[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 194 (Monday, October 7, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 53380-53397]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-21645]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2018-0045; FXES11130600000C6-178-FF06E11000]
RIN 1018-BC03
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removal of
Howellia aquatilis (Water Howellia) From the List of Endangered and
Threatened Plants
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 53381]]
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to
remove the plant Howellia aquatilis (water howellia) from the Federal
List of Endangered and Threatened Plants. The best available scientific
and commercial data indicate that threats to water howellia identified
at the time of listing in 1994 are not as significant as originally
anticipated and are being adequately managed. Therefore, the species no
longer meets the definition of an endangered or threatened species
under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). This
determination is based on a thorough review of all available
information, which indicates that this species' population and
distribution are much greater than was known at the time of listing in
1994 and that threats to this species have been sufficiently minimized.
We are seeking information and comments from the public regarding this
proposed rule and the draft post-delisting monitoring (PDM) plan for
water howellia.
DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before
December 6, 2019. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, below), must be received by 11:59
p.m. Eastern Time on the closing date. We must receive requests for
public hearings, in writing, at the address shown in FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT by November 21, 2019.
ADDRESSES: Written comments: You may submit written comments by one of
the following methods:
Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal:
http://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter Docket No. FWS-R6-
ES-2018-0045, which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then,
click on the Search button. On the resulting page, in the Search panel
on the left side of the screen, under the Document Type heading, click
on the Proposed Rules link to locate this document. You may submit a
comment by clicking on the blue ``Comment Now!'' box. If your comments
will fit in the provided comment box, please use this feature of http://www.regulations.gov, as it is most compatible with our comment review
procedures. If you attach your comments as a separate document, our
preferred file format is Microsoft Word. If you attach multiple
comments (such as form letters), our preferred formation is a
spreadsheet in Microsoft Excel.
By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to:
Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R6-ES-2018-0045, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, MS: BPHC, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-
3803.
We request that you submit written comments only by the methods
described above. We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any
personal information you provide us (see Public Comments, below, for
more details).
Document availability: This proposed rule and supporting documents,
including a copy of the draft post-delisting monitoring plan referenced
throughout this document, are available on http://www.regulations.gov
at Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2018-0045. In addition, the supporting file for
this proposed rule will be available for public inspection, by
appointment, during normal business hours at the Montana Ecological
Services Field Office, 585 Shepard Way, Suite 1, Helena, MT 59601;
telephone: 406-449-5225. Persons who use a telecommunications device
for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jodi Bush, Office Supervisor,
telephone: 406-449-5225. Direct all questions or requests for
additional information to: WATER HOWELLIA QUESTIONS, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Montana Ecological Services Field Office, 585 Shepard
Way, Suite 1, Helena, MT 59601. Individuals who are hearing-impaired or
speech-impaired may call the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8337 for
TTY assistance.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Act, if a species is
determined to no longer be an endangered or threatened species, we may
reclassify the species or remove it from the Federal Lists of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants due to recovery. A
species is an ``endangered species'' for purposes of the Act if it is
in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range and is a ``threatened species'' if it is likely to become an
endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range. The Act does not define the term
``foreseeable future.'' However, we consider ``foreseeable future'' as
that period of time within which a reliable prediction can be
reasonably relied upon in making a determination about the future
conservation status of a species. Water howellia is listed as
threatened. We are proposing to remove this species from the Federal
List of Endangered and Threatened Plants (i.e., ``delist'' this
species) because we have determined that it is not likely to become an
endangered species now or within the foreseeable future. Delisting a
species can only be completed by issuing a rule.
The basis for our action. Under the Act, we can determine that a
species is an endangered or threatened species based on any one or more
of the following five factors or the cumulative effects thereof: (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. Based on an
assessment of the best available information regarding the status of
and threats to water howellia, we have determined that the species no
longer meets the definition of an endangered or threatened species
under the Act.
We will seek peer review. We will seek comments from independent
specialists to ensure that our determination is based on scientifically
sound data, assumptions, and analyses. We will invite these peer
reviewers to comment on this delisting proposal. Because we will
consider all comments and information we receive during the comment
period, our final determination may differ from this proposal.
Information Requested
Public Comments
We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule
will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request
comments or information from other concerned governmental agencies,
Native American tribes, the scientific community, industry, or any
other interested parties concerning this proposed rule. Comments should
be as specific as possible. We particularly seek comments concerning:
(1) Reasons why we should or should not remove water howellia from
the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants;
(2) New biological or other relevant data concerning any threat (or
lack thereof) to this species (for example, those associated with
climate change);
(3) New information on any efforts by the State or other entities
to protect or otherwise conserve the species;
[[Page 53382]]
(4) New information concerning the range, distribution, and
population size or trends of this species;
(5) New information on the current or planned activities in the
habitat or range that may negatively affect or benefit the species; and
(6) Information pertaining to the requirements for post-delisting
monitoring of water howellia.
Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as
scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to
verify any scientific or commercial information you include. Please
note that submissions merely stating support for or opposition to the
action under consideration without providing supporting information,
although noted, may not meet the standard of information required by
section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), which directs
that determinations as to whether any species is an endangered or
threatened species must be made ``solely on the basis of the best
scientific and commercial data available.''
Prior to issuing a final determination on this proposed action, we
will take into consideration all comments and any additional
information we receive. Such information may lead to a final rule that
differs from this proposal. All comments and information we collect,
including commenters' names and addresses, if provided to us, will
become part of the supporting record.
You may submit your comments and materials concerning the proposed
rule by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. If you submit your
comments electronically, you must submit your comments on http://www.regulations.gov before 11:59 p.m. (Eastern Time) on the date
specified in DATES. We will not consider hand-delivered comments that
we do not receive, or mailed comments that are not postmarked, by the
date specified in DATES.
If you submit information via http://www.regulations.gov, your
entire submission--including any personal identifying information--will
be posted on the website. Please note that comments posted on this
website are not immediately viewable. When you submit a comment, the
system receives it immediately. However, the comment will not be
publicly viewable until we post it, which might not occur until several
days after submission.
If you mail or hand-deliver hardcopy comments that include personal
identifying information, you may request at the top of your document
that we withhold this information from public review. However, we
cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. To ensure that the
electronic docket for this rulemaking is complete and all comments we
receive are publicly available, we will post all hardcopy submissions
on http://www.regulations.gov.
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule and the draft
post-delisting monitoring (PDM) plan, will be available for public
inspection on http://www.regulations.gov, or by appointment, during
normal business hours at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Montana
Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Public Hearings
Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for a public hearing on this
proposal, if requested. We must receive requests for public hearings,
in writing, by the date specified above in DATES. You must send your
request to the address shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. We
will schedule at least one public hearing on this proposal if any are
requested, and announce the dates, times, and places of those hearings,
as well as how to obtain reasonable accommodation, in the Federal
Register and local newspapers at least 15 days before the hearing.
Peer Review
In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the
Federal Register on July 1, 1994, (59 FR 34270) and our August 22,
2016, memorandum updating and clarifying the role of peer review under
the Act, we will seek the expert opinion of at least three appropriate
and independent specialists regarding the scientific data and
interpretations contained in this proposed rule. These reviews will be
completed during the public comment period; we will send copies of this
proposed rule to the peer reviewers immediately following publication
in the Federal Register. Peer reviewer comments will be available,
along with other public comments, in the docket for this proposed rule.
The purpose of such review is to ensure that our decisions are based on
scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analysis. Accordingly, our
final decision may differ from this proposal.
Previous Federal Actions
On December 15, 1980, we published a notice of review in the
Federal Register (45 FR 82480) issuing a list of plant taxa being
considered for listing as endangered or threatened. Water howellia was
included on this list as a Category 2 species. Category 2 species were
taxa for which information in possession of the Service at that time
indicated the probable appropriateness of listing as endangered or
threatened but for which sufficient information was not available to
biologically support a proposed rule.
On February 21, 1990, we published a notice of review in the
Federal Register (55 FR 6184) reclassifying water howellia from a
Category 2 species to a Category 1 species. Category 1 species were
taxa for which the Service currently had on file enough substantial
information on biological vulnerability and threat(s) to support
proposed rules to list them as endangered or threatened species.
Because water howellia is the only species within the genera Howellia,
we assigned a Category 1 listing priority to this plant.
On October 30, 1991, the Service was petitioned to list water
howellia as an endangered species. On April 16, 1993, we published in
the Federal Register a proposed rule (58 FR 19795) to list water
howellia as threatened. This proposed rule also served the Service's
finding for the October 30, 1991, petition.
On July 14, 1994, we published in the Federal Register a final rule
(59 FR 35860) listing water howellia as a threatened species. The final
rule included a determination that the designation of critical habitat
for water howellia was not prudent.
In 1996, we drafted a recovery plan for the species (USFWS 1996,
entire). To date, this plan has not been finalized.
On April 18, 2007, we published a notice in the Federal Register
(72 FR 19549) announcing the initiation of a 5-year review for water
howellia. The resulting recommendation from this 5-year review (USFWS
2013, entire) was to take the necessary steps to remove water howellia
from the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants (i.e., to ``delist''
the species).
Background
Species Information
It is our intent to discuss only those topics directly related to
delisting water howellia in this proposed rule. For more information on
the description, biology, ecology, and habitat of water howellia,
please refer to the final listing rule published in the Federal
Register on July 14, 1994 (59 FR 35860); the most recent 5-year review
for water howellia completed in August of 2013 (USFWS 2013, entire);
and the draft recovery plan for water howellia, completed in
[[Page 53383]]
September 1996 (USFWS 1996, entire). These documents will be available
as supporting materials on http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No.
FWS-R6-ES-2018-0045.
Species Description and Habitat Information
Water howellia was first collected in 1879, along the Columbia
River in Multnomah County, Oregon (Gray 1880, entire), and is native to
the northwestern United States. The taxonomy of water howellia as a
full species in a monotypic genus is widely accepted as valid by the
scientific community (The Plant List 2013, unpaginated; ITIS 2017).
Water howellia is an annual, aquatic herb in the bellflower family
(Campanulaceae). The entire plant is smooth, possessing no hairs or
projections. The stems are fragile, submerged and floating, reaching up
to 39 inches (in.) (100 centimeters (cm)) in length. Stems branch
several inches from the base, and each branch extends to the water
surface. The numerous leaves are narrow and range from 1-2 in. (25-50
millimeters (mm)) long.
Water howellia produce two types of flowers: Cleistogamous (closed)
and chasmogamous (showy, open for pollination). Small cleistogamous
flowers are produced along the stem below the water surface and are
self-fertilizing. Chasmogamous flowers are produced on the water
surface and commonly self-pollinate (Lesica et al. 1988, p. 276; Shelly
and Moseley 1988, pp. 5-6).
