[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 243 (Monday, December 19, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 78601-78609]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-32431]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2011-0102; 4500030113]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on
a Petition To List the Western Glacier Stonefly as Endangered With
Critical Habitat
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of petition finding and initiation of status review.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a
90-day finding on a petition to list the western glacier stonefly
(Zapada glacier) in Montana as endangered under the Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended (Act), and to designate critical habitat. Based
on our review, we find that the petition presents substantial
scientific or commercial information indicating that listing the
western glacier stonefly may be warranted. Therefore, with the
publication of this notice, we are initiating a review of the status of
the species to determine if listing the western glacier stonefly is
warranted. To ensure that this status review is comprehensive, we are
requesting scientific and commercial data and other information
regarding this species. Based on the status review, we will issue a 12-
month finding on the petition, which will address whether the
petitioned action is warranted, as provided in section 4(b)(3)(B) of
the Act. We will make a determination on
[[Page 78602]]
critical habitat for this species if and when we initiate a listing
action.
DATES: To allow us adequate time to conduct this review, we request
that we receive information on or before February 17, 2012. The
deadline for submitting an electronic comment using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES section, below) is 11:59 p.m. Eastern
Time on this date. After February 17, 2012, you must submit information
directly to the Montana Ecological Services 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.
ADDRESSES: You may submit information by one of the following methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In the Keyword or ID box, enter FWS-R6-ES-2011-
0102, which is the docket number for this action. Then click on the
Search button. You may submit a comment by clicking on ``Submit a
Comment.''
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public
Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R6-ES-2011-0102; Division of Policy and
Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax
Drive, MS 2042-PDM; Arlington, VA 22203.
We will not accept email or faxes. 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).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Wilson, Field Supervisor, Montana
Ecological Services Field Office, 585 Shepard Way, Helena, MT;
telephone (406) 449-5225. 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
western glacier stonefly 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 and programs for the
species, its 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.
(3) Information specific to the western glacier stonefly in Glacier
National Park (GNP):
(a) Documentation that the species still exists in GNP, including
confirmed records of individuals collected after 1979;
(b) Methodology of previous surveys for the species, including
specific locations and site characteristics where it has been found;
(c) Habitat requirements and physical description of the aquatic
juvenile or larval forms; and
(d) Hydrology of the streams where the species has been documented
to determine the contribution of glacier meltwater to its habitat.
If, after the status review, we determine that listing the western
glacier stonefly is warranted, we will propose critical habitat (see
definition in section 3(5)(A) of the Act), in accordance with section 4
of the Act, to the maximum extent prudent and determinable at the time
we propose to list the species. Therefore, we also request data and
information on:
(1) What may constitute ``physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species'' within the geographical range
currently occupied by the species;
(2) Where these features are currently found;
(3) Whether any of these features may require special management
considerations or protection;
(4) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the
species that are ``essential for the conservation of the species;'' and
(5) 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.''
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 your submission is made via 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 will be available for public inspection at
http://www.regulations.gov, or by appointment, during normal business
hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Montana Ecological
Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Background
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act 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.
[[Page 78603]]
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 commence a review of the status of the species, which is
subsequently summarized in our 12-month finding.
Petition History
On January 10, 2011, we received a petition dated December 30,
2010, prepared by Jordan et al. (petition) on behalf of The Xerces
Society for Invertebrate Conservation and The Center for Biological
Diversity (petitioners) requesting that the western glacier stonefly be
given immediate protection and listed as endangered under the Act and
that critical habitat be designated. The petition clearly identified
itself as such and included the requisite identification information
for the petitioners, as required by 50 CFR 424.14(a). In an August 3,
2011, letter to the petitioners (Walsh 2011, entire), we responded that
we had 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 stated
further that due to staff and budget limitations it was not practicable
to fully address the petition at the time it was received. This finding
addresses the petition.
Previous Federal Actions
There are no previous Federal actions involving the western glacier
stonefly.
Species Information
Species Description and Taxonomy
The western glacier stonefly is a slender, elongate insect with
filamentous antennae and large eyes. The adults are generally brown in
color with yellowish brown legs and possess two sets of translucent
wings (Baumann and Gaufin 1971, p. 275). Adults range from 6.5 to 10.0
millimeters (mm) (0.26 to 0.39 inches (in.)) in body length with the
larger forewings measuring 7.0 to 11.0 mm (0.28 to 0.43 in.) in length
(Baumann and Gaufin 1971, p. 275). Females are larger than males. The
nymphs (immature or larval forms) have not been identified and no
physical description is available. In general, juveniles of the Zapada
genus, which includes this species, differ from adults in the presence
of large whorled spines on their legs (Baumann 1975, p. 31). The
western glacier stonefly is referred to as a member of the Z.
oregonensis group, which all have similar shape and unbranched
structure of the cervical gills (Stagliano et al. 2007, p. 60).
The western glacier stonefly is in the phylum Arthropoda, class
Insecta, order Plecoptera (stoneflies), and family Nemouridae (Baumann
1975, pp. 1, 31; Service 2011, p. 18688). The family Nemouridae is the
largest in the order, comprising more than 370 species in 17 genera
(Baumann 1975, p. 1). Members of the Zapada genus (also known as
Nemoura genus) are the most common of the Nemouridae family (Baumann
1975, p. 31).
