we will further consider this and any 
additional information on these activities received during our status 
review for this species.
    Factor D: The petition states that inadequate regulatory mechanisms 
are a threat to the Blue Point pyrg due to the permitting of 
groundwater rights by the NSE that exceed perennial yield. Permitted 
groundwater rights in the hydrographic area currently approach the 
average annual recharge (see details under Factor A). Therefore, based 
on this and the preceding discussion of regulatory mechanisms 
pertaining to permitting of groundwater rights and use in the ``Summary 
of Common Threats,'' we have determined that there is substantial 
information in the petition and our files indicating that listing the 
Blue Point pyrg may be warranted due to the inadequacy of existing 
regulatory mechanisms related to the permitting of groundwater rights 
and use..
    Factor E: The petition proposes that invasive species, inherent 
vulnerability of isolated springsnail populations, and global climate 
change are threats to the Blue Point pyrg. The petition does not 
provide and specific information, nor is there any information in our 
files, regarding global climate change as a potential threat to the 
Blue Point pyrg. The petition does not provide any specific information 
regarding the potential threat from isolation and limited distribution, 
and we do not consider isolation and limited distribution, in and of 
itself, to be a threat to the Blue Point pyrg.

[[Page 56620]]

    Specifically regarding invasive species, Sada (2002, p. 4) 
indicates that nonnative convict cichlids (Amatitlania nigrofacsciata) 
are present and may feed on members of the macroinvertebrate community. 
The nonnative red-rimmed melania is present in Blue Point Spring, and 
its appearance coincided with declines of the Blue Point pyrg (Sada 
2002, p. 2). A study in the thermal, Upper Muddy River spring system of 
competition from red-rimmed melania suggests that this competition may 
not be a threat because there are only minor niche overlaps and 
interactions between native and nonnative snails (Sada 2008, p. 69). 
This information suggests that the Blue Point pyrg's limited 
distribution and isolation appear to make it more susceptible to other 
potential natural or anthropogenic threats, including potential 
predation by or other effects of nonnative species such as convict 
cichlids. Therefore, based on the preceding discussion and the 
discussion in the ``Summary of Common Threats,'' we have determined 
that there is not substantial information in the petition and our files 
indicating that inherent vulnerability of isolated springsnail 
populations and global climate change may be threats to the Blue Point 
pyrg. However, we have determined that there is substantial information 
in the petition and our files to indicate that listing the Blue Point 
pyrg may be warranted due to threats from invasive species. 
Nevertheless, we will further consider this and any additional 
information received on these potential threats during our status 
review for this species.
    Black Mountains Summary: Based on our evaluation of the information 
provided in the petition and available in our files, we have determined 
that the petition presents substantial information to indicate that 
listing of the Blue Point pyrg may be warranted due to the present or 
threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or 
range (Factor A) resulting from groundwater development, the inadequacy 
of existing regulatory mechanisms (Factor D) related to the permitting 
of groundwater rights and use, and other natural or manmade factors 
affecting its survival (Factor E) from the introduction or presence of 
invasive species.

Cave Valley and White River Valley Hydrographic Area Species

    Pyrgulopsis lata (Butterfield pyrg) is found in Butterfield Springs 
on private land in Nye County, Nevada (Hershler 1998, p. 43).
    Pyrgulopsis marcida (Hardy pyrg) is located in several springs or 
spring complexes in Nye, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties, Nevada 
(Hershler 1998, pp. 48-50; Golden et al. 2007, p. 162). Sada (2003, 
database records 723, 726, 734, 735 and 737) reported that the Hardy 
pyrg was common at Emigrant Springs, Arnoldson Spring, Hardy Spring, 
and Silver Spring. The species is also present at Butterfield Springs.
    Pyrgulopsis sathos (White River Valley pyrg) occurs in Flag Springs 
(north and middle), Nye County, Nevada; Camp Spring, Lincoln County, 
Nevada; and Lund Spring, Arnoldson Spring, Preston Big Spring, and 
Nicholas Spring, White Pine County, Nevada (Hershler 1998, p. 39; 
Golden et al. 2007, p. 160).
    Factor A: The petition proposes that groundwater development, 
spring development, water pollution, recreation, and grazing are 
threats. The perennial yield of the White River hydrographic area is 
37,000 (afy) (45,640,000 m\3\/year), and there are 31,699 afy 
(39,100,000 m\3\/year) committed; thus, permitted groundwater rights do 
not exceed the estimated average annual recharge. However, SNWA is 
proposing to develop 134,000 afy (165,288,100 m\3\/year) of groundwater 
from the Cave Valley hydrographic area (180) (SNWA 2008, p. 1-
1). There is evidence for a hydrologic connection suggesting that 
groundwater may flow between Cave Valley and White River Valley based 
on isotopic similarities of groundwater in Cave Valley that emerge at 
Butterfield Springs and Flag Springs, where these three springsnail 
species occur (NDWR 2008, pp. 16-17). The NSE expressed concern for 
potential impacts to these springs from groundwater development in Cave 
Valley (NDWR 2008, p. 17). Based on the preceding discussion, we have 
determined that there is substantial information in the petition and 
our files to indicate that listing the Butterfield pyrg, Hardy pyrg, 
and White River Valley pyrg may be warranted due to threats from 
groundwater development.
    As discussed in the ``Summary of Common Threats'' section above, 
the petition does not present specific information, nor is there any 
information in our files regarding spring development, water pollution, 
recreation, and grazing as potential threats to the any of the 
petitioned springsnail species, which includes the Butterfield pyrg, 
Hardy pyrg, and White River Valley pyrg. Therefore, we have determined 
there is not substantial information in the petition and our files 
indicating that spring development, water pollution, recreation, and 
grazing may be threats to the Butterfield pyrg, Hardy pyrg, and White 
River Valley pyrg. However, we will further consider this and any 
additional information on these activities received during our status 
review for this species.
    Factors B, C, and E: The petition proposes that collection for 
scientific or educational purposes, disease or predation, invasive 
species, inherent vulnerability of isolated springsnail population, and 
global climate change are threats to the Butterfield pyrg, Hardy pyrg, 
and White River Valley pyrg. The petition does not provide any specific 
information regarding the potential threat from isolation and limited 
distribution, and we do not consider isolation and limited 
distribution, in and of itself, to be a threat to the Butterfield pyrg, 
Hardy pyrg, and White River Valley pyrg. As discussed in the ``Summary 
of Common Threats'' section above, the petition does not provide any 
specific information, nor is there any information in our files 
regarding collection for scientific or educational purposes, disease or 
predation, invasive species, and global climate change as potential 
threats to any of the petitioned springsnail species, which includes 
the Butterfield pyrg, Hardy pyrg, and White River Valley pyrg. 
Therefore, we have determined that there is not substantial information 
in the petition and our files indicating that collection for scientific 
or educational purposes, disease or predation, invasive species, 
inherent vulnerability of isolated springsnail populations, and global 
climate change may be threats to the Butterfield pyrg, Hardy pyrg, and 
White River Valley pyrg. However, we will further consider this and any 
additional information on these activities and other potential threats 
received during our status review for this species.
    Factor D: The petition states that inadequate regulatory mechanisms 
are a threat to the Butterfield pyrg, Hardy pyrg, and White River 
Valley pyrg due to the permitting of groundwater rights by the NSE. The 
NSE expressed concern for potential impacts to Butterfield Springs and 
Flag Springs, where the three springsnail species occur, from the 
proposed groundwater development by SNWA in the Cave Valley 
hydrographic area (see details under Factor A). Based on the preceding 
discussion, we have determined there is substantial information in the 
petition and in our files to indicate that listing the Butterfield 
pyrg, Hardy pyrg, and White River Valley pyrg due to the inadequacy of 
existing regulatory mechanisms related to permitting of groundwater 
rights and use .
    Cave Valley Summary: Based on our evaluation of the information 
provided

[[Page 56621]]

in the petition and available in our files, we have determined that the 
petition presents substantial information to indicate that listing of 
the Butterfield pyrg, Hardy pyrg, and White River Valley pyrg may be 
warranted due to the present or threatened destruction, modification, 
or curtailment of its habitat or range (Factor A) resulting from 
groundwater development and the inadequacy of existing regulatory 
mechanisms (Factor D) related to the permitting of groundwater rights 
and use.