Seed germination occurs in the fall, only when ponds dry and seeds
are exposed to air (Lesica 1990). Water howellia seedlings overwinter
in soil and resume growth in spring in northern climates (Mincemoyer
2005, p. 3) or begin growing after fall germination in southern
climates (e.g., California) (Johnson 2013, pers. comm.). Spring growth
in California and low-elevation occurrences in western Washington
typically commences in early April, and in eastern Washington, Idaho,
and Montana by early May. Range wide, emergent (chasmogamous) flowers
bloom soon after the stems reach the water surface and are typically
present from May through July. Seed dispersal starts in June from
submerged (cleistogamous) flowers and extends until late summer from
emergent flowers (Shelly and Moseley 1988, p. 5).
Long-term viability of water howellia seeds is uncertain. Decreased
germination rates have been documented for seeds residing in the soil
longer than 8 months (Lesica 1992, pp. 415-416). However, monitoring
data and observations from Montana (U.S. Forest Service (USFS) 2002,
pp. 6-7; USFWS 1996, pp. 17-18) and Washington (Gilbert 2008, pers.
comm.) indicate the presence of water howellia occurrences after 2
consecutive years with no plant observations, suggesting a significant
number of seeds may remain viable for at least 3 years. This life-
history strategy likely provides a buffer against unfavorable growing
conditions in consecutive years.
Water howellia plants typically inhabit small, vernal freshwater
wetlands and ponds with an annual cycle of filling with water in spring
and drying up in summer or autumn (USFWS 1996, p. 14). These habitats
can be glacial potholes or depressions (Shapley and Lesica 1997, p. 8;
U.S. Department of Defense (USDOD) 2017a, p. 1) or river oxbows (Lesica
1997, p. 366) in Montana and western Washington, riverine meander scars
(Idaho NHP 2017, p. 1; Wiechmann 2014a, p. 3) in Idaho, glacial-flood
remnant wetlands (Robison 2007, p. 8) in eastern Washington, or
landslide depressions (Johnson 2013, pers. comm.) in California, but
are all ephemeral (transitory) to some degree. Depending on annual
patterns of temperature and precipitation, the drying of the ponds may
be complete or partial by autumn; these sites are usually shallow and
less than 3 feet (ft) (1 meter (m)) in depth. Some ponds supporting
water howellia are dependent on complex ground and surface water
interactions. Snow melt runoff is important in maintaining suitable
conditions in the spring, while localized groundwater flow mitigates
water loss from evaporation and plant transpiration later in the summer
(Reeves and Woessner 2004, pp. 7-9).
Water howellia occupies habitats across its range that vary in the
extent of canopy cover, suggesting some flexibility in light tolerance.
Many water howellia occurrences are surrounded or nearly surrounded, by
forested vegetation (Mincemoyer 2005, p. 7), with numerous observations
reporting water howellia occupying shaded portions of ponds and
wetlands (Isle 1997, p. 32; McCarten et al. 1998, p. 4). Conversely, on
the Joint Base Lewis-McChord (Lewis-McChord) military base in
Washington, occupied ponds were historically surrounded by prairie
vegetation and, as a result of years of fire suppression, are now
surrounded by forest (Gilbert 2017, pers. comm.). Currently, water
howellia is occurring in portions of ponds that receive the most light
and least shade (Gilbert 2017, pers. comm.). In Montana's Swan Valley,
water howellia was present in 78 percent of sites with prior
disturbance (roads, fire, grazing, and vegetation treatments) of
vegetation surrounding the ponds (Pipp 2017, p. 6), indicating some
plasticity to disturbance and varying light levels.
Range, Distribution, Abundance, and Trends of Water Howellia
Water howellia is endemic to the Pacific Northwest with historical
occurrences identified in California, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and
Montana (Shelly and Moseley 1988, pp. 6, 9). Currently, the species
still occurs in all five States representing six distinct geographic
areas. The species' historical distribution--before European settlement
and modern development in the Pacific Northwest--is unknown. However,
the geographic area historically occupied by the species was likely
small, due to the species' requirement of ephemeral wetlands with
specific filling and drying regimes. Since listing in 1994, new
occurrences of water howellia have been documented in all five States,
generally in areas known historically to support the species. Thus,
locations of extant occurrences are generally representative of the
areas where the species was thought to historically occur.
At the time of Federal listing (1994), 107 water howellia
occurrences (defined as known populations) were known across the
species' range (59 FR 35860; July 14, 1994). In 2017, a minimum of 307
occurrences were documented. The majority of extant occurrences (91
percent) are within three metapopulations occupying distinct,
geographic areas in Montana's Swan Valley (Lake and Missoula Counties);
Department of Defense property at Lewis-McChord, Pierce County in
western Washington; and Turnbull National Wildlife Refuge (Turnbull
Refuge), Spokane County in northeastern Washington (Figure 1). Regional
occurrences of plants demonstrate metapopulation structure when
regional persistence is governed by the processes of patch
colonization, extirpation (local extinction), and recolonization
(Freckleton and Watkinson 2002, p. 419). These metapopulations are
important to the viability of the species as long-term persistence is
expected of metapopulations compared to small, isolated occurrences
that generally experience short persistence (Lesica 1992, p. 420).
Consequently, identification of these metapopulations is important for
directing conservation efforts toward the regional availability of
suitable habitat (Freckleton and Watkinson 2002, p. 432). Currently,
258
[[Page 53384]]
of the 307 (84 percent) reported water howellia occurrences are on
lands administered by the Federal Government. There are 37 reported
occurrences of water howellia on private property; however, little is
known about them, as limited monitoring of these occurrences has taken
place over the years.
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07OC19.000
BILLING CODE 4333-15-C
Trends for water howellia are difficult to determine. Substantial
numbers of new occurrences have been discovered since listing in 1994,
and, most recently, several occurrences have been documented in Oregon,
where the species was thought to be extirpated. However, this may not
necessarily indicate a positive population trend. Rather, this could
indicate increased efficiency at finding new occurrences. Consistent,
standardized monitoring has not occurred across the range of the
species, making it difficult to document trends. Additionally, an
occurrence is broadly defined as ``a known population.'' Abundance of
individual water howellia plants within occurrences fluctuates widely.
This is due, in part, to environmental conditions of the preceding
autumn,
[[Page 53385]]
which affect seed germination rates. Nevertheless, based on the
discovery of many new occurrences and few recent extirpations of
existing occurrences, population trends for the species appear to be
stable.
Genetic variation among water howellia occurrences is low.
Occurrences in California and Montana are genetically similar; however,
occurrences in Idaho and Washington are more distantly related
(Schierenbeck and Phipps 2010, p. 5). These data suggest that gene flow
is occurring between occurrences separated by large geographic
distances, albeit at a relatively low rate. A correlation between
migratory waterfowl routes with either genetic similarity or distance
indicates that waterfowl may be transporting seed or plant material
between water howellia population areas (Schierenbeck and Phipps 2010,
pp. 6-7). A more robust sampling and genetic analysis of water howellia
occurrences across the species' range would be necessary to support or
refute this hypothesis.
Conservation Efforts
Here, we provide a summary of progress made on the draft recovery
criteria for water howellia. More detailed information related to
conservation efforts can be found below under Summary of Factors
Affecting the Species. A recovery plan for water howellia was drafted
in 1996; to date, the plan has not been finalized (USFWS 1996, entire).
The draft plan includes objective, measureable criteria for delisting;
however, the plan is dated and may no longer reflect the best
scientific information available for water howellia. Since 1994,
monitoring has resulted in additional occurrences being documented in
all five States, including Oregon, where the species was thought to be
extirpated. Additionally, significant exchanges of land have occurred
in Montana, resulting in ponds occupied by water howellia being
transferred from private ownership to State or Federal ownership, which
provides greater protections. Lastly, research specific to water
howellia has increased our understanding of the biology and ecology of
the species.
Below are the recovery criteria as described in the draft recovery
plan and the progress made to date in implementing each.
1. Recovery criterion: Management practices, in accordance with
habitat management plans, have reduced and/or controlled anthropogenic
threats, thereby maintaining the species and its habitat integrity
throughout the currently known range on public lands in five geographic
areas for 10 years after the effective date of the final recovery plan
(when finalized). Monitoring will demonstrate the effectiveness of
management plans. Management plans will be in place for, at a minimum,
the occurrences listed in the following table:
Table of Formalized Management Plans per Geographic Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum number
of occurrences Current number
Geographic area identified in of occurrences Years management
draft recovery covered by plans in place
plan management plans
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Montana................................................... 67 191 20
Spokane County, Washington................................ 33 37 10
Pierce County, Washington................................. 5 19 14
Clark County, Washington.................................. 4 4 7
Mendocino County, California.............................. 5 7 22
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Progress: Despite the recovery plan not being finalized, management
plans are in place on public lands for the minimum number of
occurrences identified in the table above.
Monitoring indicates management plans have been effective at
maintaining the minimum number of occurrences by reducing or
eliminating anthropogenic threats associated with land management
activities (e.g., timber harvest, road construction, and maintenance)
and other threats (e.g., invasive species). Prior to formalized
management plans, some conservation efforts were occurring on Federal,
State, and some private land. In addition, survey efforts have
documented substantially more occurrences of water howellia range wide
than were known at the time of listing (Mincemoyer 2005, pp. 4-5;
Frymire 2017, pers. comm.; Gilbert 2017, pers. comm.; Johnson 2017,
pers. comm.; Lichthardt and Pekas 2017, p. 1; ORBIC 2017, unpaginated;
Rule 2017, pers. comm.).
2. Recovery criterion: Foster or promote the conservation of
occurrences on lands not addressed by agency management plans.
Specifically, this recovery criterion recommends long-term conservation
measures for the occurrence in Latah County, Idaho.
Progress: Long-term conservation measures for water howellia have
been established through land transfers, conservation easements, and
management plans on some private lands. In Montana's Swan Valley,
large-scale land transfers (67,000 acres (ac) (27,000 hectares (ha))
for the benefit of many species have occurred, and land supporting
known water howellia occurrences have been transferred from private to
Federal ownership. These occurrences are now protected under Federal
agency management plans and conservation strategies. Additionally, one
occurrence located on private land in Latah County, Idaho, is protected
under a conservation agreement, held in perpetuity by the Palouse Land
Trust. In the 5-year review (USFWS 2013, p. 6), it was noted that, in
addition to the conservation agreement, a management plan for this
occurrence was being developed, but to date that has not yet been
completed (Trujillo 2017, pers. comm.). The Service is unaware of any
information regarding additional efforts to protect water howellia
occurrences on private land in other parts of the species' range.