The western glacier stonefly was first described in 1971 from adult
specimens collected from five locations in GNP, Glacier County,
Montana, in the 1960s (Baumann and Gaufin 1971, p. 277), and is
recognized as a valid species by the scientific community (Baumann
1975, p. 30; Stark 1996, entire; Stark et al. 2009, p. 8). We consider
the western glacier stonefly (Zapada glacier) to be a valid species
and, therefore, a listable entity under the Act.
Habitat and Life History
There is little information available on the biology of the western
glacier stonefly. However, we assume that the western glacier stonefly
is likely to be similar to other closely related stoneflies in terms of
its habitat needs and life history traits. In general, insects in the
order Plecoptera (stoneflies), and the family Nemouridae in particular,
are primarily associated with clean, cool or cold, running waters
(Baumann 1979, pp. 242-243; Stewart and Harper 1996, p. 217). Depending
on the information source, cool or cold waters are defined as those
with a mean temperature below 16 [deg]C (60.8[emsp14][deg]F) (Baumann
1979, p. 242) or 19 [deg]C (66.2[emsp14][deg]F) (Grafe et al. 2002, p.
A1). Members of the Nemouridae family, which includes the western
glacier stonefly, are usually the dominant Plecopteran found in
mountain-river ecosystems both in total biomass and in numbers of
species present (Baumann 1975, p. 1).
Stonefly larvae usually have specific habitat requirements with
respect to water body size, temperature range, and substrate type
(Stewart and Harper 1996, p. 217). Most aquatic invertebrates in stream
environments in the northern Rocky Mountains exhibit very strong
presence or abundance distribution patterns according to elevation
gradients and, therefore, temperature gradients (Fagre et al. 1997, pp.
761-763; Lowe and Hauer 1999, p. 1642; Hauer et al. 2007, p. 110).
Species in the Zapada genus are most likely to be found in aquatic
environments not exceeding 16 [deg]C (60.8[emsp14][deg]F) (Baumann
1979, p. 243); however, optimal mean summer water temperatures are
usually lower (Grafe et al. 2002, pp. A1-A2). The specific thermal
tolerance of the western glacier stonefly is not known; however,
abundance patterns for other species in the Zapada genus in GNP
indicate preferences for the coolest environmental temperatures, such
as those found at high elevation in proximity to the headwater source
(Hauer et al. 2007, p. 110).
Nemourid stonefly larvae are typically herbivores or detritivores,
and their feeding mode is generally that of a shredder or collector-
gatherer (Baumann 1975, p. 1; Stewart and Harper 1996, pp. 218, 262).
We assume this also is true of western glacier stonefly larvae.
We have no specific information on the longevity of the western
glacier stonefly, but in general stoneflies complete their life cycles
within a single year (univoltine) or in 2 to 3 years (semivoltine)
(Stewart and Harper 1996, pp. 217-218). Eggs and larvae of all North
American species of stoneflies are aquatic (Stewart and Harper 1996, p.
217). Mature stonefly nymphs emerge from the water and complete their
development to short-lived adults on and around streamside vegetation
or other structures (Hynes 1976, pp. 135-136; Stewart and Harper 1996,
p. 217). Either temperature or photoperiod, or a combination of
temperature and light, influence the timing of Plecopteran emergence in
the Rocky Mountains (Nebeker 1971 cited in Hynes 1976, p. 137). Western
glacier stonefly nymphs have never been collected, but adult forms have
been collected from early July through mid-August (Baumann and Gaufin
1971, p. 277). Therefore, emergence may start sometime before this
period.
Plecopterans inhabiting flowing water disperse longitudinally (up
or down stream) or laterally to the stream bank from their benthic
(larval) source, and this phenomenon has been reported for some members
of the Nemouridae family (Hynes 1976, p. 138; Griffith et al. 1998, p.
195; Petersen et al. 2004, pp. 944-945). Generally, adult stoneflies
stay close to the channel of their source stream (Petersen et al. 2004,
p. 946), and lateral movement into neighboring uplands is confined to
less than 80 meters (262 feet) from the stream (Griffith et al. 1998,
p. 197).
Adult male and female stoneflies are mutually attracted by a
drumming sound produced by tapping their abdomens on a substrate (Hynes
1976,
[[Page 78604]]
p. 140). After mating, females deposit a mass of fertilized eggs in
water where they are widely dispersed or attached to substrates by
sticky coverings or specialized anchoring devices (Hynes 1976, p. 141;
Stewart and Harper 1996, p. 217). Eggs may hatch within a few weeks or
remain in diapause (dormancy) for much longer periods if environmental
conditions, such as temperature, are not conducive to development
(Hynes 1976, p. 142). Environmental conditions also may affect the
growth and development of hatchlings (Stewart and Harper 1996, p. 217).
Distribution and Abundance
Species in the Zapada genus are found throughout western North
America (Baumann 1975, p. 74), but the western glacier stonefly has
been collected only in the vicinity of five glacier-fed streams east of
the Continental Divide in GNP, Montana (Baumann and Gaufin 1971, p.