Dry Lake Valley and White River Valley Hydrographic Area Species

    Pyrgulopsis breviloba (Flag pyrg) is found at the Flag Springs 
complex (North, Middle, and South springs), Nye County, Nevada; and 
Meloy Spring, Lincoln County, Nevada (Hershler 1998, p. 39; Golden et 
al. 2007, pp. 161-162).
    Factor A: The petition proposes that groundwater development, 
spring development, water pollution, grazing, and recreation are 
threats to the Flag pyrg. The perennial yield of the White River 
hydrographic area is 37,000 (afy) (45,640,000 m\3\/year), and there are 
31,699 afy (39,100,000 m\3\/year) committed; thus, permitted 
groundwater rights do not exceed the estimated average annual recharge. 
The perennial yield of the Dry Lake Valley hydrographic area is 12,700 
afy (15,670,000 m\3\/year), and there are 1,066 afy (1,315,000 m\3\/
year) committed; thus, permitted groundwater rights do not exceed the 
estimated average annual recharge. However, SNWA is proposing to 
develop 134,000 afy (165,288,100 m\3\/year) of groundwater from the 
Cave Valley hydrographic area (180) (SNWA 2008, p. 1-1). There 
is evidence for a hydrologic connection suggesting that groundwater may 
flow between Cave Valley and White River Valley based on isotopic 
similarities of groundwater in Cave Valley that emerge at Butterfield 
Springs and Flag Springs (NDWR 2008, pp. 16-17). The NSE expressed 
concern for potential impacts to these springs from groundwater 
development in Cave Valley (NDWR 2008, p. 17), and a large proportion 
of habitat of Flag pyrg occurs at Flag Springs. Therefore, based on the 
preceding discussion, we have determined there is substantial 
information in the petition and in our files to indicate that listing 
the Flag pyrg may be warranted due to threats from groundwater 
development .
    As discussed in the ``Summary of Common Threats'' section, the 
petition does not present any specific information, nor is there any 
information in our files regarding spring development, water pollution, 
grazing, and recreation as potential threats to the Flag pyrg. 
Therefore, we have determined that there is not substantial information 
in the petition and our files indicating that spring development, water 
pollution, grazing, and recreation may be threats to the Flag pyrg. 
However, we will further consider this and any additional information 
on these activities received during our status review for this species.
    Factors B, C, and E: The petition proposes that collection for 
scientific or educational purposes, disease or predation, invasive 
species, inherent vulnerability of isolated springsnail populations, 
and global climate change are threats to the Flag pyrg. The petition 
does not provide specific information regarding the potential threat 
from isolation and limited distribution, and we do not consider 
isolation and limited distribution, in and of itself, to be a threat to 
the Flag pyrg. As discussed in the ``Summary of Common Threats'' 
section above, the petition does not provide specific information, nor 
is there any information in our files, regarding collection for 
scientific or educational purposes, disease or predation, invasive 
species, and global climate change as potential threats to any of the 
petitioned springsnail species, which includes the Flag pyrg. 
Therefore, we have determined that there is not substantial information 
in the petition and our files indicating that collection for scientific 
or educational purposes, disease or predation, invasive species, 
inherent vulnerability of isolated springsnail populations, and global 
climate change may be threats to the Flag pyrg. However, we will 
further consider this and any additional information on these 
activities and other potential threats received during our status 
review for this species.
    Factor D: The petition states that inadequate regulatory mechanisms 
are a threat to the Flag pyrg due to the permitting of groundwater 
rights by the NSE. The NSE expressed concern for potential impacts to 
Flag Springs, where the species occurs, from the proposed groundwater 
development by SNWA in the Cave Valley hydrographic area (see details 
under Factor A). Based on the preceding discussion, we have determined 
there is substantial information in the petition and in our files to 
indicate that listing the Flag pyrg may be warranted due to the 
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms related to the permitting 
of groundwater rights and use.
    Dry Lake Valley Summary: Based on our evaluation of the information 
provided in the petition and available in our files, we have determined 
that the petition presents substantial information to indicate that 
listing of the Flag pyrg may be warranted due to the present or 
threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or 
range (Factor A) resulting from groundwater development and the 
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms (Factor D) related to the 
permitting of groundwater rights and use.

Lake Valley Hydrographic Area Species

    Pyrgulopsis sublata (Lake Valley pyrg) is found in Wambolt Springs, 
Lincoln County, Nevada (Hershler 1998, p. 57). Golden et al. (2007, p. 
133) indicate that there are at least six spring sources, of which they 
focused their attention at two. During surveys in 1992, Sada (2003, 
database record 717) described Lake Valley pyrg as common. During 
surveys in 2004, Golden et al. (2007, p. 136) observed that Lake Valley 
pyrg was common at one spring head and scarce 5-15 meter (m) (16 feet 
(ft)-49 ft) downstream. Brief surveys of the remaining springs by 
Golden et al. 2007, p. 136) showed that springsnails were scarce at one 
and absent from the remaining four. Golden et al. (2007, p. 137) found 
that Lake Valley pyrg was the fourth most dominant taxa in the 
macroinvertebrate samples collected at springs they surveyed.
    Factor A: The petition proposes that groundwater development, 
spring development, water pollution, recreation, and grazing are 
threats to the Lake Valley pyrg. The Lake Valley hydrographic area 
(183) has been classified as a ``Designated Groundwater 
Basin'' by the NSE in which permitted groundwater rights exceed the 
estimated average annual recharge. The perennial yield of Lake Valley 
is 12,000 afy (14,800,000 m\3\/year), while 21,868 afy (26,970,000 
m\3\/year) are committed for use. When groundwater extraction exceeds 
aquifer recharge it may result in surface water level decline, spring 
drying and degradation or loss of aquatic habitat (Zektser et al. 2005, 
pp. 396-397). A berm (spring development) is present at the complex and 
was potentially created to pool water (Golden et al. 2007, p. 137). 
Pooling of water can alter springsnail habitat conditions from flowing 
to standing water. Therefore, based on the preceding discussion and the 
discussion of groundwater and spring development in the ``Summary of 
Common Threats,'' we have determined there is substantial information 
in the petition and our files to indicate that listing the Lake Valley 
pyrg may be warranted due to threats

[[Page 56622]]

from groundwater development and spring development.
    As discussed in the ``Summary of Common Threats'' section above, 
the petition does not present any specific information, nor is there 
any information in our files regarding water pollution and recreation 
as potential threats to any of the petitioned springsnail species, 
which includes the Lake Valley pyrg. Specifically regarding grazing, 
Golden et al. (2007, p. 137) described the two springs surveyed as 
slightly disturbed indicating that livestock were prevalent, but damage 
to habitat was minimal. Therefore, based on the preceding discussion 
and the discussion of water pollution, recreation, and grazing in the 
``Summary of Common Threats,'' we have determined that there is not 
substantial information in the petition and our files indicating that 
water pollution, recreation, and grazing may be threats to the Lake 
Valley pyrg. However, we will further consider this and any additional 
information on these activities received during our status review for 
this species.
    Factors B, C, and E: The petition proposes that collection for 
scientific or educational purposes, disease or predation, invasive 
species, inherent vulnerability of isolated springsnail populations, 
and global climate change are threats to the Lake Valley pyrg. The 
petition does not provide any information regarding the potential 
threat from isolation and limited distribution, and we do not consider 
isolation and limited distribution, in and of itself, to be a threat to 
the Lake Valley pyrg. As discussed in the ``Summary of Common Threats'' 
section above, the petition does not provide any information, nor is 
there any information in our files regarding collection for scientific 
or educational purposes, disease or predation, invasive species, and 
global climate change as potential threats to any of the petitioned 
springsnail species, which includes the Lake Valley pyrg. Therefore, we 
have determined that there is not substantial information in the 
petition and our files indicating that collection for scientific or 
educational purposes, disease or predation, invasive species, inherent 
vulnerability of isolated springsnail populations, and global climate 
change may be threats to the Lake Valley pyrg. However, we will further 
consider this and any additional information on these activities and 
other potential threats received during our status review for this 
species.
    Factor D: The petition states that inadequate regulatory mechanisms 
are a threat to the Lake Valley pyrg due to the permitting of 
groundwater rights by the NSE that exceed perennial yield. Permitted 
groundwater rights in the hydrographic area currently exceed the 
average annual recharge (see details under Factor A). Based on this and 
the discussion of regulatory mechanisms related to the permitting of 
groundwater rights and use in the ``Summary of Common Threats,'' we 
have determined there is substantial information in the petition and 
our files to indicate that listing the Lake Valley pyrg may be 
warranted due to the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms 
related to the permitting of groundwater rights and use.
    Lake Valley Summary: Based on our evaluation of the information 
provided in the petition and available in our files, we have determined 
that the petition presents substantial information to indicate that 
listing of Lake Valley pyrg may be warranted due to the present or 
threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or 
range (Factor A) resulting from groundwater development and spring 
development, and due to the inadequacy of existing regulatory 
mechanisms (Factor D) related to the permitting of groundwater rights 
and use.