3. Recovery criterion: A post-delisting strategy for monitoring the
species' population dynamics is in place.
Progress: We have developed a draft post-delisting monitoring plan
in cooperation with the States and Federal land management partners.
The draft post-delisting monitoring plan is available for public review
on http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2018-0045.
Additionally, the 5-year review recommended development of a
memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the USFS and USDOD to ensure the
continuation of existing conservation measures currently benefitting
water howellia. Although a formal MOU has not been developed, both
agencies have specific conservation strategies in place (for specific
[[Page 53386]]
conservation strategies, see discussion of land management effects
under A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range, below).
Summary of Factors Affecting the Species
Section 4 of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR part
424) set forth the procedures for listing species, reclassifying
species, or removing species from listed status. ``Species'' is defined
by the Act as including any species or subspecies of fish or wildlife
or plants, and any distinct vertebrate population segment of fish or
wildlife that interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). A species
may be determined to be an endangered or threatened species due to one
or more of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act:
(A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment
of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or
predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E)
other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. We
must consider these same five factors in delisting a species. For
species that are already listed as endangered or threatened species,
this analysis of threats is an evaluation of both the threats currently
facing the species and the threats that are reasonably likely to affect
the species in the foreseeable future following the removal of the
Act's protections. We may delist a species according to 50 CFR
424.11(d) if the best available scientific and commercial data indicate
that the species is neither endangered nor threatened for the following
reasons: (1) The species is extinct; (2) the species has recovered and
is no longer endangered or threatened; and/or (3) the original
scientific data used at the time the species was classified were in
error.
Water howellia is currently listed as threatened. Section 3(20) of
the Act defines a ``threatened species'' as ``any species which is
likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range'' (16 U.S.C.
1532(20)). We consider ``foreseeable future'' to be that period of time
within which a reliable prediction can be reasonably relied upon in
making a determination about the future conservation status of a
species, as described on January 16, 2009, Solicitor's opinion, and
number M-37021 (DOI 2009, entire). We consider 30 years to be a
reasonable period of time within which reliable predictions can be made
for the species. This time period includes multiple generations of
water howellia. Additionally, various global climate models and
emission scenarios provide consistent predictions within that timeframe
(IPCC 2014, p. 11). We consider 30 years a relatively conservative
timeframe in view of the long-term protections in place for 84 percent
of the species' occupied habitat occurring on Federal land.
A recovered species has had threats removed or reduced to the point
that it no longer meets the Act's definition of endangered or
threatened. A species is ``endangered'' for purposes of the Act if it
is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of
its range and is ``threatened'' if it is likely to become endangered
within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion
of its range. For the purposes of this analysis, we will evaluate
whether or not the currently listed species, water howellia, should
continue to be listed as threatened, based on the best scientific and
commercial information available.
In considering what factors might constitute threats, we must look
beyond the exposure of the species to a particular 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 during the
five-factor threats analysis, we will attempt to determine the
significance of the threat. 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 by the Act. However, the identification of factors that could
affect a species negatively may not be sufficient to justify a finding
that the species warrants listing or should remain listed. The
information must include evidence sufficient to suggest that the
potential threat is likely to materialize and that it has the capacity
(sufficient magnitude and extent) to affect the species' status such
that it meets the definition of endangered or threatened under the Act.
This determination does not necessarily require empirical proof of a
threat. The combination of exposure and some corroborating evidence of
how the species is likely impacted could suffice. The mere
identification of factors that could impact a species negatively is not
sufficient to compel a finding that a listing action is appropriate; we
require evidence that these factors are operative threats that act on
the species to the point that the species meets the definition of an
endangered species or threatened species under the Act. The following
analysis examines the five factors currently affecting water howellia,
or that are likely to affect it within the foreseeable future.
A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment
of Its Habitat or Range
Factor A requires the Service to consider present or threatened
destruction, modification, or curtailment of water howellia habitat or
range. The following potential threats were identified for this species
at the time of listing: (1) Invasive species, (2) land management
(primarily timber harvest and road building), (3) trampling by domestic
livestock, (4) direct habitat loss from urbanization or dam
construction, and (5) the narrow ecological requirements of the species
(59 FR 35860; July 14, 1994). In the analysis that follows, we also
considered climate change in the context of narrow ecological
requirements. An assessment of threats (1) through (4) follows; the
narrow ecological requirements of the species and climate change are
discussed under Factor E, below.
Invasive Species
In the 1994 final listing rule (59 FR 35860, July 14, 1994),
invasive plant species were identified as a threat to water howellia in
habitats where they overlap. Invasive species, such as reed canarygrass
(Phalaris arundinacea) and sweet flag (Acorus calamus), were identified
to have the capacity to outcompete water howellia, presumably for
nutrients and space, effectively excluding water howellia from
historically occupied water bodies (Lesica 1997, p. 367). P.
arundinacea was specifically identified as having the potential to
extirpate water howellia occurrences (59 FR 35860; July 14, 1994), and
as a result, we focus our analysis on this species. We are not aware of
any information indicating potentially significant negative impacts to
water howellia from any other invasive species.
P. arundinacea is present in water howellia habitat in all States,
except California (Johnson 2017, per. comm.), but the extent of
invasion varies by site (Gilbert 2017, pers. comm.; Rule 2017, pers.
comm.; Shelly 2017, pers. comm.; Lesica 1997, pp. 367-368). Abundance
of P. arundinacea in ponds occupied by water howellia on Lewis-McChord
and the Turnbull Refuge has fluctuated through time, with no definitive
long-term trend, based on personal observation and long-term monitoring
(Gilbert 2017, pers. comm.; Rule 2017,
[[Page 53387]]
pers. comm.). In Montana, P. arundinacea exhibited a slight upward
trend in presence and abundance from long-term monitoring in 1998-2007
(USFS 2010, pp. 1-2), but increased distribution has not been detected
recently (Shelly 2017, pers. comm.). In Idaho, monitoring efforts have
not detected any decreases in pond size, which may act as a surrogate
for P. arundinacea colonization; however, detailed monitoring of P.
arundinacea has not been conducted (Lichthardt and Pekas 2017, p. 6).
Little is known about the extent of P. arundinacea invasion with regard
to the extent of occurrences in Oregon.
The mechanisms driving invasive potential of P. arundinacea within
water howellia habitats are unclear. The invasive potential may be due
to some sites being occupied by a native genotype of P. arundinacea and
other sites being occupied by a highly invasive variety (Lichthardt and
Pekas 2017, p. 8; Wiechmann 2014a, p. 31). Density of P. arundinacea is
a better determinant of impact to water howellia occurrences than
presence alone (Wiechmann 2014a, pp. 31, 34, 38). Additionally, P.
arundinacea was found to be dominant at shallower water depths and
water howellia dominant at deeper depths, suggesting that water
howellia is occupying a niche that P. arundinacea may be unable to
occupy (Wiechmann 2014a, p. 32).
Mechanical and chemical treatment efforts to decrease the abundance
and distribution of P. arundinacea have largely been successful across
the range of water howellia (TNC 2006, p. 65; Gilbert 2008, 2013, pers.
comm.; Lichthardt and Gray 2010, pp. 9, 14; Johnson 2011, pers. comm.).
In California, mechanical treatment has limited the spread of P.
arundinacea in ponds and wetlands adjacent to water howellia
occurrences, and chemical treatment is further reducing the size of P.
arundinacea patches (Johnson 2011, 2017, pers. comm.). Similarly,
consistent suppression of P. arundinacea at Lewis-McChord in Washington
has reduced patch sizes of P. arundinacea in the past (TNC 2006, p. 65;
Engler 2008, pers. comm.; Gilbert 2008, pers. comm.). Currently, no
suppression efforts are underway at Lewis-McChord, due to little change
in P. arundinacea distribution and the risk of harming water howellia
plants in the process (Gilbert 2017, pers. comm.). In Idaho, the
success of suppression efforts to limit abundance and distribution of
P. arundinacea were mixed (Lichthardt and Gray 2010, p. 9). However,
once suppression efforts were stopped, distribution and abundance of P.
arundinacea appeared to vary more with fluctuating environmental
conditions than with the presence of suppression effort (Lichthardt and
Gray 2010, p. 9). No suppression efforts to control or eradicate P.
arundinacea on the Turnbull Refuge in Washington are currently
underway; the species is present, but trends indicate variability in
abundance with fluctuating environmental conditions (Rule 2009, 2013a,
2017, pers. comm.). No suppression efforts of P. arundinacea have been
attempted in Montana.
A. calamus was identified by the State of Idaho as an invasive
species that may be displacing water howellia at one location (Idaho
Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) 2016, p. 3). Monitoring at this
location has been ongoing since 1999, and water howellia has not been
observed since 2001 (Lichthardt and Pekas 2017, p. 2). However, we are
unaware of any other water howellia occurrences being affected by A.
calamus. As a result, A. calamus is unlikely to become a threat to
water howellia.
Invasive plants can be aggressive and quickly displace natives in
some situations. While there are some small sites that may have been
completely or partially overtaken by invasive plants, water howellia
metapopulations appear to be holding their own in the face of invasive
species. This conclusion is reinforced by P. arundinacea coexisting
with extant water howellia occurrences; large-scale displacement of
water howellia by P. arundinaceae is not occurring in any of the
metapopulations (Swan Valley, MT; Turnbull Refuge and Lewis-McChord,
Washington), even in the absence of suppression efforts. Given the
absence of displacement of water howellia by P. arundinacea within the
three metapopulations of water howellia, and the success of existing
suppression efforts where they have been applied, we do not consider P.
arundinacea to be a significant threat to water howellia. We are also
unaware of any information indicating that any other invasive species
likely pose a threat to water howellia.
Land Management Activities
Land management activities that cause disturbance to vegetation
surrounding water howellia occurrences were identified as a threat to
the species in the 1994 final listing rule (59 FR 35860; July 14,
1994). Previous modeling efforts suggested that these activities,
singularly or in combination, could result in a loss of vegetation at
the pond fringe, disrupting the hydrological cycle and negatively
impacting the phenology of water howellia (Reeves and Woessner 2004,
pp. 10, 15). However, more recent evidence indicates that effects from
land management activities are no longer a threat to the species.
