[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 65 (Tuesday, April 5, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 18684-18701]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-7827]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2011-0016; MO 92210-0-0008-B2]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding
on a Petition To List the Bearmouth Mountainsnail, Byrne Resort
Mountainsnail, and Meltwater Lednian Stonefly as Endangered or
Threatened
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition finding.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a
12-month finding on a petition to list the Bearmouth mountainsnail
(Oreohelix species 3), Byrne Resort mountainsnail (Oreohelix species
31), and meltwater lednian stonefly (Lednia tumana) as endangered or
threatened, and to designate critical habitat under the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). After review of all available
scientific and commercial information, we find that listing the
Bearmouth mountainsnail and the Byrne Resort mountainsnail is not
warranted because neither constitutes a valid taxon; therefore, they
are not considered to be listable entities under the Act. We find that
listing of the meltwater lednian stonefly is warranted. However,
currently listing of the meltwater lednian stonefly is precluded by
higher priority actions to amend the Lists of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife and Plants. Upon publication of this 12-month petition
finding, we will add the meltwater lednian stonefly to our candidate
species list. We will develop a proposed rule to list the meltwater
lednian stonefly as our priorities allow. We will make any
determination on critical habitat during development of the proposed
listing rule. During any interim period, we will address the status of
the candidate taxon through our annual Candidate Notice of Review
(CNOR).
DATES: The finding announced in this document was made on April 5,
2011.
ADDRESSES: This finding is available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket Number FWS-R6-ES-2011-0016. Supporting
documentation we used in preparing this finding is available for public
inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Montana Field Office, 585 Shepard Way,
Helena, MT
[[Page 18685]]
59601. Please submit any new information, materials, comments, or
questions concerning this finding to the above street address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Wilson, Field Supervisor, Montana
Field Office (see ADDRESSES); by telephone at 406-449-5225; or by
facsimile at 406-449-5339. Persons who use a telecommunications device
for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service
(FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires
that, for any petition containing substantial scientific or commercial
information indicating that listing the species may be warranted, we
make a finding within 12 months of the date of receipt of the petition.
In this finding, we determine that the petitioned action is: (a) Not
warranted, (b) warranted, or (c) warranted, but immediate proposal of a
regulation implementing the petitioned action is precluded by other
pending proposals to determine whether species are endangered or
threatened, and expeditious progress is being made to add or remove
qualified species from the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife and Plants. Section 4(b)(3)(C) of the Act requires that we
treat a petition for which the requested action is found to be
warranted but precluded as though resubmitted on the date of such
finding, that is, requiring a subsequent finding to be made within 12
months. We must publish these 12-month findings in the Federal
Register.
Previous Federal Actions
Federal action for the Bearmouth mountainsnail, Byrne Resort
mountainsnail, and meltwater lednian stonefly began on July 30, 2007,
after we received a petition dated July 24, 2007, from Forest Guardians
(now WildEarth Guardians) requesting that the Service: (1) Consider all
full species in our mountain-prairie region ranked as G1 or G1G2 by the
organization NatureServe, except those that are currently listed,
proposed for listing, or candidates for listing; and (2) list each
species as either endangered or threatened (Forest Guardians 2007, pp.
1-37). The petition incorporated all analyses, references, and
documentation provided by NatureServe in its online database at http://www.natureserve.org/. We acknowledged the receipt of the petition in a
letter to the Forest Guardians, dated August 24, 2007 (Slack 2007, p.
1). In that letter we stated, based on preliminary review, we found no
compelling evidence to support an emergency listing for any of the
species covered by the petition, and that we planned work on the
petition in Fiscal Year (FY) 2008.
On March 19, 2008, WildEarth Guardians filed a complaint (1:08-CV-
472-CKK) indicating that the Service failed to comply with its
statutory duty to make 90-day findings on their two multiple species
petitions in two of the Service's administrative regions--one for the
mountain-prairie region, and one for the Southwest region (WildEarth
Guardians v. Kempthorne 2008, case 1:08-CV-472-CKK). We subsequently
published two initial 90-day findings on January 6, 2009 (74 FR 419),
and February 5, 2009 (74 FR 6122), identifying species for which we
were then making negative 90-day findings, and species for which we
were still working on a determination. The Bearmouth mountainsnail,
Byrne Resort mountainsnail, and meltwater lednian stonefly were not
addressed in either 90-day finding published in 2009, as we were still
conducting our analyses of these mountainsnails and the stonefly. On
March 13, 2009, the Service and WildEarth Guardians filed a stipulated
settlement in the U.S. District Court, District of Columbia, agreeing
that the Service would submit to the Federal Register a finding as to
whether WildEarth Guardians' petition presented substantial information
indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted for 38 mountain-
prairie region species by August 9, 2009 (WildEarth Guardians v.
Salazar 2009, case 1:08-CV-472-CKK).
On August 18, 2009, we published a 90-day finding for 38 mountain-
prairie region species (74 FR 41649). In that finding, we found that
the petition presented substantial information to indicate that listing
of Bearmouth mountainsnail and Byrne Resort mountainsnail may be
warranted due to the present or threatened destruction, modification,
or curtailment of their habitat or range resulting from road
construction and associated activities. We also found that listing of
the meltwater lednian stonefly may be warranted based on threats from
climate change, and specifically the melting of glaciers associated
with the species' habitat. The finding also requested further
information pertaining to all three ``species'' (74 FR 41649). However,
the 90-day finding did not formally consider the taxonomic status of
the petitioned entities.
This notice constitutes the 12-month finding on the July 24, 2007,
petition to list the Bearmouth mountainsnail, Byrne Resort
mountainsnail, and meltwater lednian stonefly as endangered or
threatened.
Species Information for Bearmouth Mountainsnail and Byrne Resort
Mountainsnail
Species Descriptions
Bearmouth mountainsnail and Byrne Resort mountainsnail are ascribed
to the genus Oreohelix, commonly called the ``mountainsnail.'' This
genus of land snails is endemic to western North America and is found
in mountainous environments in the western United States from the
eastern Sierra Nevadas in the west to the Black Hills in the east, and
from southern Canada down to northern Mexico (Pilsbry 1916, pp. 341-
342; Pilsbry 1939, pp. 415-416; Weaver 2006, p. 9).
Biology and Life History
Most mountainsnail species are relatively large land snails (adult
body size greater than 5 centimeters (cm) (2 inches (in.)) that
typically prefer forested environments, calcium-rich areas, and
generally high available water content during generally dry conditions
in spring and summer months (Weaver 2006, p. 9). They survive colder
conditions at higher elevations by burrowing underground and
aestivating (Weaver 2006, p. 9). Individuals often also burrow during
hot summer months, appearing on the surface to feed during or after
rains (Frest and Johannes 1995, p. 22; Weaver 2006, p. 9). One
adaptation by Oreohelix to arid and semi-arid environments is the
practice of hatching eggs internally instead of the typical pattern of
laying them in favorable locations, as desiccation of eggs and
juveniles is a common cause of land snail death, especially in arid
areas (Frest and Johannes 1995, p. 18). Hatching the eggs internally
can reduce the probability of desiccation, and adults seem to be able
to delay release of juveniles if conditions warrant (Frest and Johannes
1995, p. 18).
Western land snails are typically herbivores, but some may consume
animal matter (Frest and Johannes 1995, p. 24). Land snails contribute
substantially to nutrient recycling, often breaking down plant detritus
and animal waste (Frest and Johannes 1995, pp. 24-25). They are preyed
upon extensively by small mammals (e.g., shrews and voles), reptiles,
amphibians, birds, and insects (Frest and Johannes 1995, p. 25).
The life history of western land snails is strongly controlled by
climate. Some species of Oreohelix are among the most long-lived land
snails, reaching sexual
[[Page 18686]]
maturity at about 2 to 3 years and living as long as 8 to 10 years
(Frest and Johannes 1995, p. 25). Mountainsnails have low adult
vagility (ability to move or disperse) (Chak 2007, p. 23) and
apparently lack a larval stage with high dispersal ability (Weaver
2006, pp. 8-9). Consequently, mountainsnails typically exist in small,
circumscribed colonies with dozens to a few thousand individuals (Frest
and Johannes 1995, pp. 22-23). Oreohelix snails are known to be
hermaphroditic (individuals have both male and female genitalia and can
assume either role in mating) (Pisbry 1939, p. 427; Hendricks 2003,
pp.17, 25) and viviparous (give birth to live young) (Pilsbry 1916, p.
343; Pilsbry 1939, p. 418).
Oreohelix species and subspecies vary in size, height of shell
spire, degree of carination (i.e., presence and size of a keel or ridge
around the outside whorl of the shell), width of umbilicus (i.e., the
ventral opening formed in the center of the whorls), and color (Pilsbry
1939, p. 415). Shell morphology is plastic (variable in response to
environmental conditions) in Oreohelix, and in snails in general and
can be affected by elevation, calcium content, humidity, and population
density (Chak 2007, p. 3). Substantial variation in shell morphology
within a particular Oreohelix colony is common (Pilsbry 1916, p. 340;
1939, p. 415). Conversely, shell characteristics can be similar in taxa
with different evolutionary histories but that occupy similar
environments (Chak 2007, p. 3). This variation within species and
colonies, combined with parallelism that can occur between unrelated
groups, has long been recognized as a challenge to correctly
identifying Oreohelix specimens and determining their distribution
(Pilsbry 1916, p. 340).
Distribution and Abundance
The distribution and abundance of Bearmouth mountainsnail and Byrne
Resort mountainsnail are not well known. In general, very little is
known about the distribution and status of terrestrial mollusks in
Montana (e.g., Hendricks 2003, pp. 3-4). The 2007 petition from
WildEarth Guardians and the NatureServe rankings for both Bearmouth
mountainsnail and Byrne Resort mountainsnail (e.g., NatureServe 2010a,
b) rely entirely on information contained in the unpublished report by
Frest and Johannes (1995, entire) that summarized occurrence and
conservation status of mollusks in the Interior Columbia Basin.
Frest and Johannes (1995, p. 5) stated that the original
distribution of Bearmouth mountainsnail is the ``Clark Fork River
valley in the area between Clinton and Garrison, Granite and Powell
counties, Montana,'' and they described the present distribution (in
1995) as ``a few very small colonies in the Bearmouth area.'' They did
not provide any spatial information about the actual location of these
colonies. They further speculated that Bearmouth mountainsnail may
occur in the adjacent lands managed by the U.S. Forest Service (Lolo
National Forest) and the State of Montana. Little information about the
Bearmouth mountainsnail has become available since the report by Frest
and Johannes (1995, p. 115). No occurrences of Bearmouth mountainsnail
were reported in more recent surveys of terrestrial mollusks conducted
by the Montana Natural Heritage Program (MNHP) (Hendricks 2003, entire;
Hendricks et al. 2008, entire).
The only potential recent occurrences of Bearmouth mountainsnail
come from surveys conducted by Dr. Kathleen Weaver, an assistant
professor at the University of La Verne, California, who recently began
conducting research on the distribution, ecology, and genetics of
Oreohelix in Montana. Dr. Weaver reports collecting land snail
specimens from two colonies she believes may be Bearmouth
mountainsnails (Weaver 2010a, 2010b, pers. comm.). The first colony is
located in the Bearmouth area, and Dr. Weaver believes it is near the
type locality ``Bearmouth'' location along the Clark Fork River
described in Frest and Johannes (1995, p. 5; see above). The second
colony is located along Rock Creek, a left-bank tributary to the Clark
Fork River. The two colonies are believed to represent the same species
based on genetic similarity measured using mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA,
maternally-inherited DNA found in cellular organelles called
mitochondria) (Weaver 2010b, pers. comm.). Dr. Weaver refers to the two
colonies as ``Bearmouth mountainsnail'' based on the location of the
first colony (Weaver 2010b, pers. comm.). Both colonies are very small
(no more than 5 to 15 square meters or about 17 to 50 square feet), and
may contain from a few dozen to a few hundred individuals (Weaver
2010b, pers. comm.).