Las Vegas Valley, Indian Springs, Pahrump Valley, Amargosa Flat, and 
Frenchman Flat Hydrographic Areas Species

    Pyrgulopsis deaconi (Spring Mountains pyrg) is found on Federal 
land at Kiup Spring, Red Spring, and Willow Spring, Clark County, 
Nevada (Hershler 1998, p. 25; Sada and Nachlinger 1998, p. 15). A 
population described as scarce is also present at Rainbow Spring (Sada 
and Nachlinger 1998, p. 28 as confirmed by Sada (2002, p. 2)). 
Previously unknown populations were documented at Horse Spring 1 and 2 
in the late 1990s and early 2000s (Sada 2002, p. 2). A population at 
Manse Spring in Nye County, Nevada, has been extirpated (Sada 2002, p. 
4).
    Sada (2002, p. 3) surveyed areas in Clark County for the Spring 
Mountains pyrg between 1999 and 2001, and described their estimated 
abundance in occupied habitat. The Spring Mountains pyrg was described 
as abundant at Horse Spring 1 and 2; common at Red Spring; and scarce 
at Kiup Spring and Rainbow Spring. In 2001, the Spring Mountains pyrg 
was repatriated to Willow Spring from Lost Canyon Creek. Springsnails 
were found during surveys in 2002 at Willow Spring, but no collections 
were made to identify species (Sada 2002, p. 6).
    Factor A: The petition proposes that groundwater development, 
spring development, water pollution, recreation, and grazing are 
threats to the Spring Mountains pyrg. The Pahrump Valley (162) 
and Las Vegas Valley (212) hydrographic areas have each been 
classified as a ``Designated Groundwater Basin'' by the NSE in which 
permitted groundwater rights exceed the estimated average annual 
recharge. The perennial yield of Pahrump Valley hydrographic area is 
12,000 afy (14,800,000 m\3\/year), while 62,740 afy (77,390,000 m\3\/
year) are committed for use. The perennial yield of Las Vegas Valley 
hydrographic area is 25,000 afy (30,840,000 m\3\/year), while 92,406 
afy (114,000,000 m\3\/year) are committed for use. When groundwater 
extraction exceeds aquifer recharge it may result in surface water 
level decline, spring drying and degradation or loss of aquatic habitat 
(Zektser et al. 2005, pp. 396-397). Sada (2002, p. 4) reported that the 
extirpation of the Spring Mountains pyrg from Manse Spring is believed 
to coincide with its drying in 1975, which occurred as a result of 
localized groundwater development (Soltz and Naiman 1978, p. 24). 
Therefore, based on this and the discussion of groundwater development 
in the ``Summary of Common Threats'' section, above, we have determined 
there is substantial information in the petition and our files to 
indicate that listing the Spring Mountains pyrg may be warranted due to 
threats from groundwater development.
    The springsnail population at Willow Spring (on Bureau of Land 
Management (BLM) lands, not Willow Creek on Forest Service lands) was 
extirpated between 1992 and 1995 as a result of spring diversion and 
channel modification for recreation (Sada and Nachlinger 1996, pp. 17 
and 29; Sada 2002, p. 4). In 2001, Willow Spring was restored, 
including a boardwalk to protect the spring, and the Spring Mountains 
pyrg was repatriated using individuals from Lost Canyon Creek. Red 
Spring had a high level of use by the public in the past (Sada and 
Nachlinger 1996, p. 29). Recreationists may have dammed and diverted 
stream flow from the spring (Putnam and Botsford 2002, as cited in CBD 
et al. 2009, p. 87). Areas around Red Spring have been restored, 
including the installation of a boardwalk to limit further disturbance. 
Based on the preceding discussion, we have determined there is 
substantial information in the petition and our files to indicate 
recreation may be a threat to the Spring Mountains pyrg, but there is 
not substantial information in the petition and our files indicating 
spring

[[Page 56623]]

development may be a threat to the Spring Mountains pyrg. As discussed 
in the ``Summary of Common Threats Section'' above, the petition does 
not present any specific information, nor is there any information in 
our files regarding water pollution and grazing as potential threats to 
the Spring Mountains pyrg. Therefore, we have determined that there is 
not substantial information in the petition and our files indicating 
water pollution, grazing, and spring development may be threats to the 
Spring Mountains pyrg. However, we will further consider this and any 
additional information on these activities received during our status 
review for this species.
    Factors B, C, and E: The petition proposes that collection for 
scientific or educational purposes, disease or predation, invasive 
species, inherent vulnerability of isolated springsnail populations, 
and global climate change are threats to the Spring Mountains pyrg. The 
petition does not provide any specific information regarding the 
potential threat from isolation and limited distribution, and we do not 
consider isolation and limited distribution, in and of itself, to be a 
threat to the Spring Mountains pyrg. As discussed in the ``Summary of 
Common Threats'' section above, the petition does not provide any 
specific information, nor is there any information in our files 
regarding collection for scientific or educational purposes, disease or 
predation, invasive species, and global climate change as potential 
threats to the Spring Mountains pyrg. Therefore, we have determined 
that there is not substantial information in the petition and our files 
indicating that collection for scientific or educational purposes, 
disease or predation, invasive species, inherent vulnerability of 
isolated springsnail populations, and global climate change may be 
threats to the Spring Mountains pyrg. However, we will further consider 
this and any additional information on these activities and other 
potential threats received during our status review for this species.
    Factor D: The petition states that inadequate regulatory mechanisms 
are a threat to the Spring Mountains pyrg due to the permitting of 
groundwater rights by the NSE that exceed perennial yield. Permitted 
groundwater rights in the hydrographic areas currently exceed the 
average annual recharge (see details under Factor A). Based on this and 
the discussion of regulatory mechanisms related to the permitting of 
groundwater rights and use in the ``Summary of Common Threats above,'' 
we have determined there is substantial information in the petition and 
our files to indicate that listing the Spring Mountains pyrg may be 
warranted due to the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms 
related to the permitting of groundwater rights and use.
    Spring Mountains Pyrg Summary: Based on our evaluation of the 
information provided in the petition and available in our files, we 
have determined that the petition presents substantial information to 
indicate that listing of the Spring Mountains pyrg may be warranted due 
to the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment 
of its habitat or range (Factor A) resulting from groundwater 
development and recreation, and due to the inadequacy of existing 
regulatory mechanisms (Factor D) related to the permitting of 
groundwater rights and use.
    Pyrgulopsis fausta (Corn Creek pyrg) is found at Corn Creek Springs 
on the Desert NWR, Clark County, Nevada (Hershler 1998, p. 23).
    Factor A: The petition proposes that groundwater development, 
spring development, water pollution, recreation, and grazing are 
threats to the Corn Creek pyrg. The Las Vegas Valley hydrographic area 
(212) has been classified as a ``Designated Groundwater 
Basin'' by the NSE in which permitted groundwater rights exceed the 
estimated average annual recharge. The perennial yield of Las Vegas 
Valley hydrographic area is 25,000 afy (30,840,000 m\3\/year), while 
92,406 afy (114,000,000 m\3\/year) are committed for use. When 
groundwater extraction exceeds aquifer recharge it may result in 
surface water level decline, spring drying and degradation, or loss of 
aquatic habitat (Zektser et al. 2005, pp. 396-397). Based on this and 
the preceding discussion of groundwater development in the ``Summary of 
Common Threats,'' we have determined there is substantial information 
in the petition and our files to indicate that listing the Corn Creek 
pyrg may be warranted due to threats from groundwater development.
    Development of the springs at and near Corn Creek Springs dates 
back to the early 1900s. Reduction in abundance of the Corn Creek pyrg 
from when it was first collected (Hershler 1998, p. 23) was attributed 
to the historical lining of the main outflow of Corn Creek Springs with 
cement, which eliminated all but 5 m (16.4 ft) of Corn Creek pyrg 
habitat (Sada 2002, p. 4). This past spring development action impacted 
the abundance of the Corn Creek pyrg. Estimates of abundance from 
surveys conducted at two springs at Corn Creek between 1999 and 2001 
indicated that the Corn Creek pyrg was scarce at both springs and that 
the species was restricted to estimated 5-m and 1-m (16.4-ft and 3.3-
ft) lengths of habitat in each spring, respectively (Sada 2002, p. 3). 
However, in 2002, the Service removed the channel modifications and 
restored the springs. Sada (2002, p. 4) projected the abundance of the 
Corn Creek pyrg would increase as habitat stabilized, thereby removing 
the past impacts of spring development, and anecdotal observations 
support this, although formal surveys for the Corn Creek pyrg have not 
been conducted since the restoration. Based on the preceding discussion 
regarding the current habitat conditions and conservation management, 
which have alleviated the threat of spring development, we have 
determined that there is not substantial information in the petition 
and our files indicating that spring development may be a threat to the 
Corn Creek pyrg. However, we will further consider this and any 
additional information on this activity received during our status 
review for this species.
    As discussed in the ``Summary of Common Threats'' section above, 
the petition does not present any specific information, nor is there 
any information in our files regarding water pollution, recreation, and 
grazing as potential threats to any of the petitioned springsnail 
species, which includes the Corn Creek pyrg. Therefore, we have 
determined that there is not substantial information in the petition 
and our files indicating that water pollution, recreation, and grazing 
may be threats to the Corn Creek pyrg. However, we will further 
consider this and any additional information on these activities 
received during our status review for this species.
    Factors B, C, and E: The petition proposes that collection for 
scientific or educational purposes, disease or predation, invasive 
species, inherent vulnerability of isolated springsnail populations, 
and global climate change are threats. The petition does not provide 
any specific information regarding the potential threat from isolation 
and limited distribution, and we do not consider isolation and limited 
distribution, in and of itself, to be a threat to the Corn Creek pyrg. 
As discussed in the ``Summary of Common Threats'' section above,the 
petition does not provide any specific information, nor is there any 
information in our files regarding collection for scientific or 
educational purposes, disease or predation, invasive species, and 
global climate change as potential threats to any of the petitioned 
springsnails, which includes the Corn Creek pyrg. Therefore, we have 
determined that