277). Only 23 adult specimens (20 female and 3 male), all collected
between 1963 and 1969, have been documented in publication (Baumann and
Gaufin 1971, p. 277). There also is a report of one male collected in
1979 near the site of a previous 1966 collection (Schweiger pers. comm.
cited in Jordan et al. 2010, pp. 6, 19); this detection is the last
known on record. Only one to three individuals were collected per
survey effort at any of the collection sites (Baumann and Gaufin 1971,
p. 277). Baumann and Gaufin (1971, p. 277) indicated that the original
collection efforts in the 1960s were limited in scope and suggested
that collections at lower elevation and earlier in the season could
expand the known range of the taxon.
Aquatic invertebrate surveys conducted in GNP between 1997 and 2010
did not detect the western glacier stonefly. However, only one drainage
(Cataract Creek) previously known to be inhabited by the western
glacier stonefly was surveyed during this period (Muhlfeld et al. 2011,
p. 341). Although the species was not detected in or around Cataract
Creek in 2010, the survey date of mid-September may have been too late
in the season to detect identifiable forms of the species.
To our knowledge, there are no population numbers or trends known
for the western glacier stonefly. There are no recent survey data for
most of the known range, and the species' presence has not been
documented for over 30 years. Richard Baumann, the professional
entomologist who first described the western glacier stonefly, expects
that it still exists in most areas where it was collected in the 1960s
and 1970s (Jordan et al. 2010, p. 6). However, we are concerned that
there is no recent record of the species, and we intend to seek
documentation that the species is extant during the status review
process. Overall, the limited information we have on the western
glacier stonefly at this stage suggests that the species is generally
limited in geographic distribution and rare in quantity where it has
been collected in the past.
Evaluation of Information for This Finding
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing
regulations at 50 CFR part 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 considering what factors might constitute threats, we must look
beyond the mere exposure of the species to the factor to determine
whether the species responds to the factor in a way that causes actual
impacts to the species. If there is exposure to a factor, but no
response, or only a positive response, that factor is not a threat. If
there is exposure and the species responds negatively, the factor may
be a threat and we then attempt to determine how significant a threat
it is. If the threat is significant, it may drive or contribute to the
risk of extinction of the species such that the species may warrant
listing as threatened or endangered as those terms are defined by the
Act. This does not necessarily require empirical proof of a threat. The
combination of exposure and some corroborating evidence of how the
species is likely impacted could suffice. The mere identification of
factors that could impact the species negatively may not be sufficient
to compel a finding that listing may be warranted. The information
shall contain evidence sufficient to suggest that these factors may be
operative threats that act on the species to the point that the species
may meet the definition of threatened or endangered under the Act.
In making this 90-day finding, we evaluated whether information
regarding threats to the western glacier stonefly, 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.
A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment
of Its Habitat or Range
Information Provided in the Petition
The petition asserts that the western glacier stonefly is
threatened by habitat loss due to climate change and provides several
references about the effects of climate change in general to support
this claim. The petition explains that human-induced climate change is
causing global increases of ambient temperatures, increased summer
water temperatures, altered precipitation and snow melt patterns, and
contributing to the ongoing melting and loss of glaciers in GNP
(Selkowitz et al. 2002, p. 3651; Fagre 2005, p. 1; Hall and Fagre 2003,
p. 139; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007a, p. 9;
Pederson et al. 2010, pp. 133-134; U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 2010,
entire). These conditions are likely to continue (IPCC 2007a, pp. 8-15;
IPCC 2007 cited in Saunders et al. 2008, p. iv-v; USGS 2010, entire).
The petition also asserts that winter snow deposition cannot compensate
for the loss of glaciers and warming summer water temperatures because
snow cannot act as a source of cold water through the entire summer
(Baumann 2010, pers. comm. cited in Jordan et al. 2010, p. 9),
especially in light of increased summer temperatures, earlier snowmelt,
and the decreased water equivalent held in seasonal snowpack (Fagre
2005, p. 1; USGS 2010, entire).
According to the petition, the disappearance of glaciers is a
``concern for this species'' (Baumann 2010, pers. comm. cited in Jordan
et al. 2010, p. 9). The petition reasons that the western glacier
stonefly is adapted to cold temperatures and high dissolved oxygen
concentrations because its known occurrences are only from glacier-fed
streams (Baumann 2010, pers. comm. cited in Jordan et al. 2010, p. 9).
Species in the Z. oregonensis group, in which the western glacier
stonefly is included, have a preferred temperature (8.8 [deg]C
(47.8[emsp14][deg]F)), which is a relatively cool optimum temperature
within the range of Plecopteran tolerance limits (Grafe et al. 2002,
pp. A1-A2; Baumann 2010,
[[Page 78605]]
pers. comm. cited in Jordan et al. 2010, p. 9). Increasing water
temperatures would likely render the habitat unsuitable by decreasing
dissolved oxygen to levels beyond the physiological limits of the
species or preventing temperature-sensitive larval development (Sweeney
et al. 1990, pp. 169-170; Grafe et al. 2002, pp. A1-A2; Baumann 2010,
pers. comm. cited in Jordan et al. 2010, p. 9).