No information is available on the current abundance or
distribution of Byrne Resort mountainsnail, or whether the ``species''
even exists. The original distribution of the Byrne Resort
mountainsnail was described by Frest and Johannes (1995, p. 140) as
``the Clark Fork River valley near Bearmouth, Granite County, MT,'' and
they described the present distribution (in 1995) as ``a few very small
colonies in the old Byrne Resort area.'' As with the Bearmouth
mountainsnail, Frest and Johannes did not provide any accurate spatial
information about the actual location of these colonies. No occurrences
of Byrne Resort mountainsnail were reported in more recent surveys of
terrestrial mollusks conducted by the MNHP (Hendricks 2003, entire;
Hendricks et al. 2008, entire). More recently, neither the MNHP nor Dr.
Weaver (University of La Verne) have been able to locate a colony of
Oreohelix in the area that Frest and Johannes (1995, p. 14) reported
the Byrne Resort mountainsnail (Hendricks 2010, pers. comm.; Weaver
2010b, pers. comm.). It is not known whether the colonies no longer
exist, or if the original description of Byrne Resort mountainsnail is
incorrect.
Habitat
Factors determining habitat preferences of land snails include
cover, effective moisture availability, and geologic history (Frest and
Johannes 1995, p. 20). Most land snail species including those in the
genus Oreohelix are calciphiles, meaning they are usually restricted to
limestone, dolomite, or other substrates containing high levels of the
element calcium (Pilsbry 1916, p. 342; Frest and Johannes 1995, pp. 20-
21). Moist soil conditions are favored and soil pH may be a factor in
determining suitable habitat (Frest and Johannes 1995, pp. 20-24).
Oreohelix are generally associated with talus (a sloping mass of loose
rock debris at the base of a cliff) or rocky outcrops, and the occupied
sites may range from low-elevation canyons and valley bottoms to high-
elevation slopes well above the treeline (Hendricks 2003, pp. 4-5).
Taxonomy and Evaluation of the Listable Entities for Bearmouth
Mountainsnail and Byrne Resort Mountainsnail
The genus Oreohelix belongs to phylum Mollusca, class Gastropoda,
order Stylommatophora (terrestrial snails and slugs), and family
Oreohelicidae. The genus Oreohelix consists of 41 recognized species
(Turgeon et al. 1998, p. 143; Integrated Taxonomic Information System
(ITIS) 2010). Overall, the taxonomy of the genus is not well known
(Chak 2007, p. 21; Weaver 2006, p. 9), and additional species have been
proposed in the primary literature (e.g., Ports 2004, entire), in
graduate theses (e.g., Weaver 2006, pp. 49-95), and in grey literature
reports (e.g., Frest and Johannes 1995, pp. 113-140). The most extreme
example of purported additional
[[Page 18687]]
taxonomic diversity in Oreohelix is found in Frest and Johannes (1995,
pp. 113-139), who proposed that 31 additional species or subspecies
were found in the Interior Columbia Basin. The Bearmouth mountainsnail
(Oreohelix sp. 3) and the Byrne Resort Mountainsnail (Oreohelix sp. 31)
were among these 31 proposed species or subspecies (Frest and Johannes
1995, pp. 115, 139-140).
Taxonomic classification of Oreohelix snails has been based
traditionally on shell morphology (e.g., Pilsbry 1916, entire; Pilsbry
1939, pp. 413-553). Nonetheless, shell morphology has long been
considered an unreliable characteristic for delineating taxonomic units
within Oreohelix because of the substantial phenotypic plasticity that
exists for shell traits (Pilsbry 1916, p. 340; Chak 2007, pp. 3, 15;
Weaver et al. 2008, p. 908). Phenotypic plasticity is defined as the
ability of an individual genotype (genetic composition) to produce
multiple phenotypes (observable characteristics or traits) in response
to its environment. There is wide agreement among malacologists (the
branch of invertebrate zoology that deals with the study of Mollusca)
familiar with Oreohelix that relying exclusively on shell morphology to
designate taxa is problematic (McDonald 2010, pers. comm.; Oliver 2010,
pers. comm.; Weaver 2010a, pers. comm.). More robust taxonomic
designations within genus Oreohelix generally rely on differences in
internal anatomy, such as penis morphology (Pilsbry 1916, entire;
Pilsbry 1939, pp. 413-553; Chak 2007, p. 15). More recently, molecular
genetic methods have been used to reconcile taxonomic designations
originally based on morphological characteristics (e.g., Chak 2007, pp.
21-42; Weaver et al. 2008, entire).
The basis of the species designations for the Bearmouth
mountainsnail (Oreohelix sp. 3) and Byrne Resort mountainsnail
(Oreohelix sp. 31) is shell morphology (Frest and Johannes 1995, pp.
115, 139-140). Unfortunately, Frest and Johannes never published any of
their putative (presumed or supposed) species designations for
Oreohelix contained in their 1995 report. In some cases, species
designations by Frest and Johannes that relied entirely on shell
morphology were subsequently found to be in error when additional
morphological (Weaver 2006, p. 10) or genetic information (Chak 2007,
p. 1) was collected.
Taxonomy of the Bearmouth Mountainsnail (Oreohelix sp. 3)
The only additional information about the occurrence and taxonomic
status of Bearmouth mountainsnail comes from Dr. Weaver (Weaver 2010a,
2010b, pers. comm.). As described above, she identified two colonies of
Oreohelix in Montana that she believes represent Bearmouth
mountainsnail, based on the location of one colony and genetic
similarity (of mtDNA) of the two colonies (Weaver 2010b, pers. comm.).
Dr. Weaver observed that genetic analyses of individuals from these two
colonies (that she believes to represent Bearmouth mountainsnail)
revealed approximately 6 percent DNA sequence divergence relative to a
sister taxon (O. carinifera) in the same genus (Weaver 2010a, pers.
comm.). This level of divergence is consistent with species-level
differences in terrestrial mollusks (e.g., Weaver et al. 2008, pp. 913-
914). Thus, there is some evidence to suggest that the individuals she
sequenced are part of a distinct species or subspecies. Unfortunately,
archived individuals collected from the putative type location of
Bearmouth mountainsnail (as described in Frest and Johannes 1995, p.
115) are not available (Weaver 2010b, pers. comm.). Moreover, Frest and
Johannes did not provide the precise location of any of the ``type
localities'' (i.e., location where the specimens that define the
species were collected) for the undescribed species in their 1995
report (Frest and Johannes 1995, pp. 113-140). Consequently, there
remains uncertainty as to whether the ``Bearmouth mountainsnail''
proposed by Frest and Johannes (1995, p. 115) represents the same
entity that Dr. Weaver refers to as ``Bearmouth mountainsnail.''
Uncertainty notwithstanding, the Bearmouth mountainsnail is not
included as a valid taxon in the classic works by Pilsbry (1916,
entire; 1939, entire), which are still accepted as the most
authoritative publications on the taxonomy of Oreohelix; nor is the
Bearmouth mountainsnail listed among the Oreohelix taxa recognized by
more current sources such as the Integrated Taxonomic Information
System (ITIS 2010) or the Council of Systematic Malacologists and the
American Malacological Union (Turgeon et al. 1998, p. 143 in this
compilation of mollusk taxonomy by scientific experts). In summary, the
entity referred to as the ``Bearmouth mountainsnail'' has not been
formally described as a species according to accepted scientific
standards, and this entity is not widely recognized as a species or
subspecies by the scientific community. The type of additional
information that may permit a formal description may include a more
thorough description of the type specimen, an evaluation of various
lines of evidence (morphological, ecological, biogeographical, genetic)
relevant to its taxonomic status, resolution of any discrepancies in
taxonomic nomenclature, or a combination of these (e.g., Weaver 2006,
pp. 49-65), and that the taxon be accepted as valid by widely-
recognized sources (e.g., Turgeon et al. 1998, entire; ITIS 2010).
Taxonomic Status of Byrne Resort Mountainsnail (Oreohelix sp. 31)
There have been no additional collections of Byrne Resort
mountainsnail at the location initially described by Frest and Johannes
(1995, p. 140) (Hendricks 2010, pers. comm.; Weaver 2010b, pers.
comm.). Specimens collected near where Frest and Johannes made their
collection of Byrne Resort mountainsnail have been tentatively
identified as a variant of an existing species (lyrate mountainsnail,
Oreohelix haydeni) based on morphological characteristics (Hendricks
2010, pers. comm.). To our knowledge, there has been no follow-up
analysis of any specimens collected by Frest and Johannes (1995, pp.
139-140). Thus, we have virtually no information on this putative
species.
The taxonomic validity of the Byrne Resort mountainsnail is highly
uncertain given that the only description was based on shell
morphology, which, as discussed above, is widely recognized by the
scientific community as a poor trait for defining taxonomic groups in
Oreohelix (Pilsbry 1906, p. 340). Moreover, we are not aware of any
corroborating information concerning the taxonomic status of this
entity. The Byrne Resort mountainsnail is not listed as a valid taxon
in the classic works by Pilsbry (1916, entire; 1939, entire), which are
still accepted as the most authoritative publications on the taxonomy
of Oreohelix; nor is the Byrne Resort mountainsnail listed among the
Oreohelix taxa recognized by more current sources such as the Council
of Systematic Malacologists (e.g., Turgeon et al. 1998, p. 143) or the
Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS 2010). In short, the
entity referred to as ``Byrne Resort mountainsnail'' has not been
formally described as a species according to accepted scientific
standards, and this entity is not widely recognized as a species or
subspecies by the scientific community. The type of additional
information that may permit a formal description may include a more
[[Page 18688]]
thorough description of the type specimen, an evaluation of various
lines of evidence (morphological, ecological, biogeographical, genetic)
relevant to its taxonomic status, resolution of any discrepancies in
taxonomic nomenclature, or a combination of these (e.g., Weaver 2006,
pp. 49-65), and that the taxon be accepted as valid by widely-
recognized sources (e.g., Turgeon et al. 1998, entire; ITIS 2010).
Finding for the Bearmouth Mountainsnail (Oreohelix sp. 3) and Byrne
Resort Mountainsnail (Oreohelix sp. 31)
We have very little information on the distribution and abundance
of these two land snails. In fact, we could not find any information on
occurrence or even the existence of the species referred to as the
``Byrne Resort mountainsnail'' by Frest and Johannes (1995, p. 139). We
have some information, based on recent surveys and genetic analyses,
that two colonies of land snails tentatively identified by a species
expert as ``Bearmouth mountainsnail'' currently exist in the vicinity
of the Clark Fork River valley, Montana (Weaver 2010a, 2010b, pers.
comm.). To our knowledge, there has never been a systematic analysis of
the validity of taxonomic arrangements (i.e., subspecies or species)
that have been proposed for Oreohelix by Frest and Johannes (1995, pp.
113-140). Moreover, neither the Bearmouth mountainsnail nor the Byrne
Resort mountainsnail has been formally described as a species, and
neither is presently recognized as a species or subspecies by the
scientific community (e.g., Pilsbry 1939, entire; Turgeon et al. 1998,
p. 143; ITIS 2010).
Neither the Bearmouth mountainsnail nor the Byrne Resort
mountainsnail is recognized as a species or subspecies, and their
taxonomic statuses are currently uncertain. Consequently, the Service
does not at this time consider the Bearmouth mountainsnail or the Byrne
Resort mountainsnail to be listable entities under section 3(16) of the
Act (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)) because they do not belong to taxa currently
recognized by the scientific community. The Service encourages
additional scientific investigations that will resolve the significant
uncertainties concerning the occurrence and taxonomy of Oreohelix land
snails. Because we have concluded the Bearmouth mountainsnail and the
Byrne Resort mountainsnail are not listable entities, we will not be
further evaluating these mountainsnails under section 4(a)(1) of the
Act, and they will not be discussed further in this finding.