Most land management activities that could disturb vegetation
surrounding water howellia occurrences on State and Federal land are
now prohibited. For example, land management activities that could
disturb vegetation within 300 ft (91 m) of water howellia occurrences
on USFS lands in Montana and California are typically not allowed
because of standards and guidelines to protect the plant included in
USFS Forest Plans (USFS 1995, p. IV-32; USFS 1997, p. 17; Johnson 2013,
pers. comm.). Limited activities (including prescribed fire) may be
allowed within the 300-ft (91-m) buffer, but only if needed to maintain
the integrity of the buffer (USFS 1997, p. 17; Johnson 2013, pers.
comm.). As a result of these actions, abundance and distribution of
water howellia have remained stable in Montana's Swan Valley from 1978
to 2014 (Pipp 2017, p. 14). The Flathead National Forest (FNF) in
Montana developed a conservation strategy for water howellia on USFS
lands in 1994, and a second edition was finalized in 1997 (USFS 1997,
entire). Additionally, the FNF amended their Land and Resource
Management Plan (LRMP) in 1996, to provide measures specific to the
conservation and recovery of water howellia (USFS 1996, entire). On
State land in Montana, clear-cutting of timber and burning are
prohibited within defined buffers surrounding waterbodies (Montana Code
Annotated, p. 1). In Washington, wetlands containing water howellia on
the Turnbull Refuge are buffered by the distance from mechanical
thinning and prescribed fire used in treating conifer encroachment
(Rule 2009, pers. comm.). Timber harvest and prescribed fire were not
identified as potential threats to other water howellia occurrences in
Washington (USDOD 2006, entire; USDOD 2012, entire; USDOD 2017a,
entire; Anderson 2013, pers. comm.; Gilbert 2013, 2017, pers. comm.),
or occurrences in Oregon or Idaho (Currin 2013, pers. comm.; USFWS
2009, entire; IDFG 2016, entire).
Some disturbance of vegetation surrounding water howellia
occurrences from land management activities occurred historically,
prior to existing guidelines and standards in Federal land management
plans. For example, in Montana's Swan Valley, historical disturbances
caused from land management activities (e.g., timber harvest, thinning,
prescribed fire, road building, and grazing) have occurred in
[[Page 53388]]
vegetated buffers surrounding many of the existing water howellia
occurrences (Pipp 2017, p. 6). However, 79 percent of existing water
howellia occurrences in the Swan Valley have experienced at least one
historical disturbance event in the surrounding vegetation and are
still present, suggesting some tolerance of water howellia to buffer
disturbance. In addition, abundance or distribution of water howellia
in the Swan Valley has remained stable, despite these historical
disturbances from land management activities (Pipp 2017, p. 14).
Further, despite experiencing a stand-replacing fire in 2003, water
howellia occurrences occurring in the Crazy Horse area of the Swan
Valley continue to persist; buffer vegetation appears to have
recovered, and hydrology is adequately functioning (Pipp 2017, pp. 14-
15).
The effects of historic road building within vegetated buffers
surrounding water howellia occurrences have largely been mitigated on
Federal and State lands. Guidance established in the FNF LRMP and FNF
conservation strategy for water howellia have resulted in the
stabilization of roads to reduce sedimentation where they exist within
300 ft (91 m) of water howellia ponds in Montana (USFS 2001, p. II-46;
USFS 1997, p. 18). No effects of historic roads occurring within
vegetated buffers on water howellia in the Swan Valley were found in a
recent analysis (Pipp 2017, p. 16). Similarly, in California, small
spur roads are being closed and hydrologically stabilized in areas
occupied by water howellia on the Mendocino National Forest (MNF) to
minimize anthropogenic contribution to landscape instability per
direction in the MNF LRMP (USFS 1995, p. III-26; Johnson 2008, pers.
comm.). These conservation measures appear to be working in California,
as all seven known occurrences of water howellia are still extant. In
Idaho, the Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) is to avoid adverse
effects to wetlands during project implementation, and a Best
Management Practices Manual identifies measures to minimize any
potential effects during project implementation (ITD 2014, entire; ITD
2017, p. 1). The State of Idaho identified two water howellia
occurrences within 98 ft (30 m) of an established highway and expressed
concern about indirect effects of road work resulting in sedimentation
and, of less concern, potential removal of shade (IDFG 2016, p. 4).
However, we have no information of any potential effects that road work
may pose to this population. Roads were not cited as a threat to water
howellia occurrences in Washington or Oregon (USDOD 2006, entire; USDOD
2012, entire; USDOD 2017a, entire; USFWS 2007, entire; USFWS 2010;
entire; Anderson 2013, pers. comm.; Currin 2013, pers. comm.).
Land management activities (e.g., timber harvest, thinning, road
building, grazing, and prescribed fire) that disturb vegetation
surrounding water howellia occurrences were once considered a threat to
the species. However, most land management activities that have the
potential to disturb surrounding vegetation are prohibited by land
management plans or other Federal or State policy. Some of these
prohibitions were put in place a result of the species being listed,
but will remain in effect for the duration of the land management plan
or other policy, even if the species is delisted. Where disturbance of
vegetation from land management activities has occurred, water howellia
has shown some tolerance for disturbance and no downward trend in
abundance or distribution. Given that all three metapopulations
currently have conservation measures in place to avoid vegetative
buffer disturbance from land management activities and that water
howellia has shown some tolerance to disturbance when it occurs, we do
not consider land management activities to be a significant threat to
water howellia.
Trampling by Domestic Livestock
Trampling of water howellia by domestic livestock was cited as a
threat in the 1994 final listing rule for the species (59 FR 35860;
July 14, 1994). Direct effects of plant crushing, seed bank
disturbance, and alterations to substrate are likely to occur when
livestock enter and exit ponds and wetlands. In addition, increased
nutrient loading may be an indirect effect of livestock occupancy in
and near water howellia habitat. Many water howellia occurrences are
within habitats actively used by livestock. However, the level of
livestock-caused disturbance that water howellia can withstand is not
known and likely varies with site-specific conditions, as well as
timing, severity, and duration of cattle use of occupied water howellia
habitat.
The effects of trampling on water howellia occurrences on Federal
and State land have largely been mitigated with fencing, cattle
barricades, elimination of grazing in some areas occupied by water
howellia, or limitations on the duration of time livestock have access
to sensitive pond and wetland habitats (USFS 2002, p. 6; Mincemoyer
2005, p. 11; Johnson 2008, 2013, pers. comm.; Frymire 2017,
pers.comm.). In Montana, analyses of monitoring data spanning nearly 30
years have concluded that despite some grazing in occupied habitat, the
presence of water howellia has not been affected (Pipp 2017, p. 17).
Although no causal link was made between grazing levels and the
probability of water howellia presence in the Pipp (2017) analysis, it
appears that management actions implemented concurrently with grazing
have provided protections to water howellia habitat and allowed the
species to be conserved in Montana's Swan Valley (Pipp 2017, p. 17). In
California, specific grazing regimes near five occupied ponds within an
active grazing allotment on National Forest land appear to be
effective; monitoring indicates no effects to water howellia
occurrences from livestock trampling (Johnson 2013, pers. comm.). Two
other water howellia occurrences in California are within inactive
grazing allotments, where livestock are not currently present and not
expected to be present in the future (Johnson 2013, 2017, pers. comm.).
Trampling is not reported as a threat in Washington, Idaho, or Oregon
(USDOD 2006, entire; USDOD 2017a, entire; USFWS 2007, entire; USFWS
2010, entire; Currin 2013, pers. comm.; IDFG 2016, entire). It is
unknown where grazing may occur on the 37 occurrences on private
property. Therefore, the extent of trampling and other livestock-
related alterations to water howellia habitat on these private lands is
unknown. However, potential trampling effects from livestock on Federal
and State land have been largely mitigated.
Trampling of water howellia by domestic livestock is not a threat
to the species on Federal or State land at current grazing levels
because of mitigation measures being implemented, including riparian
fencing, cattle guards, and timely removal or relocation of livestock
from the sensitive pond and wetland habitats. We have no information
indicating levels of livestock use (and thus potential trampling) will
increase beyond current levels in the future. The severity and
frequency of trampling of water howellia occurrences on private land
are unknown, but as significantly fewer water howellia occurrences are
known from private lands, these impacts are likely not significant at
the species level. We conclude, based on the available information,
that trampling by domestic livestock is not a significant threat to
water howellia.
Habitat Loss From Urbanization and Dam Construction
Habitat loss from urbanization and dam construction occurred
historically,
[[Page 53389]]
particularly in Oregon, and was considered a threat to water howellia
at the time of listing in 1994. However, additional habitat loss from
urbanization and dam construction is no longer a threat to the species
because conservation strategies implemented following listing and
increased Federal ownership now provide additional protections (see
Conservation Efforts, above).
Direct habitat loss from urbanization and dam construction occurred
along the Columbia River in Oregon, and water howellia was thought to
be extirpated from that area prior to 2015 (USFWS 2017, entire; Norman
2010, pers. comm.). However, since then, two occurrences of water
howellia have been located in the Portland, Oregon, metro area (ORBIC
2017, unpaginated).
Most of the water howellia occurrences on corporate or private
lands in Montana were previously owned by Plum Creek Timber. In 2007,
approximately 67,000 ac (27,000 ha) of Plum Creek land in the Swan
Valley were sold to The Nature Conservancy (TNC) and Trust for Public
Land; ownership was then transferred to either the USFS or the State of
Montana (Swan Valley Connections 2017, entire). The 47 water howellia
occurrences and potential habitat that were formerly on Plum Creek land
are now protected from urbanization through either the FNF LRMP (USFS
1997, entire) or State agency direction for managing timberlands (DNRC
1996, p. 1). The FNF LRMP mandates avoidance of disturbance, including
urbanization, in forested buffers of a minimum of 300 ft (91 m) from
water howellia occurrences. The State of Montana manages its
timberlands for long-term revenue and biodiversity (DNRC 1996, p. 2)
and not for short-term revenue from selling timbered State lands and
the potential urbanization that may follow.
It is unknown if historical habitat loss occurred in California;
however, most known occurrences of water howellia are within USFS
lands, including some within designated wilderness areas (Johnson 2013,
pers. comm.). Therefore, no current or future threat of habitat loss
from urbanization is expected because any disturbance of vegetated
buffers surrounding water howellia ponds is prohibited under the LRMP
unless it is necessary to promote natural ecological and hydrological
function (USFS 1995, pp. IV-19, 35). It is unknown how urbanization has
affected the 37 water howellia occurrences on private land, but because
there are significantly fewer occurrences known from private lands,
these impacts are likely not significant at the species level.
In sum, habitat loss from urbanization and dam construction
occurred historically, particularly in Oregon, but is no longer
considered a significant threat. In Oregon, recent new discoveries of
water howellia suggest that the species has been able to remain extant
on the landscape where it was once considered extirpated. In areas
surrounding the extant, larger metapopulations, habitat loss from
urbanization and dam construction is not considered a threat to the
species because of conservation strategies and land transfers
implemented in Montana (USFS) and Washington (USDOD and USFWS).