The petition did not include any supporting material to show that
climate change would alter the specific streams inhabited by the
western glacier stonefly by inducing temperatures beyond the tolerance
limits of the species or the Z. oregonensis group in general, but only
speculated that the projected increases in air and water temperatures
would be detrimental to the species' normal functions (Gaufin 1973, p.
110; Baumann 1979, p. 242; McLaughlin et al. 2002, p. 6073; USGS 2010,
entire). The petition supported this conclusion by inference from
projected climate change impacts to aquatic invertebrates in the
eastern United States. Projected climate change scenarios are expected
to increase water temperatures by 4 [deg]C (7.2[emsp14][deg]F) for
first through fifth-order streams and rivers in eastern North America,
which essentially shifts the thermal regime of a given stream to one
that is presently 680 kilometers (km) (422 miles (mi)) south (Sweeney
et al. 1990, pp. 144-145). A species with a limited geographic range at
the headwaters of cold-water streams would be unlikely to persist with
such a shift in thermal regime (Baumann 2010, pers. comm. cited in
Jordan et al. 2010, p. 9).
The petitioners state that dispersal ability is important for the
survival of freshwater taxa in general (Bilton et al. 2001, p. 161) and
is especially important in light of the elevated temperatures and the
shifting of habitat that are expected with climate change (Sweeney et
al. 1990, p. 143). Glaciers are the primary source of cold-water
streams in GNP, and recent models of carbon dioxide (CO2)
induced global warming predicts the complete loss of glaciers in GNP by
2030 (Hall and Fagre, 2003, p. 131; Fagre 2005, p. 1; USGS 2010,
entire). Aquatic invertebrates, in general, are expected to migrate or
disperse northward or to higher elevations with the changing water
regimes expected with climate change (Sweeney et al. 1990, p. 147). The
petitioners state that glacier-dependent species existing at high-
elevation headwaters, including the cold-water dependent western
glacier stonefly, even if possessing unlimited dispersal potential and
intact landscapes, have no options if the glaciers and the streams they
support are destroyed by climate change (Jordan et al. 2010, pp. 7-10).
The petition also indicates that climate change may alter the
growth rate of the species by transforming the type or nutrient quality
of streamside foraging vegetation, which has been documented to
diminish recruitment and the likelihood of population persistence in
other Plecopteran species (Sweeney et al. 1990, pp. 163-164).
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in
Service Files
Consideration of climate change is a component of our analyses
under the Endangered Species Act. The term ``climate change'' refers to
a change in the state of the climate that can be identified by changes
in the mean or variability of its properties (e.g., temperature,
precipitation) and that persists for an extended period, typically
decades or longer, whether the change occurs due to natural variability
or as a result of human activity (IPCC 2007b, p. 30).
Scientific measurements taken over several decades demonstrate that
changes in climate are occurring. Examples include warming of the
global climate system over recent decades, and substantial increases in
precipitation in some regions of the world and decreases in other
regions (for these and other examples see IPCC 2007b, p. 30; Solomon et
al. 2007, pp. 35-54, 82-85).
Scientific analyses show that most of the observed increase in
global average temperature since the mid-20th century cannot be
explained by natural variability in climate, and is ``very likely''
(defined by the IPCC as 90 percent or higher probability) due to the
observed increase in greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations in the
atmosphere as a result of human activities, particularly carbon dioxide
emissions from fossil fuel use (IPCC 2007b, p. 5 and Figure SPM.3;
Solomon et al. 2007, pp. 21-35). Therefore, scientists use a variety of
climate models (which include consideration of natural processes and
variability) in conjunction with various scenarios of potential levels
and timing of GHG emissions in order to project future changes in
temperature and other climate conditions (e.g., Meehl et al. 2007
entire; Ganguly et al. 2009, pp. 11555, 15558; Prinn et al. 2011, pp.
527, 529).
The projected magnitude of average global warming for this century
(as well as the range of projected values, which reflects uncertainty)
is very similar under all combinations of models and emissions
scenarios until about 2030. Thereafter, despite the projections showing
greater divergence in projected magnitude, the overall trajectory is
one of increased warming under all scenarios, including those which
assume a reduction of GHG emissions (Meehl et al. 2007, pp. 760-764;
Ganguly et al. 2009, pp. 15555-15558; Prinn et al. 2011, pp. 527, 529).
(See IPCC 2007c, p. 8, for other global climate projections.)
Various types of changes in climate may have direct or indirect
effects and these may be positive or negative depending on the species
and other relevant considerations, such as interactions of climate with
non-climate variables (e.g., habitat fragmentation). Identifying likely
effects often involves climate change vulnerability analysis.
Vulnerability refers to the degree to which a species (or system) is
susceptible to, and unable to cope with, adverse effects of climate
change, including variability and extremes; it is a function of the
type, magnitude, and rate of climate change and variation to which a
species is exposed, its sensitivity, and its adaptive capacity (IPCC
2007b, p. 89; see also Glick et al. 2011, pp. 19-22). Because exposure,
sensitivity, and adaptive capacity can vary by species and situation,
there is no single method for conducting such analyses (Glick et al.