Species Information for the Meltwater Lednian Stonefly
Species Description and Taxonomy
The meltwater lednian stonefly (Lednia tumana) is in the monotypic
genus Lednia (Baumann 1975, p. 19; Stewart and Harper 1996, p. 263;
Stark et al. 2009, entire). The genus Lednia belongs to the phylum
Arthropoda, class Insecta, order Plecoptera (stoneflies), family
Nemouridae, and subfamily Nemourinae. The family Nemouridae is the
largest in the order Plecoptera (stoneflies), comprising more than 370
species in 17 genera (Baumann 1975, p. 1). In North America, family
Nemouridae comprises 73 species in 13 genera (Stark et al. 2009,
entire). The type specimens for the meltwater lednian stonefly were
collected in the Many Glaciers area of Glacier National Park (Glacier
NP), Montana (Baumann 1982, pers. comm.). The species was originally
described by Ricker in 1952 (Baumann 1975, p. 18), and is recognized as
a valid species by the scientific community (e.g., Baumann 1975, p. 18;
Baumann et al. 1977, pp. 7, 34; Newell et al. 2008, p. 181; Stark et
al. 2009, entire). Consequently, we conclude that the meltwater lednian
stonefly (Lednia tumana) is a valid species and, therefore, a listable
entity under section 3(16) of the Act.
Kondratieff and Lechleitner (2002, pp. 385, 391) reported that
specimens thought to be the meltwater lednian stonefly were collected
in Mount Rainier National Park (Mount Rainier NP), Washington. They
also cited a personal communication with a species expert (R.W.
Baumann, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT) that similar specimens
also are known from North Cascades National Park (North Cascades NP),
Washington, and a site in the California Sierra Nevada (Kondratieff and
Lechleitner 2002, pp. 388-389). However, the specimens discovered in
Mount Rainier NP, North Cascades NP, and in the Sierra Nevada Mountains
of California are now believed to represent additional undescribed taxa
(presumably in the genus Lednia) that await formal description (Baumann
2010, pers. comm.; Kondratieff 2010, pers. comm.; Kondratieff et al.
2006, p. 463). If these specimens are described as species in the genus
Lednia, then the genus Lednia would no longer be considered a monotypic
genus. However, the taxonomy of these additional specimens (from Mount
Rainier NP, North Cascades NP, and in the Sierra Nevada Mountains of
California) has not been evaluated or accepted by the scientific
community (e.g., Stark et al. 2009, entire). Thus, while there is some
preliminary indication that the taxonomy of the genus Lednia will be
revised when the new specimens are officially described, the meltwater
lednian stonefly remains the only species in the genus Lednia that is
currently recognized by the scientific community. Consequently, based
on the information presented above, the Service considers Lednia to be
a monotypic genus. Therefore, for the purpose of this finding, we are
evaluating the meltwater lednian stonefly, throughout its known range,
as a full species in a monotypic genus.
The nymph (aquatic juvenile stage) of the meltwater lednian
stonefly is dark red-brown on its dorsal (top) surface and pink on the
ventral (lower) surface, with light grey-green legs (Baumann and
Stewart 1980, p. 658). Mature nymphs can range in size from 4.5 to 6.5
millimeter (mm) (0.18 to 0.26 in.) (Baumann and Stewart 1980, p. 655).
Adults also are small, ranging in size from 4 to 6 mm (0.16 to 0.24
in.) (Baumann 1975, p. 19).
Biology and Life History
Plecoptera (stoneflies) are primarily associated with clean, cool,
running waters (Stewart and Harper 1996, p. 217). The Nemourids are
usually the dominant Plecoptera family in mountain-river ecosystems,
both in terms of total biomass and in numbers of species present
(Baumann 1975, p. 1). Eggs and larvae of all North American species of
stoneflies, including the meltwater lednian stonefly, are aquatic
(Stewart and Harper 1996, p. 217). 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 have no information on the
longevity of the meltwater lednian stonefly, but in general stoneflies
can complete their life cycles within a single year (univoltine) or in
2 to 3 years (semivoltine) (Stewart and Harper 1996, pp. 217-218).
Adult meltwater lednian stoneflies are thought to emerge and breed in
August and September (Baumann and Stewart 1980, p. 658; Giersch 2010b,
pers. comm.; MNHP 2010a).
Distribution and Abundance
The current known distribution of the meltwater lednian stonefly is
restricted to a handful of locations just to the east and west of the
Continental Divide within Glacier NP (Newell et al. 2008, p. 181;
National Park Service (NPS) 2009; see Table 1 below). Within the last
13 years, the meltwater lednian stonefly has been observed in a total
of 11
[[Page 18689]]
streams within Glacier NP, at sites ranging from 1,628 to 2,378 meters
(m) elevation (5,341 to 7,801 feet (ft)) (NPS 2009; see Table 1 below).
Most collection sites have been in close proximity to glaciers. The
species can attain moderate to high abundance in certain locations
(e.g., Logan Creek: Baumann and Stewart 1980, p. 658; NPS 2009,
entire).
Table 1--Documented Occurrences of Meltwater Lednian Stonefly (Lednia tumana) During the Last 13 Years. All
Occurrences Are Within Glacier NP, Montana. Information Provided by NPS (2009) Based on Data Collected by F.
Richard Hauer (Flathead Lake Biological Station, Division of Biological Sciences, University of Montana, Polson)
and Joe Giersch (DrunellaDesigns.com, West Glacier, Montana)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stream or drainage Year Elevation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
East of the Continental Divide (Glacier County, Montana)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baring Creek \a\........................... 1998 2,378 m (7,801 ft).
1999 2,173 m (7,129 ft).
2003 2,273 m (7,457 ft).
2009 2,024 m (6,640 ft).
Lunch Creek a b............................ 1999 2,173 m (7,129 ft).
2003 2,273 m (7,457 ft).
2009 2,024 m (6,640 ft).
Reynolds Creek a b......................... 1997 2,171 m (7,123 ft).
2,170 m (7,119 ft).
2,140 m (7,021 ft).
2,106 m (6,909 ft).
2,165 m (7,103 ft).
1998 2,169 m (7,116 ft).
2,068 m (6,785 ft).
2,099 m (6,886 ft).
2,165 m (7,103 ft).
St. Mary River \a\......................... 1999 2,054 m (6,739 ft).
Swiftcurrent Creek \a\..................... 2007 1,628 m (5,341 ft).
Twin Lakes (St. Mary River)................ 1998 2,265 m (7,431 ft).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
West of the Continental Divide (Flathead County, Montana)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ahern Creek................................ 1998 2,065 m (6,775 ft).
Bear Creek................................. 2001 1,696 m (5,564 ft).
Hidden Lake (Hidden Creek)................. 1998 2,302 m (7,552 ft).
Logan Creek a b............................ 1998 2,115 m (6,939 ft).
2,031 m (6,663 ft).
Mineral Creek.............................. 1997 2,017 m (6,617 ft)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Collection Location Details
\a\ Stream directly associated with a named glacier within that watershed or an unnamed glacier present on a
7.5' topographic map.
\b\ Multiple collections within a stream are itemized by year and elevation.
Although the species has been observed recently only in Glacier NP,
experts speculate that suitable habitat for the species may extend
north into Waterton Lakes National Park in Canada and south into the
Scapegoat-Great Bear-Bob Marshall wilderness areas of Montana, or in
similar areas of the northern Rocky Mountains in alpine snow-melt
streams (e.g., Baumann 1982, pers. comm.; Giersch 2010a, pers. comm.).
The species was previously reported from the Waterton River system in
Alberta (Donald and Anderson 1977, p. 114). However, surveys conducted
in Waterton Lakes National Park (Canada) during 2007 and 2008 did not
detect the species (Langor 2010, pers. comm.), although it is unclear
if the proper habitat was surveyed (Johnston 2010, pers. comm.).
In general, little information exists about the meltwater lednian
stonefly, and additional surveys are needed in order to develop a more
thorough understanding of its distribution and abundance (e.g., Giersch
2010a, 2010b, pers. comm.). In the interim, we conclude based on the
available recent survey information that the meltwater lednian stonefly
is a narrow endemic present only in Glacier NP.
Habitat
The meltwater lednian stonefly is found in snow-melt runoff streams
in high-elevation, alpine areas, most typically in locations closely
linked to glacial runoff (Baumann and Stewart 1980, p. 658; MNHP 2010a)
or alpine springs (Hauer et al. 2007, p. 107; Giersch 2010c, pers.
comm.). The species is considered a cold-water stenotherm restricted to
water less than (<) 10 degrees Celsius ([deg]C) (< 50 degrees
Fahrenheit ([deg]F)) (MNHP 2010a), but apparently it can tolerate
higher water temperatures (up to 15 [deg]C (59 [deg]F)) in certain
situations (Hauer et al. 2007, p. 107) for short periods of time
(Giersch 2010c, pers. comm.). Most aquatic invertebrates in stream
environments in the northern Rocky Mountains exhibit very strong
elevation (temperature) gradients in their distribution (e.g., Fagre et
al. 1997, p. 763; Lowe and Hauer 1999, pp. 1637, 1640, 1642; Hauer et
al. 2007, p. 110), and occur at the highest population density in their
preferred temperature range. We presume the meltwater lednian stonefly
exhibits a similar pattern, in terms of being more likely to be present
and more abundant in the small (first order), cold, snowmelt-driven,
alpine streams, and less likely to occur farther downstream within a
drainage in larger habitats (second order and larger streams) with
warmer water temperatures. In general, the alpine
[[Page 18690]]
streams inhabited by the meltwater lednian stonefly are presumed to
have very low nutrient concentrations (low nitrogen and phosphorus),
reflecting the nutrient content of the glacial or snow-melt source
(Hauer et al. 2007, pp. 107-108). The daytime microhabitat preferences
of meltwater lednian stonefly nymphs are the underside of rocks or
larger pieces of bark or wood (Baumann and Stewart 1980, p. 658).
Summary of Information Pertaining to the Five Factors for the Meltwater
Lednian Stonefly
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing
regulations (50 CFR 424) set forth procedures for adding species to the
Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Under
section 4(a)(1) of the Act, a species may be determined to be
endangered or threatened based on any of the following five factors:
(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 finding, information pertaining to meltwater lednian
stonefly in relation to the five factors provided in section 4(a)(1) of
the Act is discussed below.
In considering what factors might constitute threats to a species,
we must look beyond the exposure of the species to a factor to evaluate
whether the species may respond to the factor in a way that causes
actual impacts to the species. If there is exposure to a factor and the
species responds negatively, the factor may be a threat and we attempt
to determine how significant a threat it is. The threat is significant
if it drives, or contributes to, the risk of extinction of the species
such that the species warrants listing as endangered or threatened as
those terms are defined in the Act.
Factor A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range
The known distribution of the meltwater lednian stonefly is
entirely within the boundaries of Glacier NP. The ecosystems in most
national parks are considered to be comparatively pristine, and the
Glacier NP is a relatively unaltered landscape when compared to other
areas of western North America (Fagre 2005, p. 2).
Climate Change
Climate is influenced primarily by long-term patterns in air
temperature and precipitation. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) has concluded that climate warming is unequivocal, and is
now evident from observed increases in global average air and ocean
temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global
mean sea level (IPCC 2007, pp. 30-31). Continued greenhouse gas
emissions at or above current rates are expected to cause further
warming (IPCC 2007, p. 30). The years from 1995 through 2006 rank among
the 12 warmest years in the instrumental record of global average near-
surface temperature since 1850 (Independent Scientific Advisory Board
(ISAB) 2007, p. 7; IPCC 2007, p. 30). During the last century, mean
annual air temperature increased by approximately 0.6 [deg]C (1.1
[deg]F) (IPCC 2007, p. 30). Warming appears to have accelerated in
recent decades, as the linear warming trend over the 50 years from 1956
to 2005 (average 0.13 [deg]C or 0.24 [deg]F per decade) is nearly twice
that for the 100 years from 1906 to 2005 (IPCC 2007, p. 30). Climate
change scenarios estimate that the mean air temperature could increase
by over 3 [deg]C (5.4 [deg]F) by 2100 (IPCC 2007, pp. 45-46). The IPCC
also projects there will likely be regional increases in the frequency
of hot extremes, heat waves, and heavy precipitation, as well as
greater warming in high northern latitudes (IPCC 2007, p. 46).