Further, known habitat in California is largely within USFS lands,
including designated wilderness; thus, there is no significant threat
of habitat loss from urbanization or dam construction in California.
Summary of Factor A
The following stressors warranted consideration as possible current
or future threats to water howellia under Factor A: Invasive species,
land management activities, trampling by domestic livestock, and direct
habitat loss from urbanization or dam construction (59 FR 35860; July
14, 1994). However, these stressors have not occurred to the extent
anticipated at the time of listing in 1994, or the stressors are being
adequately managed, or the species is tolerant of the stressor as
described below.
Suppression efforts directed at P. arundinacea have
resulted in some success. Furthermore, water howellia occupies a
habitat niche that P. arundinacea appears unable to tolerate.
Consequently, water howellia occurrences are not currently being
displaced by P. arundinacea and we have no data to suggest that they
are being displaced by other invasive species.
Land management plans and conservation management
strategies have been adopted by Federal and State agencies to mitigate
the effects of land management activities on water howellia and are in
place for all three metapopulations. These plans vary in duration, but
are mandated by Federal and State law and are expected to continue to
provide protections to water howellia habitat into the future, even if
the species is delisted.
The installation of riparian fencing and cattle barricades
and the implementation of specific grazing routines have effectively
mitigated the effects of trampling on water howellia.
The extant metapopulations, as well as most occurrences in
California, are largely managed by Federal agencies that have
conservation strategies in place. Therefore, neither urbanization nor
dam construction is a threat to water howellia.
Limited information is available regarding the 37
occurrences (12 percent of known occurrences) that occur on private
property. Due to the low number of occurrences on private land relative
to Federal and State land, impacts are likely, not significant at the
species level.
Therefore, based on the available information, we do not consider
there to be any significant threats related to the present or
threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat or
range of water howellia.
B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
Overutilization, for any purpose, was not considered a threat in
the final rule to list water howellia (59 FR 35860; July 14, 1994). We
are not aware of any current utilization of water howellia for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes.
Regarding future utilization, interest has been expressed by the
Valencia Wetland Mitigation Bank in Priest River, Idaho, to collect
seed via soil plugs from vigorous water howellia occurrences for use in
establishing new occurrences where appropriate habitat exists
(Wiechmann 2014b, entire). Initially, a harvest of 5 to 7 soil plugs
from other Idaho occurrences has been proposed. It is unclear how
``vigorous'' populations have been defined in this context, although
any proposed collection of soil plugs would have to be permitted by the
Service, assuming a Federal nexus. The proposed project would be
beneficial if it created another occurrence of water howellia in
northern Idaho or had educational value. We are not aware of any other
current or future plans for utilization of the species. Therefore,
based on the available information, we find that there are no
significant threats to water howellia related to overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes.
C. Disease or Predation
Predation (herbivory) on water howellia by domestic livestock was
considered a threat in the final rule to list the species (59 FR 35860;
July 14, 1994). As described in more detail above under the Factor A
discussion, grazing is limited within the species' habitat, and the
persistence of water howellia in ponds accessible to livestock in the
Swan Valley metapopulation has not been affected
[[Page 53390]]
(Pipp 2017, p. 17). As a result, we conclude that predation does not
affect the species throughout its range at the population or species
level. We have no information suggesting levels of livestock grazing
will increase in the future. We are not aware of any issues or
potential stressors regarding disease or insect predation. Therefore,
based on the available information, we do not consider there to be any
significant threats to water howellia from disease or predation.
D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
Under this factor, we examine whether existing regulatory
mechanisms are inadequate to address the threats to water howellia
discussed under other factors. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act requires
the Service to take into account ``those efforts, if any, being made by
any State or foreign nation, or any political subdivision of a State or
foreign nation, to protect such species.'' In relation to Factor D
under the Act, we interpret this language to require us to consider
relevant Federal, State, and Tribal laws, regulations, and other such
mechanisms that may minimize any of the threats we describe in the
threats analyses under the other four factors or otherwise enhance
conservation of the species. We give the strongest weight to statutes
and their implementing regulations and to management direction that
stems from those laws and regulations; an example would be State
governmental actions enforced under a State statute or constitution or
Federal action under the statute.
For currently listed species, we consider the adequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms to address threats to the species absent the
protections of the Act. Therefore, we examine whether other regulatory
mechanisms would remain in place if the species were delisted, and the
extent to which those mechanisms will continue to help ensure that
future threats will be reduced or eliminated.
In our discussion under Factors A, B, C, and E, we evaluate the
significance of threats as mitigated by any conservation efforts and
existing regulatory mechanisms. Where threats exist, we analyze the
extent to which conservation measures and existing regulatory
mechanisms address the specific threats to the species. Regulatory
mechanisms, if they exist, may reduce or eliminate the impacts from one
or more identified threats.
Although inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms was not
specifically identified as a threat to water howellia at the time of
listing in 1994, we did mention the very limited number of protections
that existed for the species (59 FR 35860, July 14, 1994, see p. 59 FR
35862). Specifically, we discussed the designation of water howellia as
a sensitive species by the USFS and referred to wetland protection
measures provided under section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act (33
U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Food Security Act (16 U.S.C. 3801 et seq.), and
some State laws.
I. Federal
Clean Water Act
The Clean Water Act (CWA) was designed, in part, to protect surface
waters of the United States from unregulated pollution from point
sources. The CWA provides some benefit to water howellia through the
regulation of discharge into surface waters through a permitting
process; however, the historical threats to water howellia habitat have
not typically been associated with point sources of pollution, and
current information does not point to these as threats for occurrences
today.
Under section 404 of the CWA, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) regulates the discharge of fill material into waters of the
United States, including wetlands. In general, the term ``wetland''
refers to areas meeting the USACE's criteria of hydric soils, hydrology
(either sufficient annual flooding or water on the soil surface), and
hydrophytic vegetation (plants specifically adapted for growing in
wetlands). Some habitat occupied by water howellia is considered
isolated waters under the CWA. As a result of various Supreme Court
decisions, the CWA jurisdiction over isolated waters has been uncertain
and generally determined case-by-case. Further, federal agencies are
currently considering removing isolated waters from CWA jurisdiction
(82 FR 34899; July 27, 2017). Thus, the extent of water howellia
receiving the protections of the CWA now and in the future is
uncertain. However, the protections of the CWA to water howellia
habitat that is under CWA jurisdiction are expected to remain, without
the provisions of the Act.
Food Security Act
The Food Security Act was designed, in part, to protect wetlands by
removing incentives for farmers to convert wetlands into crop fields.
The Food Security Act likely provides some indirect protection of
potential water howellia habitats on private land, but not those on
Federal or State land. Although there are no data directly linking the
Food Security Act and water howellia, historically, it has been
demonstrated that the Food Security Act has had positive impacts on
wetland function (Gleason et al. 2011, p. S65). Although the future of
the Food Security Act in its current form is uncertain, any protections
afforded to wetlands would infer benefit to water howellia should the
species be present.
National Environmental Policy Act
Environmental review of potential effects of Federal actions is
mandated under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C.
4321 et seq.). When NEPA analysis reveals significant environmental
effects, the Federal agencies must disclose those effects to the public
and consider mitigation that could offset the effects. These
mitigations usually provide some protections for listed species.
However, the NEPA does not require that adverse impacts be mitigated,
only disclosed. Therefore, it is unclear what level of protection would
be conveyed to water howellia through NEPA, in the absence of
protections under the Act.
National Forest Management Act
Federal activities on USFS lands are subject to the National Forest
Management Act of 1976 (NFMA; 16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). The NFMA
requires the development and implementation of resource management
plans that guide the maintenance of ecological conditions that support
natural distributions and abundance of species and not contribute to
their extirpation.
Water howellia is given consideration as a federally listed species
by Federal agencies, and, if delisted, it would likely continue to be
included on the sensitive species list for the USFS, as it was at the
time of listing (59 FR 35860; July 14, 1994). Under the 2012 National
Forest System land planning rule (77 FR 21162; April 9, 2012), the
status given is ``species of conservation concern,'' and direction is
given to provide ecological conditions necessary to maintain viable
populations of species of conservation concern (Hayward et al. 2016, p.
8). Currently, the FNF in Montana is in the process of revising their
LRMP, and the MNF in California anticipates revising their plan in the
near future. The USFS anticipates that water howellia will be given the
status of ``species of conservation concern'' in both plans, even if
the species is delisted (Shelley 2016, pers. comm.; Johnson 2017, pers.
comm.). Special status species policies (USFS manual, section 2670, p.
4) detail the need to conserve these species and the
[[Page 53391]]
ecosystems on which they depend on using all methods and procedures
necessary to improve the condition of these species and their habitats
to a point where their special status recognition is no longer
warranted. The FNF adopted a plan specific to guiding conservation of
the known water howellia occurrences on Federal land in Montana, and
guidance provided in the MNF LRMP has resulted in the use of buffer
strips to protect riparian species and function surrounding occupied
ponds in California. Both the FNF plan and MNF policy are expected to
continue to be implemented if we delist water howellia, based on
discussions with the USFS (see Conservation Efforts and A. The Present
or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of Its Habitat
or Range, above).
Federal Land Policy and Management Act
Similar to NFMA, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (43
U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) applies to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
with regard to the conservation and use of public lands under their
management. Water howellia is given consideration as a federally listed
species by Federal agencies, and if delisted, would likely be included
on the sensitive species list for the BLM as it was at the time of
listing (59 FR 35860; July 14, 1994). Special status species policies
(BLM manual, section 6840, p. 37) detail the need to conserve these
species and the ecosystems on which they depend using all methods and
procedures which are necessary to improve the condition of special
status species and their habitat to a point where their special status
recognition is no longer warranted. The one occurrence of water
howellia in Washington on BLM land makes the existence of the plant
vulnerable to localized actions. However, application of best
management practices (BMPs) consistent with resource management plan
(RMP) direction appears to have maintained this occurrence since 1993
(Frymire 2017, pers. comm.). The implementation of BMPs is expected to
continue in the absence of protections under the Act because the
current RMP (which requires BMPs) will still be the guiding land
management document into the future.
Sikes Act
Water howellia occurrences and habitats on Federal military
installations (Lewis-McChord in Pierce County, Washington) are managed
under an INRMP (USDOD 2006, pp. 4-6; USDOD 2017, p. X-X) authorized by
the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a et seq.). Protections for water howellia
habitat in the INRMP include restrictions on motorized equipment and
military training activities in wetlands occupied by water howellia. In
concert with the INRMP, Lewis-McChord has developed an Endangered
Species Management Plan for water howellia that establishes
conservation goals, management prescriptions, and monitoring efforts
(USDOD 2012, entire). These protections would be expected to continue
in the absence of protections under the Act because the Sikes Act
mandates USDOD to conserve and rehabilitate wildlife, fish, and game on
military reservations.