2011, p. 3). We use our expert judgment and appropriate analytical
approaches to weigh relevant information, including uncertainty, in our
consideration of various aspects of climate change that are relevant to
the western glacier stonefly.
Projected changes in climate and related impacts can vary
substantially across and within different regions of the world (e.g.,
IPCC 2007b, pp. 8-12). Thus, although global climate projections are
informative, and in some cases are the only or the best scientific
information available, to the extent possible we use ``downscaled''
climate projections. Those projections provide higher-resolution
information that is more relevant to the spatial scales used to assess
impacts to a given species (see Glick et al. 2011, pp. 58-61 for a
discussion of downscaling). With regard to our analysis for the western
glacier stonefly, downscaled projections of climate are available.
Downscaled projection information we have in our files supports the
petition's assertions that climate change may threaten habitat for the
western glacier stonefly in GNP. Specifically, global warming appears
to be very pronounced in alpine regions where the western glacier
stonefly has been known to occur (Hall and Fagre 2003, p. 134 and
references therein). Since 1900, the
[[Page 78606]]
mean annual air temperature for GNP and the surrounding region has
increased 1.33 [deg]C (2.4[emsp14][deg]F), which is 1.8 times the
global mean increase (USGS 2010, p. 1). Glaciers in GNP are
disappearing. Only 27 of the 150 glaciers estimated to have existed in
GNP in 1910 exist today (Fagre 2005, p. 1). Glaciers and perennial
snowpack (snow that persists from year to year) are expected to be gone
from GNP by 2030 based on projected greenhouse gas emissions,
temperature, and precipitation scenarios, eliminating them as a cooling
source for natural springs or as a sole source of cool, running water
(Hall and Fagre 2003, p. 137; Fagre 2005, p. 7).
With the complete loss of glaciers in GNP, high-alpine wetlands
could be reduced, changed from perennial to ephemeral, or eliminated by
decreased winter snow or accelerated snowfield melt due to elevated
summer temperatures (Hauer et al. 2007, p. 109). Glaciers store water
that is then released during dry periods of the year or through
extended drought. Thus, streams that would otherwise dry-up in warm,
dry seasons are assured a continual flow where glaciers persist.
Although the juvenile form of the western glacier stonefly has not been
described, it is presumed to be aquatic because eggs and larvae of all
other Plecopteran insects are dependent on aquatic environments for
their survival and development to adults (Stewart and Harper 1996, p.
217). The collection of adult western glacier stoneflies solely in and
bordering glacier-fed streams, and the limited dispersal ability of
Plecopterans, would suggest that the persistence of these streams is
important to the persistence of the species (Baumann and Gaufin 1971,
p. 277; Brown et al. 2009 cited in Muhlfeld et al. 2011, p. 343).
The information in our files supports the petitioners' assertion
that the loss of glaciers in GNP may alter habitat for glacier-
dependent or cool-water-adapted aquatic invertebrates. The specific
habitat requirements or range of tolerance to environmental
temperatures is not known for the western glacier stonefly, but glacier
and perennial snowfield loss is expected to decrease the available
habitat for another cool-water dependent stonefly endemic to GNP, the
meltwater lednian stonefly (Lednia tumana) (Hall and Fagre 2003, p.
138). The meltwater lednian stonefly is limited in distribution by mean
and maximum aquatic temperatures of 10 [deg]C (50[emsp14][deg]F) and 18
[deg]C (64.4[emsp14][deg]F), respectively, with the majority of
collection locations in close proximity to high-elevation glaciers or
permanent snowfields (Muhlfeld et al. 2011, p. 341). Western glacier
stonefly collections indicate a similar pattern of proximity to high-
elevation glacier-fed streams or glacier lake sources (Baumann and
Gaufin 1971, p. 271). In addition, the thermal tolerances for the Z.
oregonensis group, which includes the western glacier stonefly, are
within the measured range of the lednian species (Grafe et al. 2002, p.
A2).
In a previous finding, the Service evaluated the status of the
meltwater lednian stonefly and determined it was warranted but
precluded for listing under the Act based on the effects of the
projected loss of glaciers in altering habitat in high-alpine streams
by higher water temperatures, seasonal or permanent stream dewatering,
and changes in the timing and volume of snowmelt (76 FR 18694, April 5,
2011). A separate evaluation and habitat model further supported
predictions of habitat loss by up to 80 percent by 2030 for the
meltwater lednian stonefly in GNP (Muhlfeld et al. 2011, p. 343). Based
on this information, it is reasonable to expect that habitat for the
western glacier stonefly might be similarly affected by warmer or
curtailed stream flows due to glacier and snowfield loss associated
with a changing climate. Given the limited information available on the
distribution and population status of the western glacier stonefly, we
cannot predict the extent to which the species would be affected or
even if the species still exists in GNP; however, we will assess this
factor more thoroughly during our status review for the species.