We recognize that there are scientific differences of opinion on
many aspects of climate change, including the role of natural
variability in climate. In our analysis, we rely primarily on synthesis
documents (IPCC 2007, entire; ISAB 2007, entire; Karl et al. 2009,
entire) that present the consensus view of a large number of experts on
climate change from around the world. We find that these synthesis
reports, as well as the scientific papers used in, or resulting from,
those reports represent the best available scientific information we
can use to inform our decision. Where possible, we use empirical data
or projections specific to Glacier NP and the surrounding area and
focus on observed or expected effects on stream systems, as this area
includes the known distribution of the meltwater lednian stonefly.
Water temperature and hydrology (stream flow) influence many of the
basic physical and biological processes in aquatic systems, and both
are sensitive to environmental changes that result from climate change
(e.g., Stewart et al. 2005, entire; Isaak et al. 2010, entire; Kaushal
et al. 2010, entire). For ectothermic organisms like aquatic
invertebrates, temperature sets basic constraints on species'
distribution and physiological performance (Fagre et al. 1997, p. 763;
Lowe and Hauer 1999, pp. 1637, 1640, 1642; Hauer et al. 2007, p. 110).
Stream hydrology not only affects the structure of aquatic systems
across space and time, but influences the life history and phenology
(timing of life-cycle events) of aquatic invertebrates such as
stoneflies (Stewart and Harper 1996, pp. 217-218).
Significant trends in water temperature and stream flow have been
observed in the western United States (Stewart et al. 2005, entire;
Kaushal et al. 2010, entire), and increased air temperatures and
changes in precipitation are partially responsible. During the past 50
to 100 years in the western United States, the timing of runoff from
snowmelt has shifted to occur 1 to 4 weeks earlier (Regonda et al.
2005, p. 380; Stewart et al. 2005, pp. 1136, 1141; Hamlet et al. 2007,
p. 1468), presumably as a result of increased temperatures (Hamlet et
al. 2007, p. 1468), increased frequency of melting (Mote et al. 2005,
p. 45), and decreased snowpack (Mote et al. 2005, p. 41). Trends in
decreased water availability also are apparent across the Pacific
Northwest. For example, Luce and Holden (2009, entire) found a tendency
toward more extreme droughts at 72 percent of the stream flow gages
they examined across Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington.
The western United States appears to be warming faster than the
global average. In the Pacific Northwest, regionally averaged
temperatures have risen 0.8 [deg]C (1.5 [deg]F) over the last century
and as much as 2 [deg]C (4 [deg]F) in some areas. Since 1900, the mean
annual air temperature for Glacier NP and the surrounding region has
increased 1.33 [deg]C, which is 1.8 times the global mean increase
(U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 2010, p. 1). Mean annual air
temperatures are projected to increase by another 1.5 to 5.5 [deg]C (3
to 10 [deg]F) over the next 100 years (Karl et al. 2009, p. 135).
Warming also appears to be very pronounced in alpine regions globally
(e.g., Hall and Fagre 2003, p. 134 and references therein).
For the purposes of this finding, we consider the foreseeable
future for anticipated environmental changes such as reductions in
glacial meltwater and increases in stream temperatures to be
approximately 40 years based on two factors. First, various global
climate models (GCMs) and emissions scenarios give consistent
predictions within that
[[Page 18691]]
timeframe (Ray et al. 2010, p. 11). Second, the effect of climate
change on glaciers in Glacier NP has been modeled within that time
range (e.g., Hall and Fagre 2003, entire). We used a similar
foreseeable future time period when considering climate change
projections in other 12-month findings for species in western North
America (see American pika (Ochotona princeps), 75 FR 6438, February 9,
2010; Arctic grayling (Thymallus arcticus), 75 FR 54708, September 8,
2010).
While projected patterns of warming across North America are
generally consistent across different GCMs and emissions scenarios (Ray
et al. 2010, p. 22), there tends to be less agreement among models for
whether mean annual precipitation will increase or decrease, but the
models seem to indicate an increase in precipitation in winter and a
decrease in summer (Ray et al. 2010, pp. 22-23). In the foreseeable
future, natural variation will likely confound a clear prediction for
precipitation based on current climate models (Ray et al. 2010, p. 29).
Although there is considerable uncertainty about how climate will
evolve at any specific location, statistically downscaled climate
projection models (models that predict climate at finer spatial
resolution than GCMs) for the western United States also support
widespread warming, with warmer temperature zones shifting to the north
and upward in elevation (Ray et al. 2010, pp. 23-24).
Based on the information described above, we believe that
environmental changes resulting from climate change may affect the
meltwater lednian stonefly through two primary mechanisms: (1) Loss of
glaciers, and (2) changes in hydrology and increased water temperature.
Glacier Loss
Environmental changes resulting from climate change are assumed to
be directly related to the well-documented loss of glaciers in Glacier
NP (e.g., Hall and Fagre 2003, entire; Fagre 2005, entire). Glacier NP
contained approximately 150 glaciers larger than 0.1 square kilometer
(25 acres) in size when established in 1910, but presently only 25
glaciers larger than 0.1 square kilometers in size (25 acres) remain in
the park (Fagre 2005, pp. 1-3; USGS 2005, 2010). Between 1966 and 2006,
the 25 largest glaciers (those that are presently believed to be larger
than 0.1 square kilometer (25 acres) in area) shrank by an average of
26.4 percent, whereas smaller glaciers (those that are presently
believed to be smaller than 0.1 square kilometer (25 acres) in area)
shrank at more than twice that rate (59.7 percent) (USGS 2010).
Hall and Fagre (2003, entire) modeled the effects of climate change
on glaciers in Glacier NP's Blackfoot-Jackson basin using then-current
climate assumptions (doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide by 2030).
Current climate change publications consider scenarios with higher
anticipated carbon dioxide concentrations and associated temperature
changes. However, we are not aware of any other published studies using
more recent climate scenarios that speak directly to anticipated
conditions in Glacier NP, so we use Hall and Fagre's predictions in our
analysis. Under this scenario, they predicted that increases in winter
precipitation would not be able to buffer glacial shrinking, and the
Blackfoot-Jackson glaciers, which are among the largest in Glacier NP,
would disappear entirely by 2030 (Hall and Fagre 2003, pp. 137-138).
Glacial shrinking varies by topography (structure and position of
land underlying the glaciers), with the result that glaciers shrink at
different rates (e.g., Key et al. 2002, p. J370; Hall and Fagre 2003,
p. 136). Given the greater relative rate of shrinkage observed in
smaller glaciers (e.g., USGS 2010), we presume that if Hall and Fagre's
projections are correct, then nearly all glaciers should be gone from
Glacier NP by 2030. We base our analysis as to whether climate change
threatens the meltwater lednian stonefly on this assumption.
The consequences of glacier shrinking and glacier loss to aquatic
systems inhabited by the meltwater lednian stonefly in Glacier NP are
expected to be significant (e.g., Fagre 2005, p. 8). Glaciers act as
water banks, whose continual melt helps regulate stream water
temperatures and maintain streamflows during late summer or drought
periods (Hauer et al. 2007, p. 107; USGS 2010). Loss of glaciers may
lead to direct dewatering of headwater stream reaches, thus desiccating
(drying) habitats currently occupied by lednian stoneflies that are
often in close proximity to glaciers (e.g., Baumann and Stewart 1980,
p. 658). Permanent desiccation (i.e., no streamflow) resulting from
loss of glaciers is expected to result directly in the loss of suitable
habitat for the meltwater lednian stonefly and the extirpation of
populations that are directly dependent on surface runoff from melting
glaciers.
In some cases, streams might change from perennial (always flowing)
to ephemeral (only flowing seasonally) as glaciers disappear (Hauer et
al. 1997, p. 909). A transition from perennial to ephemeral streamflow
also is expected to reduce the extent of habitat suitable for the
meltwater lednian stonefly; however, the actual response may be more
complex in this scenario. For example, adults of the species emerge
(transition from aquatic larvae to terrestrial winged adults) and
reproduce in the short time period in August and September when the
streams are not covered with seasonal snowpack. The species is thus
adapted to reproduce in a very narrow ecological window. If the stream
only flows seasonally, the species may still be able to complete its
life cycle if the nymph (larval) stage can withstand seasonal stream
drying. We do not know whether the species can complete its entire life
cycle within 1 year (univoltine) or across more than 1 year
(semivoltine), nor do we have projections for which streams may dry
seasonally in Glacier NP. Therefore, at this time we cannot accurately
predict the response of the species in cases where streams change from
perennial to ephemeral. However, we do presume that this change will,
at a minimum, reduce the distribution and abundance of the species.
Loss of glaciers also may indirectly affect alpine streams by
changing the riparian vegetation and nutrient cycling in stream
ecosystems. For example, the reduced snowpacks that lead to glacier
recession are predicted to allow high-elevation trees to become
established above the current treeline and in subalpine meadows, and
thus to reduce the diversity of herbaceous plants (Hall and Fagre 2003,
pp. 138-139). Changes in riparian vegetation (such as a shift from
deciduous to coniferous vegetation) may affect nutrient cycling in
headwater streams and the quality of food resources available to
herbivorous aquatic insects (e.g., Hisabae et al. 2010, pp. 5-7), such
as the meltwater lednian stonefly and other aquatic macroinvertebrates.
Changes to Streamflow and Water Temperature
Reduced water volume of snowmelt runoff from glaciers (Fagre 2005,
p. 7), combined with earlier runoff (e.g., Fagre 2005, p. 1) and
increases in temperatures expected under climate change (Karl et al.
2009, p. 135), may result in water temperatures above the physiological
limits for survival or optimal growth for the meltwater lednian
stonefly, which is a cold-water species (MNHP 2010a). Given the strong
temperature gradients that influence the distribution of aquatic
invertebrates (Fagre et al. 1997, p. 763; Lowe and Hauer 1999, pp.
1637, 1640, 1642; Hauer et al. 2007, p. 110) and our
[[Page 18692]]
assumption that the meltwater lednian stonefly responds similarly to
these types of gradients, we expect that there will be major changes in
invertebrate communities, with species that currently occupy more
downstream reaches shifting their distributions to higher elevations to
track changing thermal regimes (e.g., Fagre 2005, p. 7). One likely
result is the displacement or extirpation or both of stenothermic
species that occupy headwater stream reaches (such as the meltwater
lednian stonefly), due to thermal conditions that become unsuitable,
encroaching aquatic invertebrate species that may be superior
competitors, or changed thermal conditions that may favor the
encroaching species in competitive interactions between the species
(so-called condition-specific competition). Consequently, we infer that
changes in the timing and volume of streamflow coupled with increased
summer water temperatures will reduce the extent of suitable habitat
and result in the extirpation of some meltwater lednian stonefly
populations.
