[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 237 (Tuesday, December 14, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71079-71081]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-27006]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[FWS-R6-ES-2021-N182; FXES11140600000]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Draft Recovery
Plan for Meltwater Lednian Stonefly (Lednia tumana) and Western Glacier
Stonefly (Zapada glacier)
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of document availability for review and comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, announce the
availability of a draft recovery plan for meltwater lednian stonefly
and western glacier stonefly, two insect species listed as threatened
under the Endangered Species Act. We request review and comment on this
draft recovery plan from Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies and
the public.
DATES: We must receive any comments on the draft recovery plan on or
before February 14, 2022.
ADDRESSES:
Document availability: Copies of the draft recovery plan are
available at http://www.fws.gov/endangered/species/recovery-plans.html.
Alternatively, you may request a copy by U.S. mail from the Montana
Ecological Services Field Office; 585 Shepard Way, Suite 1; Helena, MT
59601; or by telephone at 406-449-5225. Persons who use a
telecommunications device for the deaf may call the Federal Relay
Service at 800-877-8339.
Submitting comments: If you wish to comment on the draft recovery
plan, you may submit your comments in writing by email to Ben Conard,
at ben_conard@fws.gov, or by U.S. mail to Ben Conard, Acting Project
Leader, at the above U.S. mail address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ben Conard, Acting Project Leader, at
the above U.S. mail address or by telephone at 406-449-5225. Persons
who use a telecommunications device for the deaf may call the Federal
Relay Service at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service), announce the availability of a draft recovery plan for
meltwater lednian stonefly (Lednia tumana; hereafter, MWS) and western
glacier stonefly (Zapada glacier; hereafter, WGS), two insects listed
as threatened under the Endangered Species Act, as amended (Act; 16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The draft recovery plan includes objective,
measurable criteria, and site-specific management actions as may be
necessary to remove each species from the Federal List of Endangered
and Threatened Wildlife. We request review and comment on this draft
recovery plan from Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies and the
public.
Species Information
On December 23, 2019, we listed the MWS and WGS as threatened
species (November 21, 2019; 84 FR 64210). We did not designate critical
habitat for either species. We prepared a biological report for the MWS
and WGS (Service 2020), which is an in-depth but not exhaustive review
of the species' biology and threats, an evaluation of its biological
status, and an assessment of the resources and conditions needed to
maintain long-term viability. We summarize the biological report below.
MWS and WGS are small insects in the stonefly family (Nemouridae)
that live in alpine streams that flow from melting glaciers and
snowfields in Montana, Wyoming, and southwest Alberta, Canada. Both
species begin life as eggs, hatch into aquatic nymphs, and later mature
into winged adults, surviving briefly on land before reproducing and
dying. Both stonefly species prefer cold water temperatures, and
therefore are most often found within the first 600 meters (1,968 feet)
of a stream, almost immediately downstream from sources of frozen
water, such as glaciers and snowfields. The National Park Service
manages 94 percent and 63 percent of habitat for MWS and WGS,
respectively. The U.S. Forest Service manages 5 percent and 37 percent
of habitat for MWS and WGS, respectively. The Confederated Salish and
Kootenai Tribes manage less than 1 percent of habitat for MWS.
The MWS currently occupies 113 streams across its known range, and
the WGS currently occupies 16 streams across its known range; however,
cumulatively, both species occupy relatively small amounts of habitat
per stream on average, approximately 600 meters (1,968 feet) per
stream. Both species occupy only these small amounts of area per stream
because of their low thermal tolerances and the rapid warming of
meltwater streams downstream of the meltwater sources, from full sun
exposure in alpine environments. Further, both species inhabit the most
upstream reaches of their meltwater habitats and cannot disperse
further upstream if water temperatures warm beyond their thermal
tolerances. This narrow distribution within streams and inability to
disperse upstream increases the risk of harm due to stochastic events,
such as drought or annual weather fluctuations. Thus, the current
overall resiliency of the meltwater habitat and sources for both
species is low.