Information in our files also confirms the petitioners' statements
that with increasing temperatures the type of streamside foraging
vegetation present in GNP could be transformed, and GNP could see an
increase in tree growth rates and evapotranspiration, which would
reduce soil moisture and streamflow (Fagre 2005, p. 8). However, these
projections are based on broad trends for the region, and we cannot
predict at this scale how these scenarios would contribute to the loss
or deterioration of western glacier stonefly habitat or how these
changes would diminish recruitment and the likelihood of population
persistence. We will assess this factor more thoroughly during our
status review for the species. The transition of habitat and its
effects on the physiology and phenology of the western glacier stonefly
is discussed under Factor E.
Summary of Factor A
Based on the information provided in the petition, as well as other
information readily available in our files, we find that the petition
presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating
that the western glacier stonefly may warrant listing due to the
present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of the
species' habitat or range. Little information is available on the
ecology and biology of the western glacier stonefly, but it is
described as a cool-water stonefly species based on its collection in
or near glacier-fed streams. There is adequate information on the
adverse effects of warming air and water temperatures projected to
occur with climate change on habitat for cool-water stoneflies in
general, and specifically through research conducted on another endemic
stonefly in GNP--the meltwater lednian stonefly. Increased summer water
temperatures and altered precipitation and snow melt patterns due to
climate change contribute to the ongoing shrinking and projected loss
of glaciers and perennial snowfields in GNP, which are sources of
stream habitats on which the western glacier stonefly may depend. We
will assess these stressors and habitat requirements more thoroughly
during our status review in order to better quantify potential effects
on the western glacier stonefly.
B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
The petition notes that the western glacier stonefly is not used
commercially and is not at risk of overcollection (Jordan et al. 2010,
p. 10). Neither the petition nor information within our files presents
substantial scientific or commercial information that collection was,
or is, occurring at a level that impacts the overall status of the
species. Therefore, we find the petition does not present substantial
scientific or commercial information to indicate that overutilization
for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes may
present a threat to the western glacier stonefly such that the
petitioned action may be warranted. However, we will assess this factor
more thoroughly during our status review for the species.
C. Disease or Predation
Information Provided in the Petition
The petition notes that disease and predation are not known to
threaten the western glacier stonefly, although the threats from
disease and predation have never been assessed (Jordan et al. 2010, p.
10). The petition asserts that the rarity and limited range of the
species make it more vulnerable to extinction
[[Page 78607]]
from normal population fluctuations that could result from predation or
disease episodes (Jordan et al. 2010, p. 11).
Evaluation of Information in the Petition and Available in Service
Files
We address the potential risks due to a small population size under
Factor E. We reviewed information in our files and the information
provided by the petition and did not find substantial information to
indicate that disease or predation on the western glacier stonefly are
occurring outside the natural range of variation, such that they may be
considered a threat. Therefore, we find the petition does not present
substantial scientific or commercial information to indicate that
disease or predation may present a threat to the western glacier
stonefly such that the petitioned action may be warranted. We will
assess this factor more thoroughly during our status review for the
species.
D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
Information Provided in the Petition
The petition claims that the western glacier stonefly is threatened
by the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms, because it
receives no recognition or protection under Federal or State law
(Jordan et al. 2010, p. 11). The petition cites several references to
show that adequate regulations do not exist to control or reduce
greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of fossil fuels, the leading
cause of global climate change and increasing average global
temperatures, which the petitioners conclude contribute to the loss of
western glacier stonefly habitat (Fagre 2005, p. 1; Hansen et al. 2008,
p. 16; Jones et al. 2009, p. 484; Smith et al. 2009, p. 4135; Jordan et
al. 2010, p. 11). The petitioners cite the Service's 2008 listing of
the polar bear (Ursus maritimus), which concluded that there are no
regulatory mechanisms that address the anthropogenic causes of climate
change (e.g., greenhouse gas emissions) and the impact of warming
temperatures and altered precipitation patterns on diminishing sea ice
(73 FR 28288, May 15, 2008).
The petition explains that a reduction in atmospheric CO2, a
greenhouse gas, to 350 parts per million or below is necessary to avoid
dangerous climate change and maintain the conditions to which humanity,
wildlife, and the biosphere are adapted (Hansen et al. 2008, p. 16).
Current atmospheric CO2 is at approximately 385 ppm (Hansen et al.
2008, p. 16), and regulations are necessary to achieve the lower
emission level. The petition also states that existing domestic laws
which grant authority to require greenhouse gas emissions reductions
(e.g., Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, Energy
Policy and Conservation Act) are not exercised to their fullest extent
(Jordan et al. 2010, p. 12); however, there is no explanation in the
petition of how the majority of these laws apply to controlling
emissions. The petition includes an example of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA's) application of the Clean Air Act to lower
emissions by requiring improved fuel economy and higher emission
standards for light-duty vehicles (75 FR 25324, May 7, 2010), but
states that the majority of other Clean Air Act programs are not fully
implemented to address the greenhouse gas emission problem (75 FR
17004, April 2, 2010).
The petition also refers to sources indicating that the
international agreements to address greenhouse gas emissions (e.g.,
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Kyoto Protocol)
rely on nonbinding and ineffective controls (Jordan et al. 2010, p. 13;
Pew 2010, entire; Rogelj et al. 2010, p. 464).