[[Page 56624]]

there is not substantial information in the petition and our files does 
indicating that collection for scientific or educational purposes, 
disease or predation, invasive species, inherent vulnerability of 
isolated springsnail populations, and global climate change may be 
threats to the Corn Creek pyrg. However, we will further consider this 
and any additional information on these activities and other potential 
threats received during our status review for this species.
    Factor D: The petition states that inadequate regulatory mechanisms 
are a threat to the Corn Creek pyrg due to the permitting of 
groundwater rights by the NSE that exceed perennial yield. Permitted 
groundwater rights in the hydrographic area currently exceed the 
average annual recharge (see details under Factor A). Therefore, based 
on this and the discussion of regulatory mechanisms related to the 
permitting of groundwater rights and use in the ``Summary of Common 
Threats'' section above, we have determined there is substantial 
information in the petition and our files to indicate that listing the 
Corn Creek pyrg may be warranted due to the inadequacy of existing 
regulatory mechanisms related to the permitting of groundwater rights 
and use.
    Corn Creek Pyrg Summary: Based on our evaluation of the information 
provided in the petition and available in our files, we have determined 
that the petition presents substantial information to indicate that 
listing the Corn Creek pyrg may be warranted due to the present or 
threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or 
range (Factor A) resulting from groundwater development, and due to the 
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms (Factor D) related to the 
permitting of groundwater rights and use.
    Pyrgulopsis turbatrix (Southeast Nevada pyrg) is found in 
approximately 10 spring or creek areas around the Spring Mountains of 
southern Nevada in Clark and Nye Counties, Nevada; Grapevine Springs in 
Amargosa Flat of Nye County, Nevada; and Cane Spring in Frenchman Flat, 
Nye County, Nevada. The Southeast Nevada pyrg is one of the most widely 
distributed springsnail species in southern Nevada (Sada 2002, p. 4). 
This species has previously been misidentified as or confused with 
Pyrgulopsis micrococcus (Oasis Valley springsnail (Hershler 1998, p. 
53)).
    Factor A: The petition proposes that groundwater development, 
spring development, water pollution, recreation, and grazing are 
threats to the Southeast Nevada pyrg. The Indian Springs Valley 
(161), Pahrump Valley (162), and Las Vegas Valley 
(212) hydrographic areas each have been classified as 
``Designated Groundwater Basin'' by the NSE in which permitted 
groundwater rights exceed the estimated average annual recharge. The 
perennial yield of Indian Springs Valley hydrographic area is 500 afy 
(616,700 m\3\/year), while 1,380 afy (1,702,000 m\3\/year) are 
committed for use. The perennial yield of Pahrump Valley hydrographic 
area is 12,000 afy (14,800,000 m\3\/year), while 62,740 afy (77,390,000 
m\3\/year) are committed for use. The perennial yield of Las Vegas 
Valley hydrographic area is 25,000 afy (30,840,000 m\3\/year), while 
92,406 afy (114,000,000 m\3\/year) are committed for use. When 
groundwater extraction exceeds aquifer recharge it may result in 
surface water level decline, spring drying, and degradation or loss of 
aquatic habitat (Zektser et al. 2005, pp. 396-397). Based on this and 
the discussion of groundwater development in the ``Summary of Common 
Threats,'' we have determined there is substantial information in the 
petition and our files to indicate that listing the Southeast Nevada 
pyrg may be warranted due to threats from groundwater development.
    Horseshutem Springs has been highly impacted by ungulate grazing 
and water diversion (Sada and Nachlinger 1996, p. 22; Hershler 1998, p. 
53), but the Southeast Nevada pyrg remains common (Sada 2002, p. 3). 
Sada (2002, p. 4) observed levels of ungulate grazing disturbance at 
Horseshutem Springs and Grapevine Springs that may have reduced the 
levels of springsnail abundance but appeared insufficient to extirpate 
populations. Based on the preceding discussion, we have determined 
there is substantial information in the petition and our files to 
indicate that listing the Southeast Nevada pyrg may be warranted due to 
threats from grazing.
    At Grapevine Springs one of four populations was extirpated when 
one of the springs dried as a result of a diversion (spring 
development) between 1992 and 1995 (Sada and Nachlinger 1996, p. 17). 
The population at Willow Spring (on BLM lands) was extirpated between 
1992 and 1995 as a result of spring development (diversion and channel 
modification) for recreation (Sada and Nachlinger 1996, p. 17; Sada 
2002, p. 4). In 2001, Willow Spring was restored, including a boardwalk 
to protect the spring, and the Southeast Nevada pyrg was repatriated 
using individuals from Lost Canyon Creek. Springsnails were found 
during surveys in late 2002 at Willow Spring, but no collections were 
made to identify species (Sada 2002, p. 6). Based on the preceding 
discussion, we have determined there is substantial information in the 
petition and our files to indicate that listing the Southeast Nevada 
pyrg may be warranted due to threats from spring development and 
recreation.
    The petition does not present any specific information, nor is 
there any information in our files regarding water pollution as a 
potential threat to the Southeast Nevada pyrg. Therefore, we have 
determined that there is not substantial information in the petition 
and our files indicating that water pollution may be a threat to the 
Southeast Nevada pyrg. However, we will further consider this and any 
additional information on this activity received during our status 
review for this species.
    Factors B, C, and E: The petition proposes that collection for 
scientific or educational purposes, disease or predation, invasive 
species, inherent vulnerability of isolated springsnail populations, 
and global climate change are threats to the Southeast Nevada pyrg. The 
petition does not provide any specific information regarding the 
potential threat from isolation and limited distribution, and we do not 
consider isolation and limited distribution, in and of itself, to be a 
threat to the Southeast Nevada pyrg. As discussed in the ``Summary of 
Common Threats'' section above, the petition does not provide any 
specific information, nor is there any information in our files 
regarding collection for scientific or educational purposes, disease or 
predation, invasive species, and global climate change as potential 
threats to any of the petitioned springsnails, which includes the 
Southeast Nevada pyrg. Therefore, we have determined that there is not 
substantial information in the petition and our files indicating that 
collection for scientific or educational purposes, disease or 
predation, invasive species, inherent vulnerability of isolated 
springsnail populations, and global climate change may be threats to 
the Southeast Nevada pyrg. However, we will further consider this and 
any additional information on these activities and other potential 
threats received during our status review for this species.
    Factor D: The petition states that inadequate regulatory mechanisms 
are a threat to the Southeast Nevada pyrg due to the permitting of 
groundwater rights by the NSE that exceed perennial yield. Permitted 
groundwater rights in the hydrographic areas currently exceed the 
average annual recharge (see details

[[Page 56625]]

under Factor A). Therefore, based on this and the discussion of 
regulatory mechanisms related to the permitting of groundwater rights 
and use in the ``Summary of Common Threats'' section above, we have 
determined there is substantial information in the petition and our 
files to indicate that listing the Southeast Nevada pyrg may be 
warranted due to the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms 
related to the permitting of groundwater rights and use.
    Southeast Nevada Pyrg Summary: Based on our evaluation of the 
information provided in the petition and available in our files, we 
have determined that the petition presents substantial information to 
indicate that listing of the Southeast Nevada pyrg may be warranted due 
to the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment 
of its habitat or range (Factor A) resulting from groundwater 
development, spring development, recreation, and grazing, and due to 
the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms (Factor D) related to 
the permitting of groundwater rights and use.