The primary threat to both stonefly species and their habitat is
habitat degradation and fragmentation due to climate change. Both
stonefly species are intimately tied to cold meltwater aquatic habitat,
the sources of which are glaciers or snowfields. Thus, the viability of
both species is closely linked to the persistence of these glaciers and
snowfields and their ability to continue to provide meltwater habitat
in a warming climate. These meltwater sources vary in size, but most
are predicted to completely melt by 2030. Warming air temperatures have
already
[[Page 71080]]
been implicated in faster melting of meltwater sources (glaciers and
snowfields) in Glacier National Park and elsewhere. As these meltwater
sources begin to disappear, streamflows are expected to become
intermittent and water temperatures warmer.
Dewatering of MWS and WGS habitat, even periodically, would result
in the extirpation of entire populations because the aquatic nymphs of
both species need flowing water to breathe. Melting of meltwater
sources is also expected to increase stream temperatures, forcing
nymphs to disperse upstream to stay within their temperature
tolerances. However, both species already occupy the most upstream
portions of their meltwater habitats, so upstream dispersal is not
possible. As a result of the fragmentation and degradation of meltwater
habitats, available habitat in Glacier National Park for MWS is
predicted to decline by 80 percent by 2030 (Muhlfeld et al. 2011, p.
342). For WGS, we have observed a declining trend in their distribution
over the last 50 years due to warmer air temperatures associated with
climate change (Giersch et al. 2015, p. 58). Please refer to our
biological report for additional discussion and full analyses of the
life history, ecology, threats, and biological status for MWS and WGS
(Service 2020).
Recovery Planning Process
Restoring an endangered or threatened animal or plant to the point
where it is again a secure, self-sustaining member of its ecosystem is
a primary goal of the Service's endangered species program. Recovery
means improving the status of a listed species to the point at which
listing is no longer necessary according to the criteria specified
under section 4(a)(1) of the Act. The Act requires recovery plans for
listed species unless such a plan would not promote the conservation of
a particular species. To help guide recovery efforts, we prepare
recovery plans to promote the conservation of the species.
The purpose of a recovery plan is to provide a recommended
framework for the recovery of a species so that protection of the Act
is no longer necessary. Pursuant to section 4(f) of the Act, a recovery
plan must, to the maximum extent possible, include:
(1) A description of site-specific management actions as may be
necessary to achieve the plan's goal for the conservation and survival
of the species;
(2) Objective, measurable criteria which, when met, would support a
determination under section 4(a)(1) of the Act that the species should
be removed from the List of Endangered and Threatened Species; and
(3) Estimates of time and costs required to carry out those
measures needed to achieve the plan's goal and to achieve intermediate
steps toward that goal.
We used our new recovery planning and implementation (RPI) process
to develop the draft recovery plan for MWS and WGS. The RPI process
helps reduce the time needed to develop and implement recovery plans,
increases the relevancy of the recovery plan over longer timeframes,
and adds flexibility so that the recovery plan can be more easily
adjusted to new information and circumstances. Under our RPI process, a
recovery plan will include the three statutorily required elements for
recovery plans--objective and measurable criteria, site-specific
management actions, and estimates of time and cost--along with a
concise introduction and our strategy for how we plan to achieve
species recovery. The RPI recovery plan is supported by a separate
biological report for MWS and WGS (Service 2020). The biological report
is an in-depth but not exhaustive review of the species' biology and
threats, an evaluation of its biological status, and an assessment of
the resources and conditions needed to maintain long-term viability.
The biological report provides the scientific background and threats
assessment for MWS and WGS, which are key to the development of the
recovery plan. A third, separate working document, called the recovery
implementation strategy (RIS), steps down the more general descriptions
of actions in the recovery plan to detail the specifics needed to
implement the recovery plan, which improves the flexibility of the
recovery plan. The RIS will be adaptable, with new information on
actions incorporated, as needed, without requiring a concurrent
revision to the recovery plan, unless changes to the three statutory
elements are required.
Draft Recovery Plan
Below, we summarize components from our draft recovery plan. Please
reference the draft recovery plan for full details.