National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act
As directed by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act
(Pub. L. 105-57, 16 U.S.C. 668dd), Refuge managers have the authority
and responsibility to protect native ecosystems, fulfill the purposes
for which an individual refuge was founded, and implement strategies to
achieve the goals and objectives stated in management plans. For
example, Turnbull Refuge (Spokane County, Washington) includes
extensive habitat for water howellia, including 35 known occupied
sites. The National Wildlife Refuge's comprehensive conservation plan
(CCP) is a land management plan with a 15-year term that directs
protection of these habitats and identifies specific objectives
relative to research and monitoring, invasive species management, and
education regarding water howellia (USFWS 2007, p. 2-22). Given the 15-
year timeframe of CCPs, these protections would remain in place until
2022 regardless of water howellia Federal listing status.
Ridgefield National Wildlife Refuge in western Washington finalized
a CCP in 2010, which included several conservation strategies for water
howellia. These strategies included allowing natural flood-up and
various methods (e.g., mechanical, biological, chemical) for invasive
species control (USFWS 2010, pp. 2-37, 2-54). Given the 15-year
timeframe of CCPs, protections outlined in the Ridgefield National
Wildlife Refuge CCP for water howellia are expected to remain in place
until 2025 regardless of water howellia Federal listing status.
In addition to specific protections for water howellia provided
under CCPs, the species is permanently protected by the mission of all
National Wildlife Refuges to manage their lands and waters for the
conservation of fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats.
II. State
Montana Streamside Management Zone Act
The Montana Streamside Management Zone Act (SMZ), in part,
designates vegetated buffer strips around surface waters, including
wetlands adjacent to streams (and thus potential water howellia
habitat), within the boundaries of timber harvest units in Montana. The
SMZ law covers Federal, State, and private commercial timber practices
(Montana Code Annotated 2009, p. 1). The SMZ law specifically prohibits
slash fill of wetlands, off-road vehicle use, and clear cutting within
50 ft (15 m) of water bodies (Administrative Rules of Montana 2007, p.
7). There are no buffer strips designated for isolated wetlands (those
not adjacent to a stream/river) under the SMZ and only voluntary
restrictions on equipment travel through isolated wetlands. Although
unclear, some water howellia occurrences in Montana's Swan Valley may
occur in isolated wetlands. Thus, the direct loss of habitat or plants
for a small number of occurrences from timber harvest activities is a
possibility if water howellia plants occupy isolated wetlands within a
timber harvest unit. However, audits of timber sale practices conducted
by interdisciplinary review teams have consistently documented few
violations of the SMZ law and generally high compliance (>90%) with
voluntary regulations in the recent past (Montana DNRC 2016, entire).
Thus, while there is potential for water howellia habitat to be lost
for occurrences in isolated wetlands, the magnitude of the stressor
appears small. As State law, the protections of the SMZ are expected to
continue if we delist water howellia.
Montana State Comprehensive Fish and Wildlife Strategy
This conservation strategy identifies focus areas, community types,
species, and inventory needs along with their conservation concerns and
strategies in Montana (Montana FWP 2005, p. 170). The emphasis of the
strategy is conserving a broad range of species and habitats, not just
game species and their habitats. The Swan Valley (site of the Montana
water howellia metapopulation) is designated a ``Terrestrial
Conservation Focus Area in Greatest Need.'' Multiple conservation
strategies include riparian area conservation, conservation easement
planning, sustainable land management practices, and weed control
[[Page 53392]]
partnerships. However, implementation of these conservation actions is
dependent on State wildlife grants--funds that have an uncertain
future. For this reason, it is unlikely these conservation strategies
could be relied upon to protect the 14 ponds occupied by water howellia
on State land in Montana if we delist water howellia.
Washington Natural Heritage Plan
Washington State's Natural Heritage Plan identifies priorities for
preserving natural diversity, including wetlands, in Washington State
(Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR) 2007, 2011, entire).
The progressive plan aids Washington DNR in conserving key habitats
that are currently imperiled or expected to be in the future. The
prioritization of conservation efforts provided by this plan is
expected to remain in place if we delist water howellia; however, the
effects of plan implementation on water howellia would depend upon
whether habitat for water howellia was part of a conservation effort.
Washington Forest Practices Act
Washington State's Forest Practices Act, and associated regulations
and rules, (Washington Annotated Code 2008, p. 30-3) provides
protection of wetlands from the fill and cutting that could result from
commercial timber harvest operations. Minimum buffers of 25 ft (8 m)
are designated around ponds and wetlands inside timber sale boundaries,
effectively prohibiting most harvest and all heavy equipment used in
these areas. These buffers protect water howellia habitat from
disturbance and minimize impacts to water quality. As State law, these
protections are expected to remain in place if we delist water
howellia.
Oregon Senate Bill (SB) 533/Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) 564
Oregon SB 533/ORS 564 requires non-Federal public agencies to
protect State-listed plant species found on their lands (Oregon Revised
Statute 2009, entire). Any land action on Oregon non-Federal public
lands which results, or might result, in the taking of an endangered or
threatened species requires consultation with the Oregon Department of
Agriculture (ODA) staff. Removal of Federal protections for water
howellia would remove State protection of the species under this
statute since water howellia was never formally listed by ODA. However,
protections are expected to remain in place due to other rare,
sensitive plant species in the area inhabited by water howellia and the
commitment of the Metro (Portland-area regional government) to protect
the only known occurrences of water howellia in Oregon (Currin 2013,
pers. comm.).
III. Summary of Factor D
As discussed above and under the other factors, conservation
measures and existing regulatory mechanisms (such as Federal and State
land management plans and conservation strategies) have minimized, and
are continuing to minimize, the previously identified threats of
invasive species, land management activities (primarily timber harvest
and road building), trampling by domestic livestock, and direct habitat
loss from urbanization or dam construction to all three water howellia
metapopulations. As indicated above, we anticipate that the majority of
these mechanisms will remain in place regardless of the species'
Federal listing status. Consequently, we find that conservation
measures, along with existing regulatory mechanisms, are adequate to
address these specific stressors.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence
Factor E requires the Service to consider any other factors that
may be affecting water howellia. Under this factor, we discuss: (1) The
narrow ecological requirements of the species in the context of climate
change, (2) small population size/low genetic diversity, and (3) the
potential for cumulative effects of stressors.
Narrow Ecological Requirements/Climate Change
Here we consider the narrow ecological requirements of water
howellia in the context of observed or projected changes in climate.
The 1994 listing rule (59 FR 35860; July 14, 1994) did not discuss the
potential impacts of climate change on water howellia. The terms
``climate'' and ``climate change'' are defined by the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The term ``climate'' refers to the mean
and variability of relevant quantities (i.e., temperature,
precipitation, wind) over time, with 30 years being a typical period
for such measurements, although shorter or longer periods also may be
used (IPCC 2014, pp. 119-120). The term ``climate change'' thus refers
to a change in the mean or variability of one or more measures of
climate (e.g., temperature or precipitation) that persists for an
extended period, typically decades or longer, whether the change is due
to internal processes or anthropogenic changes (IPCC 2014, p. 120).
Scientific measurements spanning several decades demonstrate that
changes in climate are occurring. In particular, warming of the climate
system is unequivocal, and many of the observed changes in the last 60
years are unprecedented over decades to millennia (IPCC 2014, p. 2).
The current rate of climate change may be as fast as any extended
warming period over the past 65 million years and is projected to
accelerate in the next 30 to 80 years (National Research Council 2013,
p. 5). Thus, rapid climate change is adding to other sources of
extinction pressures, such as land use and invasive species, which will
likely place extinction rates in this era among just a handful of the
severe biodiversity crises observed in Earth's geological record (AAAS
2014, p. 7).
Examples of various other observed and projected changes in climate
and associated effects and risks, and the basis for them, are provided
for global and regional scales in recent reports issued by the IPCC
(2013c, 2014), and similar types of information for the United States
and regions within it can be found in the National Climate Assessment
(Melillo et al. 2014, entire).
Results of scientific analyses presented by the IPCC show that most
of the observed increase in global average temperature since the mid-
20th century cannot be explained by natural variability in climate
alone and is ``very likely'' (defined by the IPCC as 95 percent or
higher probability) due to the observed increase in greenhouse gas
(GHG) concentrations in the atmosphere as a result of human activities,
particularly carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel use (IPCC 2014,
pp. 47-48; see also Walsh et al. 2014, pp. 20-24). Further confirmation
of the role of GHGs comes from analyses by Huber and Knutti (2012, p.
31), who concluded GHGs contributed 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit (0.85
degrees Celsius) of warming since the mid-20th century and that it was
extremely unlikely that internal variability contributed.
Scientists use a variety of climate models, which include
consideration of natural processes and variability, as well as various
scenarios of potential levels and timing of GHG emissions, to evaluate
the causes of changes already observed and to project future changes in
temperature and other climate conditions. Model results yield very
similar projections of average global warming until about 2030.
Thereafter, the magnitude and rate of warming vary through the end of
the century depending on the assumptions about population levels,
emissions of GHGs, and other factors that influence climate
[[Page 53393]]
change. Thus, absent extremely rapid stabilization of GHGs at a global
level, there is strong scientific support for projections that warming
will continue through the 21st century, and that the magnitude and rate
of change will be influenced substantially by human actions regarding
GHG emissions (IPCC 2013b, 2014; entire).
Global climate projections are informative, and in some cases, the
only or the best scientific information available for us to use.
However, projected changes in climate and related impacts can vary
substantially across and within different regions of the world (e.g.,
IPCC 2013c, 2014; entire) and within the United States (Melillo et al.
2014, entire). Therefore, we use ``downscaled'' projections when they
are available and have been developed through appropriate scientific
procedures, because such projections provide higher resolution
information that is more relevant to spatial scales used for analyses
of a given species (see Glick et al. 2011, pp. 58-61, for a discussion
of downscaling).
Various changes in climate may have direct or indirect effects on
species. These may be positive, neutral, or negative, and they may
change over time, depending on the species and other relevant
considerations, such as interactions of climate with other variables
like habitat fragmentation (IPCC 2014, p. 67; for additional examples,
see Franco et al. 2006; Forister et al. 2010; Galbraith et al. 2014;
Chen et al. 2011; Bertelsmeier et al. 2013, entire). Identifying likely
effects often involves aspects of climate change vulnerability
analysis. Vulnerability to climate change has three principle
components: Sensitivity, exposure, and adaptive capacity (Glick et al.