In summary, we expect environmental changes resulting from climate
change to affect the meltwater lednian stonefly through loss of
glaciers, which can lead to the permanent or seasonal drying of
currently occupied habitats, and through interrelated alterations to
existing hydrologic and thermal regimes, which will reduce the extent
of habitat suitable for this species because it has very specific
thermal requirements (i.e., it is a cold-water obligate). Environmental
changes resulting from climate change are ongoing based on the
documented shrinking of glaciers in Glacier NP, and are expected to
continue in the foreseeable future in Glacier NP (e.g., Fagre and Hall
2003, entire) and across western North America (USGS 2010, p.1; Karl et
al. 2009, p. 135). Consequently, we conclude that the threat of current
and future environmental changes resulting from climate change occurs
over the entire range of the species. This threat has likely reduced
the amount of suitable habitat for the meltwater lednian stonefly,
based on the documented extent of glacial melting. However, data on the
species is sparse and limited to a handful of observations (e.g., see
Table 1 above). Thus, we have no empirical basis for evaluating whether
there are any trends in the occurrence or abundance of the species, nor
can we speak to whether environmental changes resulting from climate
change have actually affected populations. We reason that future
environmental changes resulting from climate change will likely result
in the extirpation of populations of the meltwater lednian stonefly
because of stream drying and increased water temperatures, and that
there will be substantial reductions in the amount of suitable habitat
for the species relative to its current range. Effects on populations
found in spring habitats may lag behind those found in stream habitats
directly associated with melting glaciers or snowfields. Chemical,
hydrologic, and thermal conditions of both habitat types are ultimately
influenced by melting snow and ice, but conditions in spring habitats
are more stable (e.g., Hauer et al. 2007, p. 107; Giersch 2010c, pers.
comm.) and should change more slowly because their groundwater sources
are storing water from melted snow and ice. Ultimately, spring habitats
might also dry as their groundwater sources are depleted, and not
replenished by glacial meltwater.
The impacts of environmental changes resulting from climate change
will likely continue within the foreseeable future (40 years). Due to
the magnitude and extent of the effects of the environmental changes
resulting from climate change, we conclude that the environmental
changes resulting from climate change constitute a significant threat
to the meltwater lednian stonefly in the foreseeable future.
Maintenance and Improvement of Glacier National Park Infrastructure
Glacier NP is managed to protect natural and cultural resources,
and the landscape within the park is relatively pristine. However, the
Glacier NP does include a number of human-built facilities and
structures, such as the Going-to-the-Sun Road (which bisects the
Glacier NP) and numerous visitor centers, trailheads, overlooks, and
lodges (e.g., NPS 2003a, pp. S3, 11). Maintenance and improvement of
these facilities and structures could conceivably lead to disturbance
of the natural environment.
One major project initiated in 2003, and that is ongoing as of
2011, is the improvement of the Going-to-the-Sun Road (NPS 2003a;
2003b). This road parallels or bisects a number of streams in the
Glacier NP including McDonald, Logan, Lunch, Siyeh, and Baring Creeks
(NPS 2003a, p. 134). Localized land disturbance associated with
construction activities could lead to introduction of sediment into
stream channels (e.g., NPS 2003a, pp. S18-S19, 74). However, the
collection sites for the meltwater lednian stonefly in streams adjacent
to or bisected by the road (e.g., Logan, Lunch, and Baring Creeks; see
Table 1 above) are all upstream from the road. We anticipate that any
disturbance to aquatic habitats from road construction would occur in
the immediate vicinity of the construction and that any impacts (i.e.,
sediment input) would be translated downstream. Thus, we conclude that
road maintenance does not constitute a threat to the meltwater lednian
stonefly or its habitat now or in the foreseeable future.
We do not have any information indicating maintenance and
improvement of other Glacier NP facilities and structures is affecting
the species. Most documented occurrences of meltwater lednian stonefly
are in remote locations upstream from human-built structures; thus we
conclude that maintenance and improvement of other Glacier NP
facilities and structures does not constitute a threat to the meltwater
lednian stonefly or its habitat now or in the foreseeable future.
Glacier National Park Visitor Impacts
Between 2000 to 2008, Glacier NP averaged more than 1.8 million
visitors annually (NPS 2008). Many of the recent collection sites for
the meltwater lednian stonefly (e.g., Logan and Reynolds Creeks; see
Table 1 above) are near visitor centers or adjacent to popular hiking
trails. Theoretically, human activity (wading) in streams by anglers or
hikers could disturb meltwater lednian stonefly habitat. However, we
consider it unlikely that many Glacier NP visitors would actually wade
in stream habitats where the species has been collected, because the
sites are in small, high-elevation streams situated in rugged terrain,
and most would not be suitable for angling. In addition, the sites are
typically snow covered into late July or August (Giersch 2010a, pers.
comm.), and the alpine areas begin to accumulate snowpack in the fall,
so the sites occupied by the stonefly are not accessible for more than
a few months. We also note that the most accessible collection sites in
Logan Creek near the Logan Pass Visitor Center and the Going-to-the-Sun
Road (so called ``Jones Flat'' at Oberlin Bend) are currently closed to
public use and entry to protect resident vegetation (NPS 2010, pp. J5,
J24). We conclude that impacts to the meltwater lednian stonefly and
its habitat from public visitors to Glacier NP do not constitute a
threat now or in the foreseeable future.
Summary of Factor A
Climate change, and the associated effects of glacier loss, reduced
streamflows, and increased water temperatures, is expected to
[[Page 18693]]
significantly reduce the occurrence of populations and extent of
suitable habitat for the meltwater lednian stonefly in Glacier NP in
the foreseeable future. Nearly all known recent occurrences of the
meltwater lednian stonefly are in close proximity to glaciers that are
projected to disappear during the next 20 years. Consequently, we
expect that the environmental changes resulting from climate change
will significantly alter the habitat of all extant populations of the
meltwater lednian stonefly, and we conclude that the loss of glaciers
represents a high-intensity threat (i.e., one that results in dramatic
changes to the species' habitat and distribution) and that this threat
is, and will continue to be, large in scope (most, if not all, known
populations will be affected) now and into the foreseeable future. The
significant reduction in glacier size observed during the past 40 years
is evidence that the environmental changes resulting from climate
change also may represent a current threat to this species, but we do
not have any information on trends in the occurrence of meltwater
lednian stonefly populations or changes in densities of specific
populations to confirm this. In addition, we anticipate that effects of
the environmental changes resulting from climate change on the species
will become more pronounced, or that they will accelerate in the
foreseeable future, as glaciers melt and eventually disappear in
Glacier NP. In conclusion, we find that the meltwater lednian stonefly
is likely to become in danger of extinction in the foreseeable future
because of the environmental changes resulting from climate change.
Factor B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
We are not aware of any threats involving the overutilization or
collection of the meltwater lednian stonefly (Lednia tumana) for any
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes at this
time. We are aware that specimens are occasionally collected for
scientific purposes to determine its distribution and abundance (e.g.,
Baumann and Stewart 1980, pp. 655, 658; NPS 2009); however, the species
is observed to be relatively abundant in preferred habitats (e.g., NPS
2009). We have no information that suggests past collections, current
collections, or any collections in the foreseeable future will result
in population-level effects to the species. Consequently, we do not
consider overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes to be a threat to the meltwater lednian stonefly.
Factor C. Disease or Predation
We are not aware of any diseases that affect the meltwater lednian
stonefly. Therefore, we do not consider disease to be a threat to the
species now or in the foreseeable future.
We presume that nymph and adult meltwater lednian stoneflies may
occasionally be subject to predation by bird species such as the
American dipper (Cinclus mexicanus). The American dipper prefers to
feed on aquatic invertebrates in fast-moving, clear, alpine streams
(MNHP 2010b), and the species is native to Glacier NP. As such,
predation by American dipper on the meltwater lednian stonefly would
represent a natural ecological interaction in the Glacier NP. We have
no evidence that the extent of such predation, if it occurs, represents
any population-level threat to the meltwater lednian stonefly.
Therefore, we do not consider predation to be a threat to the species
now or in the foreseeable future.
In summary, there is currently no scientific evidence to indicate
that the meltwater lednian stonefly is affected by any diseases, or
that any avian predation that occurs constitutes an abnormal (above
background-level) predator-prey interaction likely to have adverse
population-wide effects. Therefore, we do not find disease or predation
to be threats to the meltwater lednian stonefly now or in the
forseeable future.
Factor D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
The Act requires us to examine the adequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms with respect to those existing and foreseeable threats that
place the meltwater lednian stonefly in danger of becoming either
endangered or threatened. The currently documented distribution of the
species is within the boundaries of Glacier NP, which is under the
jurisdiction of the National Park Service (NPS). Thus, there are a
number of Federal laws and regulations that may be relevant.
National Environmental Policy Act
All Federal agencies are required to adhere to the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) for
projects they fund, authorize, or carry out. The Council on
Environmental Quality's regulations for implementing NEPA (40 CFR 1500-
1518) state that, when preparing environmental impact statements,
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 1502). The NEPA itself is a disclosure law,
and does not require subsequent minimization or mitigation measures by
the Federal agency involved. Although the NPS may include conservation
measures for meltwater lednian stonefly or any other species as a
result of the NEPA process, any such measures are typically voluntary
in nature and are not required by NEPA.
National Park Service Organic Act
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
meltwater lednian stonefly is entirely within the boundaries of Glacier
NP, so the NPS Organic Act is presumed to be one Federal law of
particular relevance to the species. Although Glacier NP does not have
a management plan specific to the meltwater lednian stonefly, the
habitats occupied by the species remain relatively pristine and
generally free from direct human impacts from Glacier NP visitors (see
discussion under Factor A). We also note that the most accessible
meltwater lednian collection sites in Logan Creek near the Logan Pass
Visitor Center and the Going-to-the-Sun Road (so called ``Jones Flat''
at Oberlin Bend) are currently closed to public use and entry to
protect resident vegetation under Glacier NP management regulations
(NPS 2010, pp. J5, J24). We believe that the NPS Organic Act provides
adequate protection from the species and its habitat being directly
destroyed or modified by most human activities, including visitor use
and development. However, the NPS Organic Act does not address the
primary threat to the species of habitat loss resulting from the
environmental changes due to climate change. Therefore, the Organic Act
does not constitute an adequate regulatory mechanism for this threat.
Clean Air Act
On December 15, 2009, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) published in the Federal Register (74 FR 66496) a rule titled,
``Endangerment
[[Page 18694]]
and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Section
202(a) of the Clean Air Act.'' In this rule, the EPA Administrator
found that the current and projected concentrations of the six long-
lived and directly emitted greenhouse gases--carbon dioxide, methane,
nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur
hexafluoride--in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare
of current and future generations; and that the combined emissions of
these greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle
engines contribute to the greenhouse gas pollution that threatens
public health and welfare (74 FR 66496). In effect, the EPA has
concluded that the greenhouse gases linked to climate change are
pollutants, whose emissions can now be subject to the Clean Air Act (42
U.S.C. 7401 et seq.; see 74 FR 66496). However, specific regulations to
limit greenhouse gas emissions were only proposed in 2010. At present,
we have no basis to conclude that implementation of the Clean Air Act
in the foreseeable future (40 years, based on global climate
projections) will substantially reduce the current rate of global
climate change through regulation of greenhouse gas emissions. Thus, we
conclude that the Clean Air Act does not adequately address the primary
threat to the meltwater lednian stonefly, namely the anticipated loss
of thermally and hydrologically suitable habitat as a result of the
melting of glaciers and other environmental changes that result from
climate change in Glacier NP.
Summary of Factor D
The existing regulatory mechanisms, especially the NPS Organic Act,
appear to adequately protect the pristine nature of Glacier NP and
presumably the high-alpine streams inhabited by the meltwater lednian
stonefly. Thus, at a local or regional level we have no evidence that
such regulatory mechanisms are inadequate to protect the species now or
in the foreseeable future, and we expect that meltwater lednian
stonefly habitat in Glacier NP will be generally protected from direct
human disturbance. However, we consider habitat loss and modification
resulting from the environmental changes due to climate change to
constitute the primary threat to the species. The United States is only
now beginning to address global climate change through the regulatory
process (e.g., Clean Air Act). We have no information on what
regulations may eventually be adopted, and when implemented, if they
would address the changes in meltwater lednian stonefly habitat that
are likely to occur in the foreseeable future. Consequently, we
conclude that existing regulatory mechanisms are not adequate to
address the threat of habitat loss and modification resulting from the
environmental changes due to climate change to the meltwater lednian
stonefly in the foreseeable future.
Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting The Species'
Continued Existence
Restricted Range and Stochastic (Random) Events
The meltwater lednian stonefly is currently considered to be a
narrow endemic found only within Glacier NP. At present, the species'
restricted range makes the species vulnerable to extirpation by
localized disturbances or environmental conditions, such as fire,
flood, and drought. We have no information on the specific effects of
any of these disturbances on the meltwater lednian stonefly, nor any
information on the ability of the species to recover from disturbance
or disperse to new habitats. However, in general, organisms of alpine
stream segments may be isolated by specific thermal or habitat criteria
that make transfer from one stream to another difficult despite the
physical connections that exist in dendritic stream networks (e.g.,
Hauer et al. 2007, pp. 108-110). We presume that the species'
restricted range does not constitute a threat in itself for the
meltwater lednian stonefly, especially as it occupies habitats that are
generally considered pristine and that should be comparatively
resistant and resilient to disturbance compared to more intensively
managed landscapes. We do not consider the species' restricted range to
be a threat at the present time, but we do anticipate that the species'
restricted range may interact with the anticipated environmental
changes resulting from the effects of climate change to increase the
risk of extirpation, and therefore to become a threat in the
foreseeable future.
Summary of Factor E
The restricted range of the meltwater lednian stonefly does not
necessarily constitute a threat in itself. However, the restricted
range in concert with the threat of habitat loss and modification
resulting from the environmental changes due to climate change is
expected to increase the vulnerability of the species, and thus we
anticipate this will become a threat in the foreseeable future. We are
not aware of any additional natural or manmade factors affecting the
species' continued existence that present a current or potential threat
in the foreseeable future to the meltwater lednian stonefly, but we do
consider the interaction of the species' restricted range with the
threat of habitat loss in the foreseeable future to be a threat to the
species under this factor.
Finding for the Meltwater Lednian Stonefly
As required by the Act, we considered the five factors in assessing
whether the meltwater lednian stonefly is endangered or threatened
throughout all or a significant portion of its range. We carefully
examined the best scientific and commercial information available
regarding the past, present, and future threats faced by the species.
We reviewed the petition, information available in our files, other
available published and unpublished information, and we consulted with
recognized experts and other Federal and State agencies.
The meltwater lednian stonefly is a narrowly distributed endemic
presently known to occur in a small number of cold, snowmelt- or
glacier-fed, high-alpine streams in Glacier NP, Montana. Our status
review identified threats to the species related to Factors A, D, and
E. In particular, under Factor A, the melting of glaciers in Glacier NP
is considered a threat to the species, now and in the foreseeable
future, because loss of glaciers is expected to alter the thermal and
hydrologic regimes of high-alpine streams occupied by the species.
Higher water temperatures, seasonal or permanent stream dewatering, and
changes in the timing and volume of snowmelt may change the existing
habitat such that it no longer satisfies the ecological and
physiological requirements of the species. While existing regulatory
mechanisms provide adequate protection for the meltwater lednian
stonefly and its habitat from direct destruction or modification
resulting from most human activities, the existing regulatory
mechanisms do not address the primary threat to the species, which is
habitat loss and modification resulting from environmental changes
caused by global climate change. Thus, under Factor D, we conclude the
existing regulatory mechanisms do not adequately address the threat of
habitat loss and modification in the foreseeable future. In addition,
under Factor E we conclude that the restricted range of the species,
while not a threat by itself, is expected to interact with the threat
of habitat loss and modification to increase the
[[Page 18695]]
vulnerability of the species in the forseeable future.
On the basis of the best scientific and commercial information
available, we find that listing of the meltwater lednian stonefly as
endangered or threatened is warranted. We will make a determination on
the status of the species as endangered or threatened when we prepare a
proposed listing determination. However, as explained in more detail
below (see Preclusion and Expeditious Progress section), an immediate
proposal of a regulation implementing this action is precluded by
higher priority listing actions, and progress is being made to add or
remove qualified species from the Lists of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife and Plants.
We have reviewed the available information to determine if the
existing and foreseeable threats render the species at risk of
extinction now, such that issuing an emergency regulation temporarily
listing the species, under section 4(b)(7) of the Act, is warranted. We
determined that issuing an emergency regulation temporarily listing the
species is not warranted at this time, because the species is not under
immediate threat of extinction. Glaciers still exist in Glacier NP and
are expected to be present through the next decade. However, if at any
time we determine that issuing an emergency regulation temporarily
listing the meltwater lednian stonefly is warranted, we will initiate
the action at that time.
Listing Priority Number
The Service adopted guidelines on September 21, 1983 (48 FR 43098),
to establish a rational system for utilizing available resources for
the highest priority species when adding species to the Lists of
Endangered or Threatened Wildlife and Plants or reclassifying species
listed as threatened to endangered status. These guidelines, titled
``Endangered and Threatened Species Listing and Recovery Priority
Guidelines,'' address the immediacy and magnitude of threats, and the
level of taxonomic distinctiveness by assigning priority in descending
order to monotypic genera (genus with one species), full species, and
subspecies (or equivalently, distinct population segments of
vertebrates).
As a result of our analysis of the best available scientific and
commercial information, we assigned the meltwater lednian stonefly a
Listing Priority Number (LPN) of 4 based on our finding that the
species faces threats that are of high magnitude but are not imminent.
These primary threats include the present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of its habitat resulting from climate
change, and the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms to address
threats from climate change.
Under the Service's guidelines, the magnitude of threat is the
first criterion we look at when establishing a listing priority. The
guidelines indicate that species with the highest magnitude of threat
are those species facing the greatest threats to their continued
existence. These species receive the highest listing priority. We
consider the threats that the meltwater lednian stonefly faces from
melting glaciers and other environmental changes that result from
climate change to be high in magnitude because of the recent
observations of glacial ablation (shrinking) in Glacier NP and the
projections that all glaciers in Glacier NP may disappear in the next
20 years, and because we expect all known populations of the meltwater
lednian stonefly to be affected by these changes.
Under our LPN guidelines, the second criterion we consider in
assigning a listing priority is the immediacy of threats. This
criterion is intended to ensure that species facing actual,
identifiable threats are given priority over those for which threats
are only potential or for those that are intrinsically vulnerable but
are not known to be presently facing such threats. The significant
reduction in glacier sizes in Glacier NP observed during the past few
decades and the changes in hydrologic patterns and water temperatures
attributed to climate change suggests that habitat loss and
modification may represent a current threat to the species. Because of
its apparent dependence on glacial meltwater for survival, the
meltwater lednian stonefly is intrinsically vulnerable to threats from
the environmental changes resulting from climate change. However, we do
not have sufficient empirical information on the meltwater lednian
stonefly to evaluate whether there are any trends in the occurrence or
abundance of the species, nor do we have any information about the
species' response to such changes. Thus, we cannot conclude that the
species is currently actually facing the threat of habitat loss and
modification, which would be necessary to make a finding that the
threat of environmental changes resulting from climate change is
imminent. Environmental changes resulting from climate change are
reasonably certain to occur, but we have no empirical (documented)
evidence that the resulting threat to the species is imminent
(ongoing). The other identified threats include inadequate regulatory
mechanisms for addressing the environmental changes resulting from
climate change, and the interaction of the species' restricted range
with the threat of habitat loss resulting from climate change. These
threats act in concert with climate change, and so they also are not
imminent. We expect the threat of climate change to intensify in the
foreseeable future based on projections of air temperature increases
from current global climate models and the predicted melting of all
glaciers in Glacier NP by the year 2030. Therefore, based on our LPN
guidelines, the threats are not imminent (ongoing).
The third criterion in our LPN guidelines is intended to devote
resources to those species representing highly distinctive or isolated
gene pools as reflected by taxonomy. The meltwater lednian stonefly
(Lednia tumana) is a valid taxon at the species level and is currently
recognized as a monotypic genus; thus it receives a higher priority
than a species or subspecies.
Therefore, we have assigned the meltwater lednian stonefly an LPN
of 4 based on our determination that the threats are high in magnitude
but not imminent, and because the species is recognized as a monotypic
genus.
We will continue to monitor the threats to the meltwater lednian
stonefly and the species' status on an annual basis, and should the
taxonomic status or the magnitude or imminence of the threats change,
we will revisit our assessment of its LPN.
Because we have assigned the meltwater lednian stonefly a LPN of 4,
work on a proposed listing determination for the meltwater lednian
stonefly is precluded by work on higher priority listing actions with
absolute statutory, court-ordered, or court-approved deadlines and on
final listing determinations for those species that were proposed for
listing with funds from FY 2010. This work includes all the actions
listed in the tables below under Preclusion and Expeditious Progress.
Preclusion and Expeditious Progress
Preclusion is a function of the listing priority of a species in
relation to the resources that are available and the cost and relative
priority of competing demands for those resources. Thus, in any given
fiscal year (FY), multiple factors dictate whether it will be possible
to undertake work on a listing proposal regulation or whether
promulgation of such a proposal is precluded by higher-priority listing
actions.
[[Page 18696]]
The resources available for listing actions are determined through
the annual Congressional appropriations process. The appropriation for
the Listing Program is available to support work involving the
following listing actions: Proposed and final listing rules; 90-day and
12-month findings on petitions to add species to the Lists of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (Lists) or to change the
status of a species from threatened to endangered; annual
``resubmitted'' petition findings on prior warranted-but-precluded
petition findings as required under section 4(b)(3)(C)(i) of the Act;
critical habitat petition findings; proposed and final rules
designating critical habitat; and litigation-related, administrative,
and program-management functions (including preparing and allocating
budgets, responding to Congressional and public inquiries, and
conducting public outreach regarding listing and critical habitat). The
work involved in preparing various listing documents can be extensive
and may include, but is not limited to: Gathering and assessing the
best scientific and commercial data available and conducting analyses
used as the basis for our decisions; writing and publishing documents;
and obtaining, reviewing, and evaluating public comments and peer
review comments on proposed rules and incorporating relevant
information into final rules. The number of listing actions that we can
undertake in a given year also is influenced by the complexity of those
listing actions; that is, more complex actions generally are more
costly. The median cost for preparing and publishing a 90-day finding
is $39,276; for a 12-month finding, $100,690; for a proposed rule with
critical habitat, $345,000; and for a final listing rule with critical
habitat, $305,000.
We cannot spend more than is appropriated for the Listing Program
without violating the Anti-Deficiency Act (see 31 U.S.C.
1341(a)(1)(A)). In addition, in FY 1998 and for each fiscal year since
then, Congress has placed a statutory cap on funds that may be expended
for the Listing Program, equal to the amount expressly appropriated for
that purpose in that fiscal year. This cap was designed to prevent
funds appropriated for other functions under the Act (for example,
recovery funds for removing species from the Lists), or for other
Service programs, from being used for Listing Program actions (see
House Report 105-163, 105th Congress, 1st Session, July 1, 1997).
Since FY 2002, the Service's budget has included a critical habitat
subcap to ensure that some funds are available for other work in the
Listing Program (``The critical habitat designation subcap will ensure
that some funding is available to address other listing activities''
(House Report No. 107-103, 107th Congress, 1st Session, June 19,
2001)). In FY 2002 and each year until FY 2006, the Service has had to
use virtually the entire critical habitat subcap to address court-
mandated designations of critical habitat, and consequently none of the
critical habitat subcap funds have been available for other listing
activities. In some FYs since 2006, we have been able to use some of
the critical habitat subcap funds to fund proposed listing
determinations for high-priority candidate species. In other FYs, while
we were unable to use any of the critical habitat subcap funds to fund
proposed listing determinations, we did use some of this money to fund
the critical habitat portion of some proposed listing determinations so
that the proposed listing determination and proposed critical habitat
designation could be combined into one rule, thereby being more
efficient in our work. At this time, for FY 2011, we do not know if we
will be able to use some of the critical habitat subcap funds to fund
proposed listing determinations.
We make our determinations of preclusion on a nationwide basis to
ensure that the species most in need of listing will be addressed first
and also because we allocate our listing budget on a nationwide basis.
Through the listing cap, the critical habitat subcap, and the amount of
funds needed to address court-mandated critical habitat designations,
Congress and the courts have in effect determined the amount of money
available for other listing activities nationwide. Therefore, the funds
in the listing cap, other than those needed to address court-mandated
critical habitat for already listed species, set the limits on our
determinations of preclusion and expeditious progress.