The draft recovery plan describes the recovery vision as the
conservation and survival of MWS and WGS. Recovery for both species
will be signified by resilient, redundant populations and meltwater
habitats and sources of meltwater across a representative portion of
their respective known ranges. Both species need sources of aquatic
meltwater habitats, such as glaciers and snowfields, that have enough
mass to provide continual meltwater to endure stochastic environmental
change, such as from drought and reduced annual snowfall. Both species
also need sufficient distribution and diversity across populations to
withstand catastrophes and long-term warming climate trends. This would
be achieved by implementing recovery actions, such as surveying for
additional populations, researching thermal tolerance limits,
identifying potential translocation areas, and exploring controlled
propagation techniques.
The draft recovery plan includes recovery criteria for delisting.
The delisting criteria are summarized below, with additional detail
provided in the draft recovery plan:
(1) Maintaining stable or increasing trends in the area of
meltwater sources (glaciers and snowfields), and at least 1,250
hectares (3,087 acres) of meltwater sources across the known ranges of
both species; and
(2) Maintaining stable or increasing trends in stream miles, with
at least 35 occupied stream miles for both species.
Peer Review
In accordance with our July 1, 1994, peer review policy (59 FR
34270; July 1, 1994); our August 22, 2016, Director's Memo on the Peer
Review Process; and the Office of Management and Budget's December 16,
2004, Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review (revised June
2012), we will seek the expert opinion of at least three appropriate
independent specialists regarding scientific data and interpretations
contained in the species biological report and the draft recovery plan.
We will send copies of both documents to the peer reviewers immediately
following publication of this notice in the Federal Register. We will
ensure that the opinions of peer reviewers are objective and unbiased
by following the guidelines set forth in the Director's Memo, which
updates and clarifies Service policy on peer review (Service 2016). The
purpose of such review is to ensure that our decisions are based on
scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analysis. Accordingly, our
final species biological report and recovery plan may differ from the
draft documents. We will post the results of this structured peer
review process on our website at https://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/science/peerReview.php. The biological report is the scientific
foundation for the draft recovery plan.
[[Page 71081]]
Request for Public Comments
All comments we receive by the date specified (see DATES) will be
considered prior to approval of the recovery plan. Written comments and
materials regarding the recovery plan should be sent via one of the
means in the ADDRESSES section.
We will consider all information we receive during the public
comment period, and particularly look for comments that provide
scientific rationale or factual background. The Service and other
Federal agencies and partners will take these comments into
consideration in the course of implementing an approved final recovery
plan. We are specifically seeking comments and suggestions on the
following questions:
Understanding that the time and cost presented in the
draft recovery plan will be fine-tuned when localized recovery
implementation strategies are developed, do you think that the
estimated time and cost to recovery are realistic? Is the estimate
reflective of the time and cost of actions that may have already been
implemented by Federal, State, county, or other agencies? Please
provide suggestions or methods for determining a more accurate
estimation.
Do the draft recovery criteria provide clear direction to
partners on what is needed to recover MWS and WGS? How could they be
improved for clarity?
Are the draft recovery criteria both objective and
measurable, given the information available for MWS and WGS now and
into the future? Please provide suggestions.
Understanding that specific, detailed, and area-specific
recovery actions will be developed in the RIS, do you think that the
draft recovery actions presented in the draft recovery plan generally
cover the types of actions necessary to meet the recovery criteria? If
not, what general actions are missing? Are any of the draft recovery
actions unnecessary for achieving recovery? Have we prioritized the
actions appropriately?
Public Availability of Comments
We will summarize and respond to the issues raised by the public in
an appendix to the approved final recovery plan. Before including your
address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying
information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire
comment--including your personal identifying information--may be made
publicly available at any time. You may request at the top of your
comment that we withhold this information from public review; however,
we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Authority
The authority for this action is section 4(f) of the Endangered
Species Act, 16 U.S.C. 1533(f).
Anna Mu[ntilde]oz,
Acting Deputy Regional Director.
[FR Doc. 2021-27006 Filed 12-13-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P