Pahranagat Valley Hydrographic Area Species

    Pyrgulopsis hubbsi (Hubbs pyrg) is found on private land at Hiko 
Spring and Crystal Springs in Lincoln County, Nevada (Hershler 1998, p. 
35; Golden et al. 2007, p. 197). Springsnails were not observed at Hiko 
Spring during surveys in 2000 (Sada 2003, database records) or 2006 and 
may be extirpated there (Golden et al. 2007, pp. 197-198). At Crystal 
Springs, Hubbs pyrg was abundant during 1992 surveys (Sada 2003, 
database record 804 and 805), but scarce during surveys in 2006 (Golden 
et al. 2007, pp. 197-198).
    Pyrgulopsis merriami (Pahranagat pebblesnail) is found in four 
springs in Nevada including: Ash Springs in Pahranagat Valley, Lincoln 
County (Hershler 1994, p. 41); and Hot Creek Spring, Moon River Spring, 
and Moorman Spring of White River Valley, Nye County (Hershler 1998, p. 
31). Of the public lands surveyed, Golden et al. (2007, p. 198) 
described Pahranagat pebblesnail as common to scarce at two spring 
heads in Ash Springs, absent in much of the pool area, and common in a 
stretch 60 m (197 ft) downstream to an area discharging to private 
property. Pahranagat pebblesnail was common in Hot Creek Spring, Moon 
River Spring, and Moorman Spring during 1992 surveys (Sada 2003, 
database record 806). Springsnails were scarce throughout most, but 
common in a few, areas of Hot Creek Spring during 2006 surveys (Golden 
et al. 2007, p. 162).
    Factor A: The petition asserts that groundwater development, spring 
development, water pollution, recreation, and grazing are threats to 
the Hubbs pyrg and Pahranagat pebblesnail. The SNWA is proposing to 
develop groundwater from the Cave Valley (180), Dry Lake 
Valley (181), and Delamar Valley (182) hydrographic 
areas, (SNWA 2008, p. 1-1). There is evidence suggesting a hydrologic 
connection between these basins and the Pahranagat Valley as discussed 
in NSE ruling 5875 (NSE 2008, p. 18). However, groundwater 
development model scenarios indicate that potential effects may not 
express themselves at down-gradient springs in Pahranagat Valley for 
centuries (NSE 2008, pp. 22-23). In addition, a monitoring and 
mitigation plan is required as a condition of approval (NSE 2008, p. 
23). Based on the preceding discussion, we have determined that there 
is not substantial information in the petition and our files indicating 
that groundwater development may be a threat to the Hubbs pyrg or the 
Pahranagat pebblesnail. However, we will further consider this and any 
additional information on this activity received during our status 
review for this species.
    Golden et al. (2007, p. 200) observed that Hiko Spring, Crystal 
Springs, and Ash Springs were highly disturbed by water diversions 
(spring development) and recreation. Sada and Vinyard (2002, p. 286) 
identified water diversion at Crystal Springs as a threat to the Hubbs 
pyrg. Based on this information, coupled with the available population 
abundance information for Hubbs pyrg and Pahranagat pebblesnail as 
cited above, we have determined that there is substantial information 
in the petition and in our files indicating that listing the Hubbs pyrg 
and Pahranagat pebblesnail may be warranted due to threats from spring 
development and recreation.
    As discussed in the ``Summary of Common Threats'' section above, 
the petition does not present any specific information, nor is there 
any information in our files, regarding water pollution and grazing as 
potential threats to any of the petitioned springsnails, which includes 
the Hubbs pyrg and Pahranagat pebblesnail. Therefore, we have 
determined that there is not substantial information in the petition 
and our files indicating that water pollution and grazing may be 
threats to the Hubbs pyrg and Pahranagat pebblesnail. However, we will 
further consider this and any additional information on these 
activities received during our status review for this species.
    Factors B, C, and D: The petition proposes that collection for 
scientific or educational purposes, disease or predation, and 
inadequate regulatory mechanisms are threats to the Hubbs pyrg and 
Pahranagat pebblesnail. The petition does not provide specific 
information, nor is there any information in our files regarding 
collection for scientific or educational purposes, disease or 
predation, and inadequate regulatory mechanisms as potential threats to 
the Hubbs pyrg and Pahranagat pebblesnail. Therefore, based on this and 
the discussion in the ``Summary of Common Threats,'' we have determined 
that there is not substantial information in the petition and our files 
indicating that collection for scientific or educational purposes, 
disease or predation, and inadequate regulatory mechanisms may be 
threats to the Hubbs pyrg and Pahranagat pebblesnail. However, we will 
further consider this and any additional information on these 
activities and other potential threats received during our status 
review for this species.
    Factor E: The petition proposes that invasive species, inherent 
vulnerability of isolated springsnail populations, and global climate 
change are threats to the Hubbs pyrg and Pahranagat pebblesnail. 
Nonnative, invasive species (fish, invertebrates, amphibians and 
vegetation) are present--and in some locations are the dominant 
species--in Ash Springs, Hiko Spring, and Crystal Springs, which may be 
affecting the Hubbs pyrg and Pahranagat pebblesnail (Golden et al. 
2007, pp. 184-199). Presence of nonnative species in these three 
springs, particularly nonnative fishes, has resulted in extirpations 
and negative interactions with native fish species, although the 
information in the petition and in our files does not directly 
correlate presence of nonnative species with impacts to the Hubbs pyrg 
and Pahranagat pebblesnail (Golden et al. 2007, p. 194). Based on the 
information in the petition and in our files, we are unable to identify 
any single potential threat that is affecting the abundance of the 
Hubbs pyrg and Pahranagat pebblesnail, and it is likely that their 
abundance is being affected by a combination of threats, including 
nonnative species. Therefore, we have determined there is substantial 
information in the petition and our files to indicate that listing the 
Hubbs pyrg and Pahranagat pebblesnail may be warranted due to potential 
threats from invasive species.

[[Page 56626]]

    The petition asserts that inherent vulnerability of isolated 
springsnail populations and global climate change are threats to the 
Hubbs pyrg and Pahranagat pebblesnail. The petition does not provide 
any specific information regarding the potential threat from isolation 
and limited distribution, and we do not consider isolation and limited 
distribution, in and of itself, to be a threat to the Hubbs pyrg and 
Pahranagat pebblesnail. The petition does not provide any specific 
information, nor is there any information in our files regarding global 
climate change as a potential threat to the Hubbs pyrg and Pahranagat 
pebblesnail. Based on this and the discussion in the ``Summary of 
Common Threats,'' we have determined that there is not substantial 
information in the petition and our files indicating that inherent 
vulnerability of isolated springsnail populations and global climate 
change may be threats to the Hubbs pyrg and Pahranagat pebblesnail. 
However, we will further consider this and any additional information 
on this and other potential threats received during our status review 
for this species.
    Pahranagat Valley Summary: Based on our evaluation of the 
information provided in the petition and available in our files, we 
have determined that the petition presents substantial information to 
indicate that listing of the Hubbs pyrg and Pahranagat pebblesnail may 
be warranted due to the present or threatened destruction, 
modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range (Factor A) 
resulting from spring development and recreation, and due to other 
natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence (Factor E) 
resulting from invasive species.

Ralston Valley and Stone Cabin Flat Hydrographic Areas Species

    Pyrgulopsis sterilis (Sterile Basin pyrg) is known from two springs 
on private lands, Hunts Canyon Ranch and Sidehill Spring, Nye County, 
Nevada (Hershler 1998, p. 54).
    Factor A: The petition states that groundwater development, spring 
development, water pollution, recreation, and grazing are threats that 
may affect the Sterile Basin pyrg. The Stone Cabin Flat (149) 
and Ralston Valley (141) hydrographic areas each have been 
classified as ``Designated Groundwater Basins'' by the NSE. The 
permitted groundwater rights in the Stone Cabin Flat hydrographic area 
exceed the estimated average annual recharge. The perennial yield of 
Stone Cabin Flat hydrographic area is 2,000 afy (2,467,000 m\3\/year), 
while 11,532 afy (14,220,000 m\3\/year) are committed. The permitted 
groundwater rights in the Ralston Valley hydrographic area do not 
exceed, but are approaching the estimated average annual recharge with 
the perennial yield at 6,000 afy (7,401,000 m\3\/year), and 4,415 afy 
(5,446,000 m\3\/year) are committed. When groundwater extraction 
exceeds aquifer recharge it may result in surface water level decline, 
spring drying, and degradation or loss of aquatic habitat (Zektser et 
al. 2005, pp. 396-397). Based upon this and the discussion of 
groundwater development in the ``Summary of Common Threats'' section 
above, we have determined there is substantial information in the 
petition and our files to indicate that listing the Sterile Basin pyrg 
may be warranted due to threats from groundwater development.
    The petition asserts spring development, water pollution, 
recreation, and grazing are threats to the Sterile Basin pyrg. As 
discussed in the ``Summary of Common Threats'' section above, the 
petition does not present any specific information, nor is there any 
information in our files regarding spring development, water pollution, 
recreation, and grazing as potential threats to the Sterile Basin pyrg. 
Therefore, we have determined that there is not substantial information 
in the petition and our files indicating that spring development, water 
pollution, recreation, and grazing may be threats to the Sterile Basin 
pyrg. However, we will further consider this and any additional 
information on these activities received during our status review for 
this species.
    Factors B, C, and E: The petition states that collection for 
scientific or educational purposes, disease or predation, invasive 
species, inherent vulnerability of isolated springsnail populations, 
and global climate change are threats that may affect the Sterile Basin 
pyrg. The petition provides little information regarding the potential 
threat from isolation and limited distribution, and we do not consider 
isolation and limited distribution, in and of itself, to be a threat to 
the Sterile Basin pyrg. As discussed in the ``Summary of Common 
Threats'' section above, the petition does not provide any specific 
information, nor is there any information in our files regarding 
collection for scientific or educational purposes, disease or 
predation, invasive species, and global climate change as potential 
threats to the Sterile Basin pyrg. Therefore, we have determined that 
here is not substantial information in the petition and our files 
indicating that collection for scientific or educational purposes, 
disease or predation, invasive species, and global climate change may 
be threats to the Sterile Basin pyrg. However, we will further consider 
this and any additional information on these activities and other 
potential threats received during our status review for this species.
    Factor D: The petition states that inadequate regulatory mechanisms 
are a threat to the Sterile Basin pyrg due to the permitting of 
groundwater rights by the NSE that exceed perennial yield. Permitted 
groundwater rights in the hydrographic areas currently approach or 
exceed the average annual recharge (see details under Factor A). Based 
on this and the discussion of regulatory mechanisms related to the 
permitting of groundwater rights and use in the ``Summary of Common 
Threats'' section above, we have determined there is substantial 
information in the petition and our files to indicate that listing the 
Sterile Basin pyrg may be warranted due to the inadequacy of existing 
regulatory mechanisms related to the permitting of groundwater rights 
and use.
    Ralston Valley Summary: Based on our evaluation of the information 
provided in the petition and available in our files, we have determined 
that the petition presents substantial information to indicate that 
listing of the Sterile Basin pyrg may be warranted due to the present 
or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat 
or range (Factor A) resulting from groundwater development, and due to 
the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms (Factor D) related to 
the permitting of groundwater rights and use.