Congress identified the availability of resources as the only basis
for deferring the initiation of a rulemaking that is warranted. The
Conference Report accompanying Public Law 97-304 (Endangered Species
Act Amendments of 1982), which established the current statutory
deadlines and the warranted-but-precluded finding, states that the
amendments were ``not intended to allow the Secretary to delay
commencing the rulemaking process for any reason other than that the
existence of pending or imminent proposals to list species subject to a
greater degree of threat would make allocation of resources to such a
petition [that is, for a lower-ranking species] unwise.'' Although that
statement appeared to refer specifically to the ``to the maximum extent
practicable'' limitation on the 90-day deadline for making a
``substantial information'' finding, that finding is made at the point
when the Service is deciding whether or not to commence a status review
that will determine the degree of threats facing the species, and
therefore the analysis underlying the statement is more relevant to the
use of the warranted-but-precluded finding, which is made when the
Service has already determined the degree of threats facing the species
and is deciding whether or not to commence a rulemaking.
In FY 2011, on March 18, 2011, Congress passed a continuing
resolution which provides funding at the FY 2010 enacted level through
April 8, 2011. Until Congress appropriates funds for FY 2011 at a
different level, we will fund listing work based on the FY 2010 amount.
Thus, at this time in FY 2011, the Service anticipates an appropriation
of $22,103,000 for the listing program based on FY 2010 appropriations.
Of that, the Service anticipates needing to dedicate $11,632,000 for
determinations of critical habitat for already listed species. Also
$500,000 is appropriated for foreign species listings under the Act.
The Service thus has $9,971,000 available to fund work in the following
categories: compliance with court orders and court-approved settlement
agreements requiring that petition findings or listing determinations
be completed by a specific date; section 4 (of the Act) listing actions
with absolute statutory deadlines; essential litigation-related,
administrative, and listing program-management functions; and high-
priority listing actions for some of our candidate species. In FY 2010,
the Service received many new petitions and a single petition to list
404 species. The receipt of petitions for a large number of species is
consuming the Service's listing funding that is not dedicated to
meeting court-ordered commitments. Absent some ability to balance
effort among listing duties under existing funding levels, it is
unlikely that the Service will be able to initiate any new listing
determination for candidate species in FY 2011.
In 2009, the responsibility for listing foreign species under the
Act was transferred from the Division of Scientific Authority,
International Affairs Program, to the Endangered Species Program.
Therefore, starting in FY 2010, we used a portion of our funding to
work on the actions described above for listing actions related to
foreign species. In FY 2011, we anticipate using $1,500,000 for work
[[Page 18697]]
on listing actions for foreign species which reduces funding available
for domestic listing actions; however, currently only $500,000 has been
allocated for this function. Although there are no foreign species
issues included in our high-priority listing actions at this time, many
actions have statutory or court-approved settlement deadlines, thus
increasing their priority. The budget allocations for each specific
listing action are identified in the Service's FY 2011 Allocation Table
(part of our record).
For the above reasons, funding a proposed listing determination for
the meltwater lednian stonefly, which has an LPN of 4, is precluded by
court-ordered and court-approved settlement agreements, listing actions
with absolute statutory deadlines, work on final listing determinations
for those species that were proposed for listing with funds from FY
2011, and work on proposed listing determinations for those candidate
species with a higher listing priority (i.e., candidate species with
LPNs of 1 to 3).
Based on our September 21, 1983, guidelines for assigning an LPN
for each candidate species (48 FR 43098), we have a significant number
of species with high priority LPNs. Using these guidelines, we assign
each candidate an LPN of 1 to 12, depending on the magnitude of threats
(high or moderate to low), immediacy of threats (imminent or
nonimminent), and taxonomic status of the species (in order of
priority: Monotypic genus (a species that is the sole member of a
genus); species; or part of a species (subspecies, distinct population
segment, or significant portion of the range)). The lower the listing
priority number, the higher the listing priority (that is, a species
with an LPN of 1 would have the highest listing priority).
Because of the large number of high-priority species, we have
further ranked the candidate species with an LPN of 2 by using the
following extinction-risk type criteria: International Union for the
Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) Red list status/
rank, Heritage rank (provided by NatureServe), Heritage threat rank
(provided by NatureServe), and species currently with fewer than 50
individuals, or 4 or fewer populations. Those species with the highest
IUCN rank (critically endangered), the highest Heritage rank (G1), the
highest Heritage threat rank (substantial, imminent threats), and
currently with fewer than 50 individuals, or fewer than 4 populations,
originally comprised a group of approximately 40 candidate species
(``Top 40''). These 40 candidate species have had the highest priority
to receive funding to work on a proposed listing determination. As we
work on proposed and final listing rules for those 40 candidates, we
apply the ranking criteria to the next group of candidates with an LPN
of 2 and 3 to determine the next set of highest priority candidate
species. Finally, proposed rules for reclassification of threatened
species to endangered are lower priority, because as listed species,
they are already afforded the protection of the Act and implementing
regulations. However, for efficiency reasons, we may choose to work on
a proposed rule to reclassify a species to endangered if we can combine
this with work that is subject to a court-determined deadline.
With our workload so much bigger than the amount of funds we have
to accomplish it, it is important that we be as efficient as possible
in our listing process. Therefore, as we work on proposed rules for the
highest priority species in the next several years, we are preparing
multi-species proposals when appropriate, and these may include species
with lower priority if they overlap geographically or have the same
threats as a species with an LPN of 2. In addition, we take into
consideration the availability of staff resources when we determine
which high-priority species will receive funding to minimize the amount
of time and resources required to complete each listing action.
As explained above, a determination that listing is warranted but
precluded must also demonstrate that expeditious progress is being made
to add and remove qualified species to and from the Lists of Endangered
and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. As with our ``precluded'' finding,
the evaluation of whether progress in adding qualified species to the
Lists has been expeditious is a function of the resources available for
listing and the competing demands for those funds. (Although we do not
discuss it in detail here, we are also making expeditious progress in
removing species from the list under the Recovery program in light of
the resource available for delisting, which is funded by a separate
line item in the budget of the Endangered Species Program. So far
during FY 2011, we have completed one delisting rule.) Given the
limited resources available for listing, we find that we are making
expeditious progress in FY 2011 in the Listing Program. This progress
included preparing and publishing the following determinations:
FY 2011 Completed Listing Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Publication date Title Actions FR pages
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10/6/2010...................... Endangered Status for the Proposed Listing 75 FR 61664-61690
Altamaha Spinymussel and Endangered.
Designation of Critical
Habitat.
10/7/2010...................... 12-month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 75 FR 62070-62095
Petition to list the petition finding,
Sacramento Splittail as Not warranted.
Endangered or Threatened.
10/28/2010..................... Endangered Status and Proposed Listing 75 FR 66481-66552
Designation of Critical Endangered
Habitat for Spikedace (uplisting).
and Loach Minnow.
11/2/2010...................... 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 75 FR 67341-67343
Petition to List the Bay Petition Finding,
Springs Salamander as Not substantial.
Endangered.
11/2/2010...................... Determination of Final Listing 75 FR 67511-67550
Endangered Status for Endangered.
the Georgia Pigtoe
Mussel, Interrupted
Rocksnail, and Rough
Hornsnail and
Designation of Critical
Habitat.
11/2/2010...................... Listing the Rayed Bean Proposed Listing 75 FR 67551-67583
and Snuffbox as Endangered.
Endangered.
11/4/2010...................... 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 75 FR 67925-67944
Petition to List Cirsium petition finding,
wrightii (Wright's Marsh Warranted but
Thistle) as Endangered precluded.
or Threatened.
12/14/2010..................... Endangered Status for Proposed Listing 75 FR77801-77817
Dunes Sagebrush Lizard. Endangered.
12/14/2010..................... 12-month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 75 FR 78029-78061
Petition to List the petition finding,
North American Wolverine Warranted but
as Endangered or precluded.
Threatened.
[[Page 18698]]
12/14/2010..................... 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 75 FR 78093-78146
Petition to List the petition finding,
Sonoran Population of Warranted but
the Desert Tortoise as precluded.
Endangered or Threatened.
12/15/2010..................... 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 75 FR 78513-78556
Petition to List petition finding,
Astragalus microcymbus Warranted but
and Astragalus precluded.
schmolliae as Endangered
or Threatened.
12/28/2010..................... Listing Seven Brazilian Final Listing 75 FR 81793-81815
Bird Species as Endangered.
Endangered Throughout
Their Range.
1/4/2011....................... 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 76 FR 304-311
Petition to List the Red Petition Finding,
Knot subspecies Calidris Not substantial.
canutus roselaari as
Endangered.
1/19/2011...................... Endangered Status for the Proposed Listing 76 FR 3392-3420
Sheepnose and Endangered.
Spectaclecase Mussels.
2/10/2011...................... 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 76 FR 7634-7679
Petition to List the petition finding,
Pacific Walrus as Warranted but
Endangered or Threatened. precluded.
2/17/2011...................... 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 76 FR 9309-9318
Petition To List the Petition Finding,
Sand Verbena Moth as Substantial.
Endangered or Threatened.
2/22/2011...................... Determination of Final Listing 76 FR 9681-9692
Threatened Status for Threatened.
the New Zealand-
Australia Distinct
Population Segment of
the Southern Rockhopper
Penguin.
2/22/2011...................... 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 76 FR 9722-9733
Petition to List Solanum petition finding,
conocarpum (marron Warranted but
bacora) as Endangered. precluded.
2/23/2011...................... 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 76 FR 991-10003
Petition to List petition finding,
Thorne's Hairstreak Not warranted.
Butterfly as Endangered.
2/23/2011...................... 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 76 FR 10166-10203
Petition to List petition finding,
Astragalus hamiltonii, Warranted but
Penstemon flowersii, precluded & Not
Eriogonum soredium, Warraned.
Lepidium ostleri, and
Trifolium friscanum as
Endangered or Threatened.
2/24/2011...................... 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 76 FR 10299-10310
Petition to List the Petition Finding,
Wild Plains Bison or Not substantial.
Each of Four Distinct
Population Segments as
Threatened.
2/24/2011...................... 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 76 FR 10310-10319
Petition to List the Petition Finding,
Unsilvered Fritillary Not substantial.
Butterfly as Threatened
or Endangered.
3/8/2011....................... 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 76 FR 12667-12683
Petition to List the Mt. petition finding,
Charleston Blue Warranted but
Butterfly as Endangered precluded.
or Threatened.
3/8/2011....................... 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 76 FR 12683-12690
Petition to List the Petition Finding,
Texas Kangaroo Rat as Substantial.
Endangered or Threatened.
3/10/2011...................... Initiation of Status Notice of Status 76 FR 13121-31322
Review for Longfin Smelt. Review.
3/15/2011...................... Withdrawal of Proposed Proposed rule 76 FR 14210-14268
Rule to List the Flat- withdrawal.
tailed Horned Lizard as
Threatened.
3/22/2011...................... 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 76 FR 15919-15932
Petition to List the petition finding,
Berry Cave Salamander as Warranted but
Endangered. precluded.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our expeditious progress also includes work on listing actions that
we funded in FY 2010 and FY 2011 but have not yet been completed to
date. These actions are listed below. Actions in the top section of the
table are being conducted under a deadline set by a court. Actions in
the middle section of the table are being conducted to meet statutory
timelines, that is, timelines required under the Act. Actions in the
bottom section of the table are high-priority listing actions. These
actions include work primarily on species with an LPN of 2, and, as
discussed above, selection of these species is partially based on
available staff resources, and when appropriate, include species with a
lower priority if they overlap geographically or have the same threats
as the species with the high priority. Including these species together
in the same proposed rule results in considerable savings in time and
funding, when compared to preparing separate proposed rules for each of
them in the future.