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in
Service Files
While the information in our files supports the petitioners' claim
that the western glacier stonefly currently receives no direct
protection under Federal or State law, we do not necessarily consider
the absence of a regulatory mechanism to be a threat. The western
glacier stonefly is ranked ``S1'' by the Montana Natural Heritage
Program, indicating that it is vulnerable to extinction due to limited
range, habitat, or population size (Montana Natural Heritage Program
2011, entire); however, this designation does not confer any legal
protections for the species or its habitat. After examining the
available information in the petition and in our files, we believe that
the species is found only at high-altitude headwaters on Federal
property in GNP and is not known to occur on State or private lands.
Therefore, the western glacier stonefly and its habitat are not likely
to be impacted directly or affected by State regulations. We conclude
that there is not substantial information in the petition and our files
to show that the western glacier stonefly may be threatened by
inadequate State-level regulatory mechanisms.
Information in our files indicates that all known occurrences of
the species are on National Park Service (NPS) land, which is protected
indirectly by several Federal laws and regulations directing how NPS
lands are managed. Projects conducted within the species' range may be
subject to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C.
4321 et seq.) (NEPA). All Federal agencies are required to adhere to
NEPA for projects they fund, authorize, or carry out. The Council on
Environmental Quality's regulations for implementing NEPA (40 CFR parts
1500-1518) state that agencies shall include a discussion on the
environmental impacts of the various project alternatives, any adverse
environmental effects which cannot be avoided, and any irreversible or
irretrievable commitments of resources involved (40 CFR part 1502). The
NEPA is a disclosure law which does not require subsequent minimization
or mitigation measures by the Federal agency involved. Although Federal
agencies may include conservation measures for sensitive species as a
result of the NEPA process, any such measures are typically voluntary
in nature and are not required by the statute.
The NPS Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), as amended,
states that the NPS ``shall promote and regulate the use of the Federal
areas known as national parks, monuments, and reservations * * * to
conserve the scenery and the national and historic objects and the wild
life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such
manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the
enjoyment of future generations.'' The current distribution of the
western glacier stonefly is entirely within the boundaries of GNP;
therefore, the NPS Organic Act is one Federal law of particular
relevance to the species. We do not have information readily available
in our files to indicate that GNP has a management plan specific to the
western glacier stonefly, or if a plan which targets this species
explicitly is necessary in order to conserve the species. Management in
GNP conducted under the NPS Organic Act may provide adequate protection
for the species and its habitat from direct destruction or modification
by most human activities. However, the NPS Organic Act does not
regulate national or international greenhouse gas emissions. At this
phase of the review process we cannot seek input from outside agencies
such as the NPS or other additional information sources. We will
contact the NPS and other agencies during the status review process to
gather information to determine how and to what extent the existing
regulations provide protection.
[[Page 78608]]
The petitioners referred to the limited application of the Clean
Air Act by the EPA to effectively regulate greenhouse gas emissions.
Information in our files indicate that, on December 15, 2009, EPA
announced that current and projected concentrations of six greenhouse
gases in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of
current and future generations (74 FR 66496). In effect, the EPA
concluded that the greenhouse gases linked to climate change are
pollutants whose emissions can be subject to the Clean Air Act (42
U.S.C. 7401 et seq.). Specific regulations to limit greenhouse gas
emissions under the Clean Air Act were only proposed in 2010. The
Service stated previously that there is no basis to conclude that
implementation of the Clean Air Act will substantially reduce the
current rate of global climate change through regulation of greenhouse
gas emissions (76 FR 18694, April 5, 2011). As greenhouse gases are
considered a major contributor to global climate change and increasing
average global temperatures (Hansen et al. 2008, p. 16), which is
believed to be the cause of the projected loss of glaciers and other
environmental changes in GNP (Hall and Fagre 2003 p. 131; Fagre 2005,
p. 8; Hauer et al. 2007; pp. 107-113), existing regulatory mechanisms
may be inadequate to address potential changes to the western glacier
stonefly's habitat as discussed under Factor A.
Summary of Factor D
Based upon the information provided in the petition, as well as
other information readily available in our files, we find that there is
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the
western glacier stonefly may warrant listing due to the inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms that pertain to the primary potential
threat to the species identified in Factor A: Habitat loss due to the
environmental changes caused by climate change. Since the known
distribution of the species lies within the boundaries of GNP,
management of lands are subject to several Federal laws and regulations
that protect the species' habitat from direct destruction or
modification. Given the level of information we have at this 90-day
finding stage, it is unclear whether these Federal laws and regulations
are adequate as they pertain to addressing the potential threats to the
habitat of the western glacier stonefly due to climate change. We will
assess all the relevant regulatory mechanisms more thoroughly during
the status review for the species.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence
Information Provided in the Petition
The petition asserts that the western glacier stonefly population
sizes are unknown but are believed to be small because of the rarity of
detection, and claims that the risks associated with this small
population size represent a threat to the species (Jordan et al. 2010,
p. 13). The petition cites Shaffer (1981, p. 31) as evidence that small
and fragmented populations, in general, are at greater risk of
extinction from normal population fluctuations, natural disasters, and
loss of genetic diversity (Jordan et al. 2010, p. 13).