Snake Valley and Spring Valley Hydrographic Area Species

    Pyrgulopsis peculiaris (bifid duct pyrg) occurs at 6 sites in 
Millard County, Utah, and two sites in White Pine County, Nevada 
(Hershler 1998, p. 110).
    Factor A: The petition states that groundwater development, spring 
development, agricultural development, water pollution, recreation, and 
grazing are threats to the bifid duct pyrg. The Snake Valley 
(195) and Spring Valley (184) hydrographic areas are 
not classified as ``Designated Groundwater Basins'' by the NSE. The 
permitted groundwater rights in the Snake Valley hydrographic area do 
not exceed the estimated average annual recharge. The perennial yield 
of Snake Valley hydrographic area is 25,000 afy (30,840,000 m\3\/year), 
and there are 10,720 afy (13,220,000 m\3\/year) committed. However, the 
permitted groundwater rights in the Spring Valley

[[Page 56627]]

hydrographic area exceed the estimated average annual recharge. The 
perennial yield of the Spring Valley hydrographic area is 80,000 afy 
(98,680,000 m\3\/year), and there are 86,085 afy (106,200,000 m\3\/
year) committed. When groundwater extraction exceeds aquifer recharge 
it may result in surface water level decline, spring drying, and 
degradation or loss of aquatic habitat (Zektser et al. 2005, pp. 396-
397). Based upon this and the discussion of groundwater development in 
the ``Summary of Common Threats'' section above, we have determined 
there is substantial information in the petition and our files to 
indicate that listing the bifid duct pyrg may be warranted due to 
threats from groundwater development.
    The petition states that spring development, agricultural 
development, water pollution, recreation, and grazing are threats to 
the bifid duct pyrg. As discussed in the ``Summary of Common Threats'' 
section above, the petition does not present any specific information, 
nor is there any information in our files regarding spring development, 
agricultural development, water pollution, recreation, and grazing as 
potential threats to the bifid duct pyrg. Therefore, we have determined 
that there is not substantial information in the petition and our files 
indicating that spring development, agricultural development, water 
pollution, recreation, and grazing may be threats to the bifid duct 
pyrg. However, we will further consider this and any additional 
information on these activities received during our status review for 
this species.
    Factors B, C, and E: The petition states that collection for 
scientific or educational purposes, disease or predation, invasive 
species, inherent vulnerability of isolated springsnail populations, 
and global climate change are threats to the bifid duct pyrg. The 
petition does not provide any specific information regarding the 
potential threat from isolation and limited distribution, and we do not 
consider isolation and limited distribution, in and of itself, to be a 
threat to the bifid duct pyrg. As discussed in the ``Summary of Common 
Threats'' section above, the petition does not present any specific 
information, nor is there any information in our files regarding 
collection for scientific or educational purposes, disease or 
predation, invasive species, and global climate change as potential 
threats to any of the petitioned springsnail species, which includes 
the bifid duct pyrg. Therefore, we have determined that there is not 
substantial information in the petition and our files indicating that 
collection for scientific or educational purposes, disease or 
predation, invasive species, inherent vulnerability of isolated 
springsnail populations, and global climate change may be threats to 
the bifid duct pyrg. However, we will further consider this and any 
additional information on these activities and other potential threats 
received during our status review for this species.
    Factor D: The petition states that inadequate regulatory mechanisms 
are a threat to the bifid duct pyrg due to the permitting of 
groundwater rights by the NSE that exceed perennial yield. Permitted 
groundwater rights in the Spring Valley hydrographic area currently 
exceed the average annual recharge (see details under Factor A). Based 
on this and the discussion of regulatory mechanisms relating to the 
permitting of groundwater rights and use in the ``Summary of Common 
Threats,'' we have determined there is substantial information in the 
petition and our files to indicate that listing the bifid duct pyrg may 
be warranted due to the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms 
relating to the permitting of groundwater rights and use.
    Snake Valley Summary: Based on our evaluation of the information 
provided in the petition and available in our files, we have determined 
that the petition presents substantial information to indicate that 
listing of bifid duct pyrg may be warranted due to the present or 
threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or 
range (Factor A) resulting from groundwater development, and due to 
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms (Factor D) relating to the 
permitting of groundwater rights and use.

Steptoe Valley Hydrographic Area Species

    Pyrgulopsis landyei (Landyes pyrg) occurs at one rheocrene spring 
(flowing directly out of the ground, typically under pressure) north-
northwest of Steptoe Ranch, White Pine County, Nevada (Hershler 1998, 
p. 70).
    Pyrgulopsis neritella (neritiform Steptoe Ranch pyrg) occurs at two 
rheocrene springs located on private land north of Steptoe Ranch, White 
Pine County, Nevada (Hershler 1998, p. 70).
    Pyrgulopsis orbiculata (sub-globose Steptoe Ranch pyrg) is 
restricted to two springs in White Pine County, Nevada (Hershler 1998, 
p. 68).
    Pyrgulopsis planulata (flat-topped Steptoe pyrg) occurs on private 
land at one spring northwest of Clark Spring, White Pine County, Nevada 
(Hershler 1998, p. 66).
    Pyrgulopsis serrata (northern Steptoe pyrg) occurs at Twin Springs 
and springs south of Currie in Steptoe Valley, Elko County, Nevada, and 
at Indian Ranch Spring and Indian Creek in Steptoe Valley, White Pine 
County (Hershler 1998, p. 71). The species also occurs at 10 springs in 
northern Steptoe Valley (Sada 2006, p. i).
    Pyrgulopsis sulcata (southern Steptoe pyrg) occurs at two spring 
complexes in White Pine County, Nevada (Hershler 1998, p. 67).
    Factor A: The petition asserts that these six Steptoe Valley 
springsnail species are threatened by groundwater development, spring 
development, water pollution, recreation, and grazing (Hershler 1998, 
p. 70; Sada and Vinyard 2002, p. 277). The Steptoe Valley hydrographic 
area (179) has been classified as a ``Designated Groundwater 
Basin'' by the NSE in which permitted groundwater rights approach or 
exceed the estimated average annual recharge. The perennial yield of 
Steptoe Valley is 70,000 afy (86,340,000 m\3\/year), and approximately 
97,000 afy (119,600,000 m\3\/year) are committed for use. When 
groundwater extraction exceeds aquifer recharge, it may result in 
surface water level decline, spring drying, and degradation or loss of 
aquatic habitat (Zektser et al. 2005, pp. 396-397). Therefore, based on 
this and the discussion of discussing groundwater development in the 
``Summary of Common Threats,'' we have determined there is substantial 
information in the petition and our files to indicate that listing the 
six petitioned springsnail species of the Steptoe Valley may be 
warranted due to threats from groundwater development.
    Within Steptoe Valley, surveys for springsnails were conducted in 
the early 1990s in springs near Bassett Lake (Sada 2006, p. i). These 
surveys found all six petitioned Steptoe Valley springsnail species. 
Due to potential groundwater pumping by the previously proposed White 
Pine Energy Project (application is no longer active), Sada (2006, p. 
i) surveyed 44 springs in Steptoe Valley in 2005 that were located 
within the zone of potential impact by the energy project. It was noted 
that all of the springs surveyed were moderately to highly disturbed 
due to spring diversion and livestock trampling (2006, p. 4). Ten of 
the 44 springs were occupied by northern Steptoe pyrgs, which were 
scarce at 3 sites, common at 6 sites, and abundant at 1 site (Sada 
2006, p. 5 and Table 6). The surveys conducted in the 1990s did not 
include any of the 44 springs surveyed by Sada in 2005, where 10 
previously unrecorded populations of the northern Steptoe pyrg were 
found. Although Sada (2006, pp. i-27) states that the springs surveyed 
in 2005 were degraded and had variable