2011; Dawson et al. 2011). Sensitivity is the degree to which a system
is affected, either adversely or beneficially, by climate-related
stimuli (U.S. CCSP 2008b as cited by Glick et al. 2011). Exposure is
the nature and degree to which a system is exposed to significant
climate variations (IPCC 2001b as cited by Glick et al. 2011). Adaptive
capacity is the ability of a system to adjust to climate change
(including climate variability and extremes) to moderate potential
damages, to take advantage of opportunities, or to cope with the
consequences (IPCC 2001b as cited by Glick et al. 2011). There is no
single method for conducting such analyses that applies to all
situations (Glick et al. 2011, p. 3). We use our expert judgment and
appropriate analytical approaches to weigh relevant information,
including uncertainty, in our consideration of various aspects of
climate change.
As is the case with all stressors that we assess, even if we
conclude that a species is currently affected or is likely to be
affected in a negative way by one or more climate-related impacts, it
does not necessarily follow that the species meets the definition of an
``endangered species'' or a ``threatened species'' under the Act. If a
species is listed as endangered or threatened, knowledge regarding the
vulnerability of the species to, and known or anticipated impacts from,
climate-associated changes in environmental conditions can be used to
help devise appropriate strategies for its recovery.
Climate change trends predicted for the Pacific Northwest (Oregon,
Washington, Idaho, and Montana) broadly consist of an increase in
annual average temperature; an increase in extreme precipitation
events; and, with less certainty, variability in annual precipitation
(Dalton et al. 2013, pp. 31-38, Figure 1.1; Snover et al. 2013, pp. 5-
1-5-4). Lee et al. (2015) describe potential hydrological changes in
response to predicted climate change on montane wetlands in the Pacific
Northwest. These observations appear to vary with local conditions and
include earlier drawdown, more rapid drying out in the summer, and
reduced minimum water levels. We do not have a clear understanding of
how water howellia responds to a diversity of temperature and
precipitation changes, although the species has persisted in spite of
rising temperatures and increasing variability in precipitation across
its range over the past several decades (Shelly et al. 2016, entire).
A potential increase in precipitation as a result of climate change
may affect the species in several ways. First, increases in
precipitation may increase the surface area of existing ponds and
wetlands, or create new ones. These new habitats would be available for
colonization by water howellia and could increase the range and
resiliency of the species. However, new habitats would also be
available to invasive species such as P. arundinacea and may also
promote their expansion on the landscape. An important factor in
increased habitat would likely be the site-specific conditions within
each habitat; new habitat with deeper water and longer periods of
inundation would likely preclude the establishment of P. arundinacea
and be beneficial to water howellia. Conversely, the creation of
shallower habitat may favor P. arundinacea. Another possible effect of
increased precipitation may be the alteration of the hydrologic cycle
of water howellia habitats. Specifically, these habitats may fill
earlier (with heavier spring rainfall) and dry later in the season than
they did historically, thereby reducing the timing window for air
exposure needed for seed germination of water howellia in late summer
and autumn.
Alternatively, a potential decrease in precipitation as a result of
climate change also may affect water howellia in several ways.
Decreases in precipitation may result in water levels that are too low
to support the submergent flower production. Additionally, earlier
drawdowns and the faster receding of water in these wetlands as a
result of decreased precipitation may ultimately limit the continued
persistence of ephemeral ponds. This could provide an opportunity for
expansion of P. arundinacea and other invasive species. On the other
hand, amplified drying may allow for increased germination and
expansion of water howellia. Another scenario of decreased
precipitation is that the hydrological cycles could be altered in a way
that would favor water howellia. Ponds that were previously perennial
could potentially become ephemeral in nature, providing the wetting and
drying cycle necessary for water howellia reproduction and,
consequently, additional habitat for the species to occupy. Again, the
site-specific conditions for each habitat would be an important factor.
Changes in precipitation from snow to rain may also affect water
howellia, particularly in the southernmost occurrences (e.g.,
California) (California DWR 2013, p. 22). More precipitation falling as
rain rather than snow would likely alter the hydrologic cycle within
these habitats. These alterations could include faster drying of
wetlands than was observed historically, due to a lack of spring run-
off from snow fields and increased annual air temperature. More
frequent extreme precipitation events are predicted for California
(California DWR 2013, p. 23). The effect of more extreme precipitation
events on water howellia habitat in California is unclear, especially
given the potential for interactions among precipitation and other
environmental variables predicted to change (e.g., reduced snowpack,
increased annual air temperature).
The ability of water howellia to self-fertilize and produce seeds
at both the early season submergent and later season emergent forms may
be an advantage to surviving lengthened, shortened, or generally more
inconsistent growing seasons than occurred historically. Seed
production from both flower forms in one growing
[[Page 53394]]
season may increase the opportunity for surviving subsequent inclement
years. It is uncertain how increases in water temperature and increased
evaporation due to increased ambient temperatures would affect growth
and reproduction of water howellia; however, climate conditions that
restrict the dual seed production and seed banking could reduce the
ability of water howellia to persist over time.
Associated wetland vegetation that positively contributes to
suitable microclimates for water howellia could be altered by predicted
variance in temperatures and precipitation. An increase in daily
temperatures paired with a decrease in precipitation could potentially
result in stressed and dying vegetation, which could result in an
increased risk of wildfire, insect pathogens such as pine bark beetles,
an increase in noxious or invasive weeds, and an increase in
atmospheric carbon dioxide levels that could accelerate natural
ecological succession. The loss of vegetation around ponds from
wildfire or other events could accelerate sedimentation, resulting in
the loss of water howellia occurrences. Montana and eastern Washington
occurrences of water howellia could be more resilient to these
processes than other occurrences because of their distribution over a
larger landscape with many separate occurrences. Increasing
temperatures combined with increased demand for ground and surface
water for human development may compound negative impacts to water
howellia in eastern Washington and northern Idaho. Climate-induced
effects on water howellia may appear first in California, as these
occurrences are at the southern edge of the known range. However, these
effects may be buffered by the higher elevation (approximately 3,800
ft/1,158 m) at which the California occurrences are found compared to
elsewhere in the range (western Washington: Approximately 15 ft/5m).
Predicted environmental changes resulting from climate change may
have both positive and negative effects on water howellia, depending on
the extent and type of impact and depending on site-specific conditions
within each habitat type. The primary predicted negative effect is the
alteration of hydrologic regimes potentially resulting in inconsistent
growing seasons. This effect will likely be buffered by the ability of
water howellia to produce seeds during both early and late seasons.
Predicted environmental effects that may be positive for water howellia
include increased habitat, seed dispersal, and species distribution in
some areas, including within the three metapopulations due to predicted
increases in precipitation across the northern range of the species
(IPCC 2014, p. 61). The intact nature and current spatial arrangement
(geographically diverse and at varying elevations) of the three large
metapopulations will likely provide more resilience to climate change
than the smaller, isolated occurrences. Effects of potential
composition shifts in vegetation surrounding water howellia occurrences
as a result of climate change are unknown.
In summary, climate change is affecting and will continue to affect
temperature and precipitation events. The extent, duration, and impact
of those changes are unknown, but could potentially increase or
decrease precipitation in some areas. Water howellia may experience
climate change-related effects in the future, most likely at the
individual or local population level. Regional occurrences may
experience some shifts. However, it is anticipated that the
metapopulations important to the viability of the species would
continue to persist because of resiliency due to geographic and
elevational diversity. Available information indicates the species is
adaptable to variable conditions. Therefore, based upon available
information, we conclude that climate change is not a significant
threat to water howellia.
Small Population Size/Low Genetic Diversity
The final rule to list water howellia (59 FR 35860; July 14, 1994)
cited small population size and lack of genetic variation within and
among occurrences as a contributor to its vulnerability. Small
occurrences with low genetic diversity could limit a species' or
population's ability to respond to novel changes in its environment,
necessitating redundancy of occurrences across larger areas to increase
the probability of survival. At the time of listing in 1994, the only
genetic investigation of the species showed very low genetic diversity
within and among occurrences in Washington and Montana (Lesica et al.
1988, p. 278). More current genetic results indicate greater genetic
diversity within and among occurrences than previously thought;
however, diversity is still relatively low (Brunsfeld and Baldwin 1998,
p. 2; Schierenbeck and Phipps 2010, p. 5). Additionally, one genetic
investigation documented that all occurrences are distantly related and
that gene flow is likely occurring between the States (Schierenbeck and
Phipps 2010, p. 6).
The relatively low genetic diversity of water howellia across its
current range may limit the species' ability to respond to
environmental changes. However, gene flow is occurring among
occurrences, and the redundancy of smaller occurrences across the
species' range may mitigate for reduced genetic plasticity within
individual occurrences (i.e., the lower genetic representation may be
mitigated by higher geographic representation). The current spatial
arrangement of small occurrences is favorable to the species' long-term
persistence because these occurrences are at different elevations and
within varying climatic regimes (see discussion under ``Narrow
Ecological Requirements/Climate Change,'' above). Thus, we do not
consider small population size or low genetic diversity to be a
significant threat to water howellia.
Cumulative Effects of All Stressors
Many of the stressors faced by water howellia are interrelated and
could work in concert with each other, resulting in a cumulative
adverse effect on the species. For example, stressors discussed under
Factor A that individually do not rise to the level of a threat could
together result in habitat loss. Similarly, small population size in
combination with stressors discussed under Factor A could present a
potential concern.
Climate change is occurring across the range of the species,
coinciding with all other identified stressors. As described
previously, variations in climatic conditions may favor or preclude
invasive species, depending on site-specific habitat factors. Also
described previously, climate change may alter hydrological cycles.
However, despite changing climate conditions, water howellia has
persisted across its range. Analysis of nearly 30 years of data on
water howellia occurrences in the Swan Valley indicates the species has
persisted even with climate change interacting with other potential
stressors (Pipp 2017, entire). This suggests that the cumulative
effects of climate change and other stressors are not meaningful at the
metapopulation level, nor at the species level. Nevertheless, we
recognize that there are uncertainties associated with climate change
predictions; ongoing management and monitoring of water howellia (via
the PDM plan) is designed to detect potential future changes in the
species' distribution and abundance.
There may be locations of water howellia occurrences where invasive
species are present, and cattle have access to occupied ponds. Grazing
may
[[Page 53395]]
limit the expansion of invasive species in these instances. Otherwise,
we are not aware of particular locations within water howellia
occurrences where multiple stressors occur. Also, we do not anticipate
stressors to increase on federally managed lands, which afford
protection to the species in the most occupied habitat. Furthermore,
the documented increases in the abundance and distribution of the
species since it was listed in 1994 do not support a conclusion that
cumulative effects pose a threat to the species. Therefore, we
conclude, based on the available information, that cumulative effects
are not a significant threat to water howellia.