In addition to small population effects, the petition claims that
increases in water temperature due to climate change may impact western
glacier stonefly populations by causing direct larval mortality and
altered phenology (timing of life events tied to seasons or climate),
which has caused impaired development, behavior, dispersal, fecundity,
and reproductive success in other stonefly species (Lillehammer et al.
1989, p. 173; Baumann 2010, pers. comm. cited in Jordan et al. 2010, p.
10; Sweeney et al. 1990, entire). The petition included these
assertions under Factor A, but because they are physiological effects
rather than habitat effects, we discuss them under Factor E.
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in
Service Files
Small Population Size--The population size, trend, current status,
or geographic extent of the western glacier stonefly is unknown. Based
on the information presented in the petition and available in our
files, the species is known to have occurred in five hydrological
drainages on the east side of the Continental Divide in GNP. Only one
to three individuals were collected per survey effort at each
collection site (Baumann and Gaufin 1971, p. 277). Although there is
limited recent survey data for these five drainages, aquatic
invertebrate surveys conducted between 1997 and 2010 in many locations
in GNP, including cold-water streams, did not detect additional
occurrences of the western glacier stonefly (Stagliano et al. 2007, p.
60; Jordan et al. 2010, pp. 6-7; Muhlfeld et al. 2011, p. 339).
Presuming the species is extant, we conclude that it is rare and
limited in distribution.
In general, small populations are vulnerable to extinction from
systematic pressures or stochastic (random) disruptions (Shaffer 1981,
p. 131). Potential stochastic disruptions could include natural
catastrophes such as flood, fire, drought, and landslides or genetic
changes caused by a loss of genetic diversity. The petition presents no
information and we have no information in our files to indicate that
the western glacier stonefly is likely to be affected by these kinds of
natural events or is experiencing a loss of genetic diversity. We do
not consider the species' apparently restricted range to be a threat in
itself. However, the vulnerability of small populations with limited
range may be increased when threats are present. As discussed under
Factor A, information in the petition and in our files would indicate
that the effects of climate change on glaciers and perennial snowpack
in GNP may contribute to habitat loss or deterioration by seasonal or
permanent stream dewatering and changes in timing and volume of
snowmelt. Considering the apparent limited range and rarity of the
western glacier stonefly and the potential threat of habitat loss and
deterioration, we find that the petition presents substantial
scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned
action may be warranted due to small population size.
Climate Change--In addition to habitat alteration induced by
changing climate conditions, as discussed under Factor A, changing
climate conditions may have physiological and behavioral effects on
some species. Aquatic insects, in general, may be isolated by limited
dispersal ability or physiological requirements for specific thermal
criteria (Stewart and Harper 1996, p. 217; Griffith et al. 1998, p.
199; Hauer et al. 2007, pp. 109-110). However, discerning the impacts
to aquatic organisms from global warming may be complicated and vary
greatly at the species level (Williams and Feltmate 1992, p. 287).
Aquatic insects may respond to elevated temperatures in two ways: (1)
Behaviorally, by emigrating from or changing distribution within
stressed regions; or (2) physiologically, by adjusting the duration and
extent of growth and development in immature stages, and by adjusting
their ultimate size, condition, and fecundity as adults (Williams and
Feltmate 1992, pp. 285-286). It would be speculative to assess the
degree to which the western glacier stonefly would respond behaviorally
or physiologically to climate alterations, due to a lack of information
regarding the ecological requirements and characteristics of the
species. However, we will assess this factor more thoroughly during our
status review for the species. Therefore, we find that the petition
does not present substantial
[[Page 78609]]
information that the western glacier stonefly would be impacted
behaviorally or physiologically by warming temperatures associated with
projected climate change.
Summary for Factor E
We find that the information provided in the petition, as well as
other information readily available in our files, presents substantial
scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned
action may be warranted due to other natural or manmade factors
affecting the continued existence of the western glacier stonefly, such
as its apparent limited distribution and small population size. While
we do not consider the species' apparently restricted range alone to be
a risk, there is substantial information that it may be significant
given the stressors the species may face from the loss or deterioration
of habitat due to climate change. Though the species' habitat may be
impacted by the loss of glaciers and perennial snowpack as discussed
under Factor A, the species' behavioral or physiological responses and
ability to adjust to increased temperatures caused by climate change
cannot be predicted given the available information. We will assess
these factors further and more thoroughly during the status review for
the western glacier stonefly.
Finding
On the basis of our determination under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the
Act, we determine that the petition presents substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating that listing the western glacier
stonefly throughout its entire range may be warranted. This finding is
based on information provided under Factors A, D, and E. We determine
that the information provided under Factors B and C is not substantial.
Because we have found that the petition presents substantial
information indicating that listing the western glacier stonefly may be
warranted, we are initiating a status review to determine whether
listing the western glacier stonefly under the Act is warranted.
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 a 12-month finding, we will determine whether
a petitioned action is warranted after we have completed a thorough
status review 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 finding will result in a
warranted finding.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited is available on the Internet at
http://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the Montana Ecological
Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section
above).
Author
The primary authors of this document are the staff members of the
Montana Ecological Services Field Office.
Authority: The authority for this action is the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: December 6, 2011.
Daniel M. Ashe,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-32431 Filed 12-16-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P