[[Page 56628]]

levels of occupation by the northern Steptoe pyrg, it is not clear 
whether these activities have resulted in the loss of or decline in 
springsnail populations in the Steptoe Valley. Based on the preceding 
discussion, we have determined that there is not substantial 
information in the petition and our files indicating that spring 
development and grazing may be threats to the six petitioned 
springsnail species of the Steptoe Valley. However, we will further 
consider this and any additional information on these activities 
received during our status review for this species.
    The petition also claims that the springsnails of Steptoe Valley 
are threatened by the proposed White Pine Energy Station (BLM 2008, 
Volumes 1 through 4); however, the White Pine Energy project 
application is currently withdrawn, and the future of the project is 
uncertain; therefore, there is not substantial information indicating 
that this project may threaten these six Steptoe Valley springsnail 
species.
    The petition does not present any specific information, nor is 
there any information in our files regarding water pollution and 
recreation as potential threats to the six Steptoe Valley springsnail 
species. Therefore, based on this and the discussion in the ``Summary 
of Common Threats'' section above, we have determined that there is not 
substantial information in the petition and our files indicating that 
water pollution, and recreation may be threats to the six Steptoe 
Valley springsnail species. However, we will further consider this and 
any additional information on these activities received during our 
status review for this species.
    Factors B, C, and E: The petition states that collection for 
scientific or educational purposes, disease or predation, invasive 
species, inherent vulnerability of isolated springsnail populations, 
and global climate change are threats that may impact the six Steptoe 
Valley springsnail species. The petition does not provide any specific 
information regarding the potential threat from isolation and limited 
distribution, and we do not consider isolation and limited 
distribution, in and of itself, to be a threat to the six Steptoe 
Valley springsnail species. As discussed in the ``Summary of Common 
Threats'' section above, the petition does not present any specific 
information, nor is there any information in our files regarding 
collection for scientific or educational purposes, disease or 
predation, invasive species, and global climate change as potential 
threats to the six Steptoe Valley springsnail species. Therefore, we 
have determined that there is not substantial information in the 
petition and our files indicating that collection for scientific or 
educational purposes, disease or predation, invasive species, inherent 
vulnerability of isolated springsnail populations, and global climate 
change may be threats to the six Steptoe Valley springsnail species. 
However, we will further consider this and any additional information 
on these activities and other potential threats received during our 
status review for this species.
    Factor D: The petition states that inadequate regulatory mechanisms 
are a threat to the six Steptoe Valley springsnails due to the 
permitting of groundwater rights by the NSE that exceed perennial 
yield. Permitted groundwater rights in the hydrographic area currently 
exceed the average annual recharge (see details under Factor A). 
Therefore, based on this and discussion of regulatory mechanisms 
related to the permitting of groundwater rights and use in the 
``Summary of Common Threats'' section above, we have determined there 
is substantial information in the petition and our files to indicate 
that listing the six Steptoe Valley springsnail species may be 
warranted due to the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms 
related to the permitting of groundwater rights and use.
    Steptoe Valley Summary: Based on our evaluation of the information 
provided in the petition and available in our files, we have determined 
that the petition presents substantial information to indicate that 
listing of the Landyes pyrg, neritiform Steptoe Ranch pyrg, sub-globose 
Steptoe Ranch pyrg, flat-topped Steptoe pyrg, northern Steptoe pyrg, 
and southern Steptoe pyrg may be warranted due to the present or 
threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of their habitat 
or range (Factor A) resulting from groundwater development, and due to 
the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms (Factor D) related to 
the permitting of groundwater rights and use.

Upper Muddy River Springs Hydrographic Area Species

    Pyrgulopsis avernalis (Moapa pebblesnail) is documented at more 
than five spring locations in Moapa Valley, Clark County, Nevada 
(Hershler 1994, pp. 19-21; Service 1995, pp. 15-16; Hershler 1998, pp. 
29-30; Sada 2008, p. 60). The documented spring locations in the Moapa 
Valley are found within an approximately 1.5-km (0.9-mi) radius 
(Hershler 1994, p. 19).
    Pyrgulopsis carinifera (Moapa Valley pyrg) occurs at more than five 
spring locations in Moapa Valley, Clark County, Nevada (Hershler 1994, 
pp. 26-27; Hershler 1998, p. 31; Sada 2008, p. 60). The documented 
spring locations are found in an approximately 1.5-km (0.9-mi) radius.
    Factor A: Potential threats to the Moapa pebblesnail and Moapa 
Valley pyrg identified in the petition are groundwater development, 
spring development, water pollution, recreation, and grazing. The Upper 
Muddy River Springs hydrographic area (219) has been 
classified as a ``Designated Groundwater Basin'' by the NSE in which 
permitted ground water rights exceed the estimated average annual 
recharge. The perennial yield of the Upper Muddy River Springs is 100-
36,000 afy (123,300-44,410,000 m\3\/year), while approximately 14,558 
afy (17,960,000 m\3\/year) are committed for use. Since 1998, there has 
been a small and widespread decline in carbonate aquifer water levels 
in the Upper Muddy River Springs area because of groundwater pumping 
(Mayer and Congdon 2007, p. 13). When groundwater extraction exceeds 
aquifer recharge, it may result in surface water level decline, spring 
drying, and degradation or loss of aquatic habitat (Zektser et al. 
2005, pp. 396-397). Regarding spring development, Sada (2008, p. 69) 
reported that reduced habitat quality and heterogeneity caused by 
diversions, channelization, and siltation resulted in reductions of 
springsnails (including the Moapa pebblesnail and Moapa Valley pyrg) 
such that they were scarce or absent at 85 percent of the springbrooks 
where they historically occurred at Warm Springs.
    The Service and other partnering agencies have completed, and 
continue to implement extensive efforts to restore the spring systems 
in the Upper Muddy River Springs area and to reduce or eliminate past 
spring diversion impacts to aquatic species including springsnails; 
however, not all of the impacts of spring diversion have been removed 
or reduced. Therefore, based on the preceding discussion, we have 
determined there is substantial information in the petition and our 
files to indicate that listing the Moapa pebblesnail and Moapa Valley 
pyrg may be warranted due to threats from groundwater development and 
spring development.
    The petition states that water pollution, recreation, and grazing 
are potential threats to the Moapa pebblesnail and Moapa Valley pyrg. 
As discussed in the ``Summary of Common Threats'' section, above the 
petition does not present any specific

[[Page 56629]]

information, nor is there any information in our files regarding water 
pollution, recreation, and grazing as potential threats to the Moapa 
pebblesnail and Moapa Valley pyrg. Therefore, we have determined there 
is not substantial information in the petition and our files indicating 
that water pollution, recreation, and grazing may be threats to the 
Moapa pebblesnail and Moapa Valley pyrg.
    Factors B and C: The petition asserts collection for scientific or 
educational purposes and disease or predation as potential threats to 
the Moapa pebblesnail and Moapa Valley pyrg. The petition did not 
present any specific information, nor is there any information in our 
files regarding collection for scientific or educational purposes, and 
disease or predation as potential threats to the Moapa pebblesnail and 
Moapa Valley pyrg. Therefore, we have determined that there is not 
substantial information in the petition and our files indicating that 
collection for scientific or educational purposes and disease or 
predation may be threats to the Moapa pebblesnail and Moapa Valley 
pyrg. However, we will further consider this and any additional 
information on these activities and other potential threats received 
during our status review for this species.
    Factor D: The petition states that inadequate regulatory mechanisms 
are a threat to the Moapa pebblesnail and Moapa Valley pyrg due to the 
permitting of groundwater rights by the NSE that exceed perennial 
yield. Permitted groundwater rights in the hydrographic area currently 
approach the average annual recharge (see details under Factor A). 
Based on this and the discussion of regulatory mechanisms related to 
the permitting of groundwater rights and use in the ``Summary of Common 
Threats,'' we have determined there is substantial information in the 
petition and our files to indicate that listing the Moapa pebblesnail 
and Moapa Valley pyrg may be warranted due to the inadequacy of 
existing regulatory mechanisms related to the permitting of groundwater 
rights and use.
    Factor E: The petition asserts that invasive species, inherent 
vulnerability of isolated populations, and global climate change are 
potential threats to the Moapa pebblesnail and Moapa Valley pyrg. 
Specifically regarding invasive species, a study in the thermal, Upper 
Muddy River spring system of competition from the invasive red-rimmed 
melania suggests that this may not be a threat because there is only a 
minor niche overlap between nonnative snails and the native Moapa 
pebblesnail and Moapa Valley pyrg (Sada 2008, p. 69). The petition does 
not provide any specific information regarding other invasive species 
in the springs occupied by the Moapa pebblesnail and Moapa Valley pyrg. 
The petition does not provide any specific information regarding the 
potential threat from isolation and limited distribution, and we do not 
consider isolation and limited distribution, in and of itself, to be a 
threat to the Moapa pebblesnail and Moapa Valley pyrg. The petition 
does not provide any specific information, nor is there any information 
in our files regarding global climate change as a potential threat to 
the Moapa pebblesnail and Moapa Valley pyrg. Therefore, based on the 
preceding discussion, we have determined that there is not substantial 
information in the petition and our files indicating that invasive 
species, inherent vulnerability of isolated springsnail populations, 
and global climate change may be threats to the Moapa pebblesnail and 
Moapa Valley pyrg. However, we will further consider this and any 
additional information on these activities and other potential threats 
received during our status review for this species.
    Upper Muddy River Springs Summary: Based on our evaluation of the 
information provided in the petition and available in our files, we 
have determined that the petition presents substantial information to 
indicate that listing of the Moapa pebblesnail and Moapa Valley pyrg 
may be warranted due to the present or threatened destruction, 
modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range (Factor A) 
resulting from groundwater development and spring development, and due 
to the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms (Factor D) 
permitting groundwater rights and use.