Actions Funded in FY 2010 and FY 2011 But Not Yet Completed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actions Subject to Court Order/Settlement Agreement
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mountain plover \4\.............. Final listing determination.
Hermes copper butterfly \3\...... 12-month petition finding.
4 parrot species (military macaw, 12-month petition finding.
yellow-billed parrot, red-
crowned parrot, scarlet macaw)
\5\.
4 parrot species (blue-headed 12-month petition finding.
macaw, great green macaw, grey-
cheeked parakeet, hyacinth
macaw) \5\.
4 parrots species (crimson 12-month petition finding.
shining parrot, white cockatoo,
Philippine cockatoo, yellow-
crested cockatoo) \5\.
Utah prairie dog (uplisting)..... 90-day petition finding.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 18699]]
Actions With Statutory Deadlines
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Casey's june beetle.............. Final listing determination.
6 Birds from Eurasia............. Final listing determination.
5 Bird species from Colombia and Final listing determination.
Ecuador.
Queen Charlotte goshawk.......... Final listing determination.
5 species southeast fish Final listing determination.
(Cumberland darter, rush darter,
yellowcheek darter, chucky
madtom, and laurel dace) \4\.
Ozark hellbender \4\............. Final listing determination.
Altamaha spinymussel \3\......... Final listing determination.
3 Colorado plants (Ipomopsis Final listing determination.
polyantha (Pagosa Skyrocket),
Penstemon debilis (Parachute
Beardtongue), and Phacelia
submutica (DeBeque Phacelia))
\4\.
Salmon crested cockatoo.......... Final listing determination.
6 Birds from Peru & Bolivia...... Final listing determination.
Loggerhead sea turtle (assist Final listing determination.
National Marine Fisheries
Service) \5\.
2 mussels (rayed bean (LPN = 2), Final listing determination.
snuffbox No LPN) \5\.
CA golden trout \4\.............. 12-month petition finding.
Black-footed albatross........... 12-month petition finding.
Mojave fringe-toed lizard \1\.... 12-month petition finding.
Kokanee--Lake Sammamish 12-month petition finding.
population \1\.
Cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl \1\. 12-month petition finding.
Northern leopard frog............ 12-month petition finding.
Tehachapi slender salamander..... 12-month petition finding.
Coqui Llanero.................... 12-month petition finding/Proposed
listing.
Dusky tree vole.................. 12-month petition finding.
3 MT invertebrates (meltwater 12-month petition finding.
lednian stonefly (Lednia
tumana), Oreohelix sp. 3,
Oreohelix sp. 31) from 206
species petition.
5 WY plants (Abronia ammophila, 12-month petition finding.
Agrostis rossiae, Astragalus
proimanthus, Boechere (Arabis)
pusilla, Penstemon gibbensii)
from 206 species petition.
Leatherside chub (from 206 12-month petition finding.
species petition).
Frigid ambersnail (from 206 12-month petition finding.
species petition) \3\.
Platte River caddisfly (from 206 12-month petition finding.
species petition) \5\.
Gopher tortoise--eastern 12-month petition finding.
population.
Grand Canyon scorpion (from 475 12-month petition finding.
species petition).
Anacroneuria wipukupa (a stonefly 12-month petition finding.
from 475 species petition) \4\.
3 Texas moths (Ursia furtiva, 12-month petition finding.
Sphingicampa blanchardi, Agapema
galbina) (from 475 species
petition).
2 Texas shiners (Cyprinella sp., 12-month petition finding.
Cyprinella lepida) (from 475
species petition).
3 South Arizona plants (Erigeron 12-month petition finding.
piscaticus, Astragalus
hypoxylus, Amoreuxia gonzalezii)
(from 475 species petition).
5 Central Texas mussel species (3 12-month petition finding.
from 475 species petition).
14 parrots (foreign species)..... 12-month petition finding.
Striped Newt \1\................. 12-month petition finding.
Fisher--Northern Rocky Mountain 12-month petition finding.
Range \1\.
Mohave Ground Squirrel \1\....... 12-month petition finding.
Puerto Rico Harlequin Butterfly 12-month petition finding.
\3\.
Western gull-billed tern......... 12-month petition finding.
Ozark chinquapin (Castanea pumila 12-month petition finding.
var. ozarkensis) \4\.
HI yellow-faced bees............. 12-month petition finding.
Giant Palouse earthworm.......... 12-month petition finding.
Whitebark pine................... 12-month petition finding.
OK grass pink (Calopogon 12-month petition finding.
oklahomensis) \1\.
Ashy storm-petrel \5\............ 12-month petition finding.
Honduran emerald................. 12-month petition finding.
Southeastern pop snowy plover & 90-day petition finding.
wintering pop. of piping plover
\1\.
Eagle Lake trout \1\............. 90-day petition finding.
Smooth-billed ani \1\............ 90-day petition finding.
32 Pacific Northwest mollusks 90-day petition finding.
species (snails and slugs) \1\.
42 snail species (Nevada & Utah). 90-day petition finding.
Peary caribou.................... 90-day petition finding.
Spring Mountains checkerspot 90-day petition finding.
butterfly.
Spring pygmy sunfish............. 90-day petition finding.
Bay skipper...................... 90-day petition finding.
Spot-tailed earless lizard....... 90-day petition finding.
Eastern small-footed bat......... 90-day petition finding.
Northern long-eared bat.......... 90-day petition finding.
Prairie chub..................... 90-day petition finding.
10 species of Great Basin 90-day petition finding.
butterfly.
6 sand dune (scarab) beetles..... 90-day petition finding.
Golden-winged warbler \4\........ 90-day petition finding.
404 Southeast species............ 90-day petition finding.
Franklin's bumble bee \4\........ 90-day petition finding.
2 Idaho snowflies (straight 90-day petition finding.
snowfly & Idaho snowfly) \4\.
[[Page 18700]]
American eel \4\................. 90-day petition finding.
Gila monster (Utah population) 90-day petition finding.
\4\.
Arapahoe snowfly \4\............. 90-day petition finding.
Leona's little blue \4\.......... 90-day petition finding.
Aztec gilia \5\.................. 90-day petition finding.
White-tailed ptarmigan \5\....... 90-day petition finding.
San Bernardino flying squirrel 90-day petition finding.
\5\.
Bicknell's thrush \5\............ 90-day petition finding.
Chimpanzee....................... 90-day petition finding.
Sonoran talussnail \5\........... 90-day petition finding.
2 AZ Sky Island plants 90-day petition finding.
(Graptopetalum bartrami & Pectis
imberbis) \5\.
I'iwi \5\........................ 90-day petition finding.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
High-Priority Listing Actions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
19 Oahu candidate species \2\ (16 Proposed listing.
plants, 3 damselflies) (15 with
LPN = 2, 3 with LPN = 3, 1 with
LPN = 9).
19 Maui-Nui candidate species \2\ Proposed listing.
(16 plants, 3 tree snails) (14
with LPN = 2, 2 with LPN = 3, 3
with LPN = 8).
2 Arizona springsnails \2\ Proposed listing.
(Pyrgulopsis bernadina (LPN =
2), Pyrgulopsis trivialis (LPN =
2)).
Chupadera springsnail \2\ Proposed listing.
(Pyrgulopsis chupaderae (LPN =
2).
8 Gulf Coast mussels (southern Proposed listing.
kidneyshell (LPN = 2), round
ebonyshell (LPN = 2), Alabama
pearlshell (LPN = 2), southern
sandshell (LPN = 5), fuzzy
pigtoe (LPN = 5), Choctaw bean
(LPN = 5), narrow pigtoe (LPN =
5), and tapered pigtoe (LPN =
11)) \4\.
Umtanum buckwheat (LPN = 2) and Proposed listing.
white bluffs bladderpod (LPN =
9) \4\.
Grotto sculpin (LPN = 2) \4\..... Proposed listing.
2 Arkansas mussels (Neosho mucket Proposed listing.
(LPN = 2) & Rabbitsfoot (LPN =
9)) \4\.
Diamond darter (LPN = 2) \4\..... Proposed listing.
Gunnison sage-grouse (LPN = 2) Proposed listing.
\4\.
Coral Pink Sand Dunes Tiger Proposed listing.
Beetle (LPN = 2) \5\.
Miami blue (LPN = 3) \3\......... Proposed listing.
Lesser prairie chicken (LPN = 2). Proposed listing.
4 Texas salamanders (Austin blind Proposed listing.
salamander (LPN = 2), Salado
salamander (LPN = 2), Georgetown
salamander (LPN = 8), Jollyville
Plateau (LPN = 8)) \3\.
5 SW aquatics (Gonzales Spring Proposed listing.
Snail (LPN = 2), Diamond Y
springsnail (LPN = 2), Phantom
springsnail (LPN = 2), Phantom
Cave snail (LPN = 2), Diminutive
amphipod (LPN = 2)) \3\.
2 Texas plants (Texas golden Proposed listing.
gladecress (Leavenworthia
texana) (LPN = 2), Neches River
rose-mallow (Hibiscus dasycalyx)
(LPN = 2)) \3\.
4 AZ plants (Acuna cactus Proposed listing.
(Echinomastus erectocentrus var.
acunensis) (LPN = 3), Fickeisen
plains cactus (Pediocactus
peeblesianus fickeiseniae) (LPN
= 3), Lemmon fleabane (Erigeron
lemmonii) (LPN = 8), Gierisch
mallow (Sphaeralcea gierischii)
(LPN = 2)) \5\.
FL bonneted bat (LPN = 2) \3\.... Proposed listing.
3 Southern FL plants (Florida Proposed listing.
semaphore cactus (Consolea
corallicola) (LPN = 2),
shellmound applecactus (Harrisia
(= Cereus) aboriginum (=
gracilis)) (LPN = 2), Cape Sable
thoroughwort (Chromolaena
frustrata) (LPN = 2)) \5\.
21 Big Island (HI) species \5\ Proposed listing.
(includes 8 candidate species--5
plants & 3 animals; 4 with LPN =
2, 1 with LPN = 3, 1 with LPN =
4, 2 with LPN = 8).
12 Puget Sound prairie species (9 Proposed listing.
subspecies of pocket gopher
(Thomomys mazama ssp.) (LPN =
3), streaked horned lark (LPN =
3), Taylor's checkerspot (LPN =
3), Mardon skipper (LPN = 8))
\3\.
2 TN River mussels (fluted Proposed listing.
kidneyshell (LPN = 2), slabside
pearlymussel (LPN = 2) \5\.
Jemez Mountain salamander (LPN = Proposed listing.
2) \5\.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Funds for listing actions for these species were provided in
previous FYs.
\2\ Although funds for these high-priority listing actions were provided
in FY 2008 or 2009, due to the complexity of these actions and
competing priorities, these actions are still being developed.
\3\ Partially funded with FY 2010 funds and FY 2011 funds.
\4\ Funded with FY 2010 funds.
\5\ Funded with FY 2011 funds.
We have endeavored to make our listing actions as efficient and
timely as possible, given the requirements of the relevant law and
regulations, and constraints relating to workload and personnel. We are
continually considering ways to streamline processes or achieve
economies of scale, such as by batching related actions together. Given
our limited budget for implementing section 4 of the Act, these actions
described above collectively constitute expeditious progress.
The meltwater lednian stonefly will be added to the list of
candidate species upon publication of this 12-month finding. We will
continue to monitor the status of this species as new information
becomes available. This review will determine if a change in status is
warranted, including the need to make prompt use of emergency listing
procedures.
We intend that any proposed listing action for the meltwater
lednian stonefly will be as accurate as possible. Therefore, we will
continue to accept additional information and comments from all
concerned governmental agencies, the scientific community, industry, or
any other interested party concerning this finding.
[[Page 18701]]
References Cited
A complete list of references cited is available on the Internet at
http://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the Montana Field
Office (see ADDRESSES section).
Authors
The primary authors of this notice are the staff members of the
Montana Field Office.
Authority
The authority for this section is section 4 of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: March 21, 2011.
Gregory E. Siekaniec,
Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-7827 Filed 4-4-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P