Summary of Factor E
Given the lack of threats within water howellia occurrences and
increases in abundance and distribution since listing in 1994, we
conclude that climate change, small population size and low genetic
diversity, and cumulative effects are not significant threats to water
howellia.
Proposed Determination of Species Status
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing
regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for determining
whether a species meets the definition of ``endangered species'' or
``threatened species.'' The Act defines an ``endangered species'' as a
species that is ``in danger of extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range,'' and a ``threatened species'' as a
species that is ``likely to become an endangered species within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its
range.'' The Act requires that we determine whether a species meets the
definition of ``endangered species'' or ``threatened species'' because
of any of the following 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.
Determination of Status Throughout All of Water Howellia's Range
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
to water howellia including invasive species (Factor A), land
management activites (Factor A), trampling by domestic livestock
(Factor A), direct habitat loss from urbanization or dam construction
(Factor A), narrow ecological requirements of the species in the
context of climate change (Factor E), predation (herbivory) by domestic
livestock (Factor C), small population size/low genetic variation
(Factor E), and cumulative effects of stressors (Factor E). Based on
the best available information, and as described in our five-factor
analysis, above, the identified stressors fall into one or more of the
following categories:
Stressors that have not occurred to the extent anticipated
at the time of listing and existing information indicates that this
will not change in the future (trampling by domestic livestock,
predation (herbivory), direct habitat loss from urbanization).
Stressors that are adequately managed and existing
information indicates that this will not change in the future (invasive
species, land management activities).
Stressors for which the species is tolerant and existing
information indicates that this will not change in the future (narrow
ecological requirements, small population size/low genetic variation,
climate change, cumulative effects).
Thus, our analysis of this information indicates that these
stressors are not of sufficient imminence, intensity, or magnitude to
indicate that water howellia is in danger of extinction or likely to
become so within the foreseeable future throughout all of its range.
Therefore, after assessing the best available information, we conclude
that water howellia is not in danger of extinction throughout all of
its range nor is it likely to become so in the foreseeable future.
Because we determined that water howellia is not in danger of
extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future throughout
all of its range, we will consider whether there are any significant
portions of its range in which water howellia is in danger of
extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future.
Determination of Status Throughout a Significant Portion of Water
Howellia's Range
Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may
warrant listing if it is in danger of extinction or likely to become so
in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of
its range (SPR). Where the best available information allows the
Services to determine a status for the species rangewide, that
determination should be given conclusive weight because a rangewide
determination of status more accurately reflects the species' degree of
imperilment and better promotes the purposes of the Act. Under this
reading, we should first consider whether the species warrants listing
``throughout all'' of its range and proceed to conduct a ``significant
portion of its range'' analysis if, and only if, a species does not
qualify for listing as either an endangered or a threatened species
according to the ``throughout all'' language.
Having determined that the water howellia is not in danger of
extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future throughout
all of its range, we now consider whether it may be in danger of
extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future in an SPR.
The range of a species can theoretically be divided into portions in an
infinite number of ways, so we first screen the potential portions of
the species' range to determine if there are any portions that warrant
further consideration. To do the ``screening'' analysis, we ask whether
there are portions of the species' range for which there is substantial
information indicating that: (1) The portion may be significant; and,
(2) the species may be, in that portion, either in danger of extinction
or likely to become so in the foreseeable future. For a particular
portion, if we cannot answer both questions in the affirmative, then
that portion does not warrant further consideration and the species
does not warrant listing because of its status in that portion of its
range. We emphasize that answering these questions in the affirmative
is not a determination that the species is in danger of extinction or
likely to become so in the foreseeable future throughout a significant
portion of its range--rather, it is it is a step in determining whether
a more detailed analysis of the issue is required.
If we answer these questions in the affirmative, we then conduct a
more thorough analysis to determine whether the portion does indeed
meet both of the SPR prongs: (1) The portion is significant and (2) the
species is, in that portion, either in danger of extinction or likely
to become so in the foreseeable future. Confirmation that a portion
does indeed meet one of these prongs does not create a presumption,
prejudgment, or other determination as to whether the species is an
endangered species or threatened species. Rather, we must then
undertake a more detailed analysis of the other prong to make that
determination. Only if the portion does indeed meet both SPR prongs
would the species warrant listing because of its status in a
significant portion of its range.
[[Page 53396]]
At both stages in this process--the stage of screening potential
portions to identify any portions that warrant further consideration
and the stage of undertaking the more detailed analysis of any portions
that do warrant further consideration--it might be more efficient for
us to address the ``significance'' question or the ``status'' question
first. Our selection of which question to address first for a
particular portion depends on the biology of the species, its range,
and the threats it faces. Regardless of which question we address
first, if we reach a negative answer with respect to the first question
that we address, we do not need to evaluate the second question for
that portion of the species' range.
For water howellia, we chose to evaluate the status question (i.e.,
identifying portions where the water howellia may be in danger of
extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future) first. To
conduct this screening, we considered whether the threats are
geographically concentrated in any portion of the species' range at a
biologically meaningful scale. If a species is not in danger of
extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future throughout
all of its range and the threats to the species are essentially uniform
throughout its range, then the species would not have a greater level
of imperilment in any portion of its range than it does throughout all
of its range and therefore no portions would qualify as an SPR.
We examined the following threats: Invasive species, land
management activities, trampling by domestic livestock, direct habitat
loss from urbanization or dam construction, narrow ecological
requirements of the species in the context of climate change, predation
(herbivory) by domestic livestock, small population size/low genetic
variation, and the cumulative effects of these threats. We found no
concentration of threats in any portion of the water howellia's range
at a biologically meaningful scale. Since we found no portions of the
species' range where threats are significantly concentrated or
substantially greater than in other portions of its range, we did not
identify any portions where the species may be in danger of extinction
or likely to become so in the foreseeable future. Therefore, no
portions warrant further consideration through a more detailed
analysis, and the species is not in danger of extinction or likely to
become so in the foreseeable future in any significant portion of its
range. Our approach to analyzing SPR in this determination is
consistent with the court's holding in Desert Survivors v. Department
of the Interior, No. 16-cv-01165-JCS, 2018 WL 4053447 (N.D. Cal. Aug.
24, 2018).
Our review of the best available scientific and commercial
information indicates that the water howellia is not in danger of
extinction nor likely to become an endangered species within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its
range. Therefore, we find that the water howellia does not meet the
definition of an endangered species or a threatened species, and we
propose to remove the species from the List.
Determination of Status
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
to water howellia. After review and analysis of the information
regarding stressors as related to the five statutory factors, we find
that the ongoing stressors are not of sufficient imminence, intensity,
or magnitude to indicate that this species is presently in danger of
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
Additionally, no threats exist currently, nor are any potential
stressors expected to rise to the level, that would likely cause the
species to become in danger of extinction in the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of the species' range. Because
the species is neither in danger of extinction now nor likely to become
so in the foreseeable future throughout all or any significant portion
of its range, the species does not meet the definition of an endangered
species or threatened species under the Act. As a consequence of this
determination, we find that water howellia no longer requires the
protection of the Act, and we propose to remove the species from the
Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Plants.
Effects of the Rule
This proposal, if made final, would revise 50 CFR 17.12(h) to
remove water howellia from the Federal List of Endangered and
Threatened Plants. Because no critical habitat was ever designated for
this species, this rule will not affect 50 CFR 17.96.
The prohibitions and conservation measures provided by the Act,
particularly through sections 7 and 9, would no longer apply to this
species. Federal agencies would no longer be required to consult with
the Service under section 7 of the Act in the event that activities
they authorize, fund, or carry out may affect water howellia.
Post-Delisting Monitoring
Section 4(g)(1) of the Act requires us, in cooperation with the
States, to implement a monitoring program for not less than 5 years for
all species that have been delisted due to recovery. The purpose of
this requirement is to develop a program that detects the failure of
any delisted species to sustain itself without the protective measures
provided by the Act. If at any time during the monitoring period, data
indicate that protective status under the Act should be reinstated, we
can initiate listing procedures, including, if appropriate, emergency
listing.
We are proposing to delist water howellia based on new information
we have received as well as conservation actions taken. Since delisting
would be, in part, due to conservation taken by stakeholders, we have
prepared a draft post-delisting monitoring (PDM) plan for water
howellia. The draft PDM plan discusses the current status of the taxon
and describes the methods proposed for monitoring if we delist the
taxon. The draft PDM plan: (1) Summarizes the status of water howellia
at the time of proposed delisting; (2) describes frequency and duration
of monitoring; (3) discusses monitoring methods and potential sampling
regimes; (4) defines what potential triggers will be evaluated to
address the need for additional monitoring; (5) outlines reporting
requirements and procedures; (6) proposes a schedule for implementing
the PDM plan; and (7) defines responsibilities. It is our intent to
work with our partners towards maintaining the recovered status of
water howellia. We will seek public and peer reviewer comments on the
draft PDM plan, including its objectives and procedures (see Document
availability and Information Requested, above), with the publication of
this proposed rule.
Required Determinations
Clarity of the Rule
We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the
Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain
language. This means that each rule we publish must:
(1) Be logically organized;
(2) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(3) Use clear language rather than jargon;
(4) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
(5) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us
comments by one
[[Page 53397]]
of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To better help us revise the rule,
your comments should be as specific as possible. For example, you
should tell us the numbers of the sections or paragraphs that are
unclearly written, which sections or sentences are too long, the
sections where you feel lists or tables would be useful, etc.
National Environmental Policy Act
We have determined that environmental assessments and environmental
impact statements, as defined under the authority of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not be
prepared in connection with regulations pursuant to section 4(a) of the
Act. We published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination
in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).
Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994,
Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal
Governments (59 FR 22951), E.O. 13175, and the Department of the
Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with
Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights,
Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act),
we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with
Tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge
that tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal
public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make
information available to Tribes. We are aware of two water howellia
occurrences that occur on tribal lands; we have notified the Tribes
that may be affected by this proposed rule and offered government-to-
government consultation.
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited in this proposed rule is
available at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2018-
0045, or upon request from the Montana Ecological Services Field Office
(see ADDRESSES).
Authors
The authors of this proposed rule are staff members of the Montana
Ecological Services Field Office and field and regional offices in
California, Colorado, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Proposed Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter
I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS
0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245, unless
otherwise noted.
Sec. 17.12 [Amended]
0
2. Amend Sec. 17.12(h) by removing the entry for ``Howellia
aquatilis'' under FLOWERING PLANTS from the List of Endangered and
Threatened Plants.
Dated: August 9, 2019.
Margaret E. Everson,
Principal Deputy Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Exercising
the Authority of the Director, for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2019-21645 Filed 10-4-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P