Upper Muddy River Springs, White River Valley, and Pahranagat Valley 
Hydrographic Areas Species

    Tryonia clathrata (grated tryonia) is found in approximately 12 
spring systems in Clark, Lincoln, and Nye Counties, Nevada (Hershler, 
1999, pp. 331-332).
    Factor A: The petition proposes that groundwater development, 
spring development, water pollution, recreation, and grazing are 
threats to the grated tryonia. The grated tryonia occurs in springs in 
the Upper Muddy River Springs hydrographic area (219), which 
has been classified as a ``Designated Groundwater Basin'' by the NSE 
where permitted groundwater rights exceed the estimated average annual 
recharge. The perennial yield of the Upper Muddy River Springs area is 
100-36,000 afy (123,300-44,410,000 m\3\/year), while approximately 
14,558 afy (17,960,000 m\3\/year) are committed for use. Since 1998, 
there has been a small and widespread decline in carbonate aquifer 
water levels in the Upper Muddy River Springs area because of 
groundwater pumping (Mayer and Congdon 2007, p. 13). When groundwater 
extraction exceeds aquifer recharge, it may result in surface water 
level decline, spring drying, and degradation or loss of aquatic 
habitat (Zektser et al. 2005, pp. 396-397). Based on the preceding 
discussion, we have determined there is substantial information in the 
petition and our files to indicate that listing the grated tryonia may 
be warranted due to threats from groundwater development.
    Regarding spring development, Sada (2008, p. 69) reported that 
reduced habitat quality and habitat heterogeneity caused by diversions, 
channelization, and siltation resulted in reductions of springsnails 
(including the grated tryonia) such that they were scarce or absent at 
85 percent of the springbrooks where they historically occurred at Warm 
Springs. The Service and other partnering agencies have completed and 
continue to implement extensive efforts to restore the spring systems 
in the Upper Muddy River Springs Area and reduce or eliminate past 
spring diversion impacts to aquatic species including springsnails; 
however, not all of the impacts of spring diversion have been removed 
or reduced. Golden et al. (2007, p. 200) observed that Crystal Springs, 
where grated tryonia are also found, was highly disturbed by diversion. 
Golden et al. (2007, p. 197) did not document grated tryonia at Crystal 
Springs during their surveys. Therefore, based on the preceding 
discussion, we have determined there is substantial information in the 
petition and our files to indicate that listing the grated tryonia may 
be warranted due to threats from spring development.
    The petition asserts that water pollution, recreation, and grazing 
are threats to the grated tryonia. As discussed in the ``Summary of 
Common Threats'' section above, the petition does not present any 
specific information, nor is there any information in our files 
regarding water pollution, recreation, and grazing as potential threats 
to the grated tryonia. Therefore, we have determined there is not 
substantial information in the petition and our files indicating that 
water pollution, recreation, and grazing may be threats to the grated 
tryonia. However, we will further consider this and any additional 
information on these

[[Page 56630]]

activities received during our status review for this species.
    Factors B, C, and E: The petition proposes that collection for 
scientific or educational purposes, disease or predation, invasive 
species, inherent vulnerability of isolated springsnail populations, 
and global climate change are threats to the grated tryonia. 
Specifically regarding invasives, a study in the thermal, Upper Muddy 
River spring system of competition from the invasive red-rimmed melania 
suggests that this may not be a threat because there is only a minor 
niche overlap between nonnative snails and the native grated tryonia 
(Sada 2008, p. 69). The petition does not provide any specific 
information regarding other invasive species in the springs occupied by 
the grated tryonia. The petition does not provide any specific 
information regarding the potential threat from isolation and limited 
distribution, and we do not consider isolation and limited 
distribution, in and of itself, to be a threat to the grated tryonia. 
As discussed in the ``Summary of Common Threats'' section above, the 
petition does not provide any specific information, nor is there any 
information in our files regarding collection for scientific or 
educational purposes, disease or predation, and global climate change 
as potential threats to any of the petitioned springsnails, which 
includes the grated tryonia. Therefore, we have determined that there 
is not substantial information in the petition and our files indicating 
collection for scientific or educational purposes, disease or 
predation, invasive species, inherent vulnerability of isolated 
springsnail populations, and global climate change may be threats to 
the grated tryonia. However, we will further consider this and any 
additional information on these activities and other potential threats 
received during our status review for this species.
    Factor D: The petition states that inadequate regulatory mechanisms 
are a threat due to the permitting of groundwater rights by the NSE 
that exceed perennial yield. Permitted groundwater rights in the Upper 
Muddy River Springs hydrographic area currently approach the average 
annual recharge (see details under Factor A). Based on this and 
additional rationale discussing regulatory mechanisms in the ``Summary 
of Common Threats,'' we have determined there is substantial 
information in the petition and our files to indicate that listing the 
grated tryonia may be warranted due to the inadequacy of existing 
regulatory mechanisms related to the permitting of groundwater rights 
and use.
    Grated Tryonia Summary: Based on our evaluation of the information 
provided in the petition and available in our files, we have determined 
that the petition presents substantial information to indicate that 
listing of the grated tryonia may be warranted due to the present or 
threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or 
range (Factor A) resulting from groundwater development and spring 
development, and due to the inadequacy of existing regulatory 
mechanisms (Factor D) related to the permitting of groundwater rights 
and use.

Finding

    We reviewed and evaluated 39 of the 42 petitioned springsnail 
species, based on the information in the petition and the literature 
cited in the petition. We have evaluated the information to determine 
whether the sources cited support the claims made in the petition 
relating to the five listing factors. We also reviewed reliable 
information readily available in our files.
    On the basis of our evaluation of the petition under section 
4(b)(3)(A) of the Act, we find that the petition does not present 
substantial scientific or commercial information that listing may be 
warranted for 7 species: Pyrgulopsis gracilis (Emigrant pyrg), 
Pyrgulopsis montana (Camp Valley pyrg), Pyrgulopsis aloba (Duckwater 
pyrg), Pyrgulopsis anatine (southern Duckwater pyrg), Pyrgulopsis 
lockensis (Lockes pyrg), Pyrgulopsis papillata (Big Warm Spring pyrg), 
Pyrgulopsis villacampae (Duckwater Warm Spring pyrg).
    We find that the petition presents substantial scientific or 
commercial information that listing the remaining 32 of the 39 species 
that we evaluated as threatened or endangered under the Act may be 
warranted. Because we have found that the petition presents substantial 
information that listing these 32 species may be warranted, we are 
initiating status reviews (12-month findings) to determine whether 
listing any of these 32 species under the Act is warranted.
    We previously determined that emergency listing of any of the 39 
species is not warranted. However, if at any time we determine that 
emergency listing of any of the 39 petitioned species is warranted, we 
will initiate an emergency listing.
    The petition also requests that critical habitat be designated for 
the species concurrent with final listing under the Act. If we 
determine in our 12-month finding, following the status review of the 
species, that listing is warranted, we will address the designation of 
critical habitat in the subsequent proposed rule.
    The ``substantial information'' standard for a 90-day finding 
differs from the Act's ``best scientific and commercial data'' standard 
that applies to a status review to determine whether a petitioned 
action is warranted. A 90-day finding does not constitute a status 
review under the Act. In 12-month findings, we will determine whether a 
petitioned action is warranted after we have completed thorough status 
reviews of the species, which is conducted following a substantial 90-
day finding. Because the Act's standards for 90-day and 12-month 
findings are different, as described above, a substantial 90-day 
finding does not mean that the 12-month findings will result in a 
warranted finding.

References Cited

    A complete list of references cited is available on the Internet at 
Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2011-0001 at http://www.regulations.gov and upon 
request from the Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT).

Author

    The primary authors of this document are the staff members of the 
Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

    Authority 
    The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 
1973, as amended (U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

    Dated: August 22, 2011.
Gregory E. Siekaniec,
Deputy Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-23272 Filed 9-